Uh oh. Looks like Trump's losing out on some of his biggest topics (despite never actually doing anything about them)

Trump seems "disoriented" by his advisers over the fact that he won't be facing President Joe Biden in November.

If Trump's cognitive health is as you say, then why is he insisting, still, that it's Mayor Willie Brown while it's obvious it never was Willie Brown? This is just getting ridiculous. The dope is threatening to sue the NY Times.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/4821889-donald-trump-new-york-times-willie-brown-helicopter-story/

The old man's losing it.

There are several ways to splice the story, but when Walz submitted his retirement request, he was still a CSM. Rank insignia right there on his uniform. Go ahead and check the timeline if you wish.

http://apnews.com/article/walz-national-guard-military-ae43d684bf1319e535f9f620552155d7

That's not all I've got. The title of the thread really should put emphasis on "of the week" because this junk happens all the time, and the tale of Willie and the helicopter is bonkers. Trump is a fountain of nonsense. In the same week, he held a press conference at Mar A Lago, and again, spewed nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/08/us/trump-press-conference-fact-check

Now that Biden is out, and Trump is filling in as the old man who's slipping, Trump's craving attention leaves him making up stories to create headlines.

This week, Trump insists he was in a helicopter forced to make an emergency landing with former San Francisco mayor, Willie Brown (Kamala Harris' ex-boyfriend).

* When asked to confirm, Brown denied he ever rode a helicopter with Trump
* Suspecting Trump confused Mayor Brown with California Governor Jerry Brown, Governor Gavin Newsom said he was in a helicopter with both, and the helicopter had no problems.
* Trump insists that he didn't confuse the two Browns, and that the helicopter was in New Jersey--begging the questions: Why would Willie Brown be in a helicopter in New Jersey with Trump, and why doesn't anybody else know about this?

"OK Grandpa. Time to get you back to bed!"

http://www.cnn.com/2024/08/08/politics/trump-helicopter-story-willie-brown/index.html

1. I'm not performing mental gymnastics. I'm just clarifying what seems to confuse you. I know the National Guard because I was in the California National Guard for decades, myself. A Guard soldier can retire at will after completing at least 20 years of service. However, when you retire, you don't get to retire at your highest rank unless you've held it for at least two years. That MN Gard officer is saying that Walz didn't retire as a CSM/E-9, but rather a MS/E-8. Walz was a CSM. At the moment his retirement took effect, he was a Master Sergeant. Both are true.

2. Saying he "carried weapons in war" isn't the same as serving in combat. Wars come and go, and one's place in them isn't always in combat. During the first Gulf War, I was in Texas, and we had our weapons, even though I didn't leave that state. Soldiers in my neighboring unit deployed to Iraq. They never saw combat, either. We all carried our issued weapons during that time. However, Walz's statement that those M-16 rifles have no business in civilian use, is just as true.

It's no lie to say he was a Command Sergeant Major. Newsmax hypes up that he was retired as a Master Sergeant, but that demotion didn't happen until after he was retired. You don't get to keep the rank in retirement unless you've held it for over two years. Those are just the rules.

And Walz never said he was in combat. He did serve in time of war, though, and even if his post was in Italy and not Afghanistan, it's still a wartime post. Everybody in the Army carries a weapon, probably an M-16A2 or M-4 carbine. And his point was that military-grade weapons aren't suitable for civilian use. I agree.

That's not in the job description for vice president. The V.P. has to periodically inquire about the health of the president and break ties in the senate. She's already broken more ties than any other V.P. and she has lunch with Biden every week. Sorry if you missed that. As far as lowering costs, that's obviously a continuing effort.

If the government has a good case, it would've been tried long ago. It's probably taken this long because of all the mistakes that were made by overzealous Bush Administration officials, and people now realizing that taking the case to court would assure KSM's release on numerous technicalities.

Maybe not too centrist, but he's firmly middle-class and is a good, family man. Walz has been elected to office more than Trump and Vance combined. He was a Command Sergeant Major in the MN Army National Guard, which I can assure you doesn't come to anybody who isn't an excellent soldier, and he's charming. As far as being "far leftist" I agree with him that government should stay out of personal health decisions between women and their doctors, and there's nothing wrong with making sure school kids are fed.

But go ahead and tell me how Trump, the convicted felon, is a better man.

Not awful, but not very good for a profile. The photos are interesting, but not very good at showing your face. The text blurb doesn't describe you or what you're looking for; it's not helpful--just says to dm you, as if you're open to anyone who'll take you. I guess, if that's what you're about, then OK, but it seems disconnected or lazy. You could take a few minutes to fill out the blurb section and there's no need to be protective of what you do for a living.

I thought it's funny how your main photo shows your phone in front of your face, like you're ashamed of how you look. But then I see how it's framed and it reminds me of that "Son of Man" painting


So maybe it's an artistic choice, and I like to think that you're some sort of artist trying to portray a modern-day stereotypical man. That's cool, but maybe upload a regular selfie where your facing the camera. Maybe looking into the camera lens. Wouldn't hurt to smile and wear a nice shirt.

Anyway, I guess my critiques show I may miss the point or the perspective of a much younger guy, and that photo of you on the beach shows you're a good-looking guy, so you'll probably be alright. But for a profile that's needlessly defensive and incomplete, I'd rate it 6/10.

Good luck!

Yeah, Tim Walz is really good!

How do you know there were no injuries, and since when does torture have to cause visible injuries? You would only find it inconvenient to be waterboarded? How about 189 times? You are either mistaken or a liar.

Except that they came up with a bipartisan solution and Trump killed it to keep it being a problem before the election. So the continuing mess is really on Trump.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4459861-trump-praises-collapse-of-bipartisan-border-deal/

There's no evidence they got any useful information from waterboarding over regular interrogation techniques, and being information obtained by torture, it's unreliable, because that's when the prisoner says literally anything to make it stop. Lie more, spout the truth, or get details wrong, and none of it is admissible in court. So much for the death sentence, when then guy was waterboarded almost 200 times.

I like that you have a good, clear photo of yourself, and filled in the basic biographical information, and interests but you left out the text blurb and didn't update the headline.

The blurb section is where you can describe yourself and whom you're looking for. If you've got a certain "type" then that's a good thing to include. Your headline just says "Hi.." which is the default (lame) headline, so won't stick out in any search results. Maybe come up with a few words to summarize yourself and put it there, replacing the "Hi.." Also, "Real estate" is pretty vague. Are you a broker, or agent, or a clerk? That might be good to clarify.

Anyways, you seem to be a good-looking guy, and lots of people seem to not even read the profiles, so you should do alright. But for the profile that's lacking a blurb and decent headline, I can only rate it 6/10.

Good luck!

Also, I don't think there's a 500 character limit, even for guys. I've seen lots of profiles with really long blurbs.

I think it's a pretty good profile. Good, clear photos. All the information is there. It shows you took some time to put it together. Good job!

As others have made clear, it's jarring how honest and explicit it is. We should write our profiles to attract the person we seek, and not always just cast a wide net for people we have to screen, in order to find a special someone. Others may laugh or get disgusted, I see a guy who knows what he wants and doesn't fear what commenters have to say. That self-confidence has to be worth something all by itself. When the young lady that's into this reads your profile, she'll probably know what to expect, and that's what it's all about.

Despite being plainly offensive to several people here, it's objectively a good profile. I rate it 10/10.

Good luck!

Ha ha. You fell for the right-wing media lies.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservatives-insist-biden-confusingly-boarded-wrong-airplane-heres-what-actually-happened/