Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

[ZiprHead]

She wrote a book offering ‘Biblical proof that Trump will save America.’ There’s just 1 catch — and MAGA won’t like it

Rihanna Teixeria had never published a book.

It didn’t take her long to put together her first work: “Scriptural Evidence That Trump Is Set Apart by God: Biblical Proof that Trump Will Save America.”

The self-published tome, inspired by President Donald Trump, came together quickly and exceeded her expectations, with 1,000 copies sold within two months. The profits have helped relieve her of a massive burden, allowing her to pay off her $4,000 medical debt.

But there’s a twist: The book is filled with blank pages.

Yet it's getting glowing reviews.

I’m a doctoral student, and I know firsthand how intense, difficult, and, honestly, grueling quality research and writing can be. Yet, this book centers such rigor. The author meticulously combs the pages of the ancient text, and thoughtfully synthesizes...all of the evidence proving why our dear leader is truly anointed for such a time as this. And to her credit, when the evidence isn’t robust enough, it’s clear that she refused to include it. This is true scholarship. This is sound science. This is what real faith looks like. Kudos!

Amazon.com

 

[ZiprHead]

Reflecting Pool Cocktail

2oz rum, 4oz pineapple juice, 1oz blue curacao, one Blue Razzberry Fruit Roll-Up

 

[ZiprHead]

The UFC match plot: how a far-right group tried to assassinate Trump at his own event

Court files show how men connected through TikTok and encrypted apps planned attack on White House UFC fight

www.theguardian.com

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Elixir]

 

[TV and credit cards]

We should be long past the point of feeling an ounce of sympathy for anyone who would allow any of their money to get within even distant relations of Trump.

 

[ideologyhunter]

View attachment 54617

Not that she doesn't reek like the Gettysburg dysentery ward, but the loss on her garbage coin is resistant to calculation. The google sources I saw are all over the map. One says your $10,000 would be $54 today. Most of them base their math on an initial investment of $1000. The low end of this camp gives your $$ total today as $90. On the "high" end is a source that says that the loss is between 63 and 68%, so that you've have $320 to $370 left of your $1000.
A few caveats:
> I wasn't able to get the date of each calculation -- one that was done last December would be different than one done last week.
> Melania clearly really doesn't care, do U?
> I don't much care because anyone who would've invested in any Trump coin is, demonstrably, a jackass of the first stripe and deserves whatever loss comes from this stupidity. A side benefit, you'd think, is that anyone whose $10,000 became $9 or $90 or whatever the true figure is, would want to 86 47 like the rest of us. Join the 65%, dum-dum.

 

[Elixir]

We should be long past the point of feeling an ounce of sympathy for anyone who would allow any of their money to get within even distant relations of Trump.

Self pity?
Thousands of YOUR dollars and thousands of MY dollars are being siphoned off and into Trump pockets as I type this.

A side benefit, you'd think, is that anyone whose $10,000 became $9 or $90 or whatever the true figure is, would want to 86 47 like the rest of us.

You'd think.

 

[crazyfingers]

Corruption goes deep. Trump family and the family of commerce secretary Lutnick poised to make billions on US investments in Kazakhstan mining.

Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal. His Sons Stand to Profit.

An agreement between the U.S. and Kazakhstan has given a group of American investors with ties to the president and the commerce secretary access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TV and credit cards]

View attachment 54617

Not that she doesn't reek like the Gettysburg dysentery ward, but the loss on her garbage coin is resistant to calculation. The google sources I saw are all over the map. One says your $10,000 would be $54 today. Most of them base their math on an initial investment of $1000. The low end of this camp gives your $$ total today as $90. On the "high" end is a source that says that the loss is between 63 and 68%, so that you've have $320 to $370 left of your $1000.
A few caveats:
> I wasn't able to get the date of each calculation -- one that was done last December would be different than one done last week.
> Melania clearly really doesn't care, do U?
> I don't much care because anyone who would've invested in any Trump coin is, demonstrably, a jackass of the first stripe and deserves whatever loss comes from this stupidity. A side benefit, you'd think, is that anyone whose $10,000 became $9 or $90 or whatever the true figure is, would want to 86 47 like the rest of us. Join the 65%, dum-dum.

And a willing buyer.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Tigers!]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 54617

I'm reminded of something...

 

[thebeave]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

 

[laughing dog]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

The Daily Mail leans right. So when it publishes something embarrassing to the right, it is likely accurate.

Personally, I view it as reliable ad the NY Post on matters.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

Nah, the Fail is like AI - it occasionally gets things right, but as there is absolutely no way to tell that it has, without checking with an actually reliable source, it is pointless - you can just start with the reliable source, and save yourself a lot of time.

 

[Jarhyn]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

Nah, the Fail is like AI - it occasionally gets things right, but as there is absolutely no way to tell that it has, without checking with an actually reliable source, it is pointless - you can just start with the reliable source, and save yourself a lot of time.

Yeah, and while I'm not thrilled that someone was apparently publicly masturbating, it feels like the reporting on this is turning just about when you might expect all of Trump's support to vanish out from under him.

It didn't even have to have happened, although I suspect someone was jacking off at the event. It's like the corollary of the rule of large numbers, except for events that are probably quite frequent.

The question is "Why Now?"

Has Trump finally lived his usefulness as an iteration of ratchet fascism, while the Republicans repeat and select someone even more awful to groom for the next cycle?

I don't think Trump has all that much longer, with how hard he's sundowning, and they have to make him the patsy for all this before too long.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

Only one person at this board, that I'm aware of, made it a habit of citing The Daily Mail, so no... what you said isn't accurate.

View attachment 54614

I am surprised you quoted the Daily mail about anything.

I think the general rule is if the DM has an article that doesn't support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then the DM is not to be trusted. If the DM has an article that does support your beliefs or preferred narratives, then it can be trusted.

Nah, the Fail is like AI - it occasionally gets things right, but as there is absolutely no way to tell that it has, without checking with an actually reliable source, it is pointless - you can just start with the reliable source, and save yourself a lot of time.

However, unlike AI, The Daily Mail website (or any other exploitive tabloid site) makes me want to take my computer to the doctor and give it a shot of penicillin. Which is why I never even click a Daily Mail link.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/...e_code=1.t1A.jMqX.cVT-nU5xrXd1&smid=url-share

Well, here's a little of good news from the assholes at SCOTUS. You can read the entire article if you like, but at least SCOTUS did one thing right.

Supreme Court Lets $5 Million Sex Abuse Verdict Against Trump Stand​

President Trump had asked the justices to intervene after a jury found that he had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined a request by President Trump to review a $5 million civil judgment against him after a jury found in 2023 that he sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll.

The announcement by the justices did not include any reasoning, and no public dissents were noted.

A second case that arose out of Ms. Carroll’s allegations also could be headed to the Supreme Court. In January 2024, a separate jury ordered Mr. Trump to pay Ms. Carroll $83.3 million in damages for defaming her in 2019 after she accused him of a decades-old rape.

Lawyers for Mr. Trump have said they plan to ask that the justices also hear that case.

Still, Monday’s decision is a major blow to Mr. Trump, likely marking the end of his legal efforts to contest the jury verdict finding that he assaulted Ms. Carroll in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump wants the trees in Lafayette Square removed and replaced with 47 maple trees, because they are his favorite tree.