US Election result?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in

So, who will it be? And how?

  • Donald Trump (in a vain attempt at holding on to power)

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Donald Trump (fair and square)

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Joe Biden (clear win)

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Joe Biden (after a lengthy battle with Trump in the courts)

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Mike Pence (after Trump storms out in a huff)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Kamala Harris (after Biden keels over in shock after actually winning a clean victory)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I neither know nor care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I like polls

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ritafee said:
Those admired most extravagantly are the most daring liars.
Those despised most violently are those who try to tell the truth.
Click to expand...
This quote lacks context.

If they lie under oath they risk going to prison - that's a deterrent from lying, not a deterrent from telling the truth in this instance. In this instance - it is the those who lie to the judge in court who risk damaging their own reputations and livelihoods. So when @Lastpointe said they "can't lie" I think she meant that they could really be up s**t creek if they decided to lie in court. So instead they're lying everywhere but in court. Their lies get more mileage that way, it seems.
 
What is a text that is conned?

Thus evolves pretext ... followed by pro text!

You must be certified pro ... to lie there reasonably! Thus they settle in ... to professional self-regulating associations!

Then life is at ease lying there ...

There is little a common person can do to disturb it while disconnected ...

How did we get cut?
 
Ritafee said:

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”​

“Cigarette smoking is no more ‘addictive’ than coffee, tea, or Twinkies.”​

www.saturdayeveningpost.com

8 of History’s Most Destructive Lies | The Saturday Evening Post

Some lies have more impact than others. Here are eight that caused untold damage.
www.saturdayeveningpost.com www.saturdayeveningpost.com
Click to expand...
Out of context. They lied and judge and jury believed them. There were subsequent cases about smoking with a different outcome. Dishonest people do tell lies in court and hope they get away with it. That's not new. The fact remains that if they're caught lying by the judge who takes them to task on their lies, they're in big trouble.

Besides we're talking about now and Trump's legal charade now. Nobody asked for your opinion on Sadam Hussein and smoking. Irrelevant. You too often have some childishly presented retort (that looks like a ransom note or a collage of different sized alphabet letters pasted with school glue) that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. You deflect from the subject at hand. It's not a discussion, nor is it an adequately formed argument. You are a master of "I know you are but what am I?" It's manipulative. That's why I put you on ignore and unless I choose to open your posts that are blocked, I only see your posts before I'm signed in.
 
Last edited:
This time they're lying out of court on a massive scale, to appeal to their base and keep the facade going. I think this is probably going to be one of Trump's money making projects for the next several years - to keep his base pissed off at the the institutions that held Trump accountable, and keep fans loyal to Trump...and keep them entertained.

And in the battle will go on, televised. Trump will have some kind of network TV gong show I presume. And the Obamas have already thought ahead. They will be tempering the uninformed Trump train that's gone off the rails, with political satire about what a doofus Trump was - it's a Netflix show about a slice in time during the Obama/Trump transition.
 
Last edited:
Waterfall said:
I think TV shows by former presidents cheapens the seriousness of the highest position in the land....including canada....but thats probably just me.
Click to expand...
On some level, I do agree with you. Unprecedented. Lightning fast culture shifts too. I think the royals are an example of how informality gets embraced these days. It's a different world. I would say though that one of the Obama's many geniuses is utilizing media of all kinds to communicate to people, and they have much worthwhile to say. I think they believe they can create teaching moments in their work, so I'll see it and decide. I should look to see if there's any charitable organizations benefiting from this as well.
 
ninj said:
On some level, I do agree with you. Unprecedented. Lightning fast culture shifts too. I think the royals are an example of how informality gets embraced these days. It's a different world. I would say though that one of the Obama's many geniuses is utilizing media of all kinds to communicate to people, and they have much worthwhile to say. I think they believe they can create teaching moments in their work, so I'll see it and decide. I should look to see if there's any charitable organizations benefiting from this as well.
Click to expand...
But then, there's "The Crown". It's pretty popular in Canada. I can't bring myself to start watching it, maybe because it's a serious drama/ soap opera about the Royals - and that sounds monotonous. I'd rather watch a comedy/ satire about powerful people.
 
ninj said:
On some level, I do agree with you. Unprecedented. Lightning fast culture shifts too. I think the royals are an example of how informality gets embraced these days. It's a different world. I would say though that one of the Obama's many geniuses is utilizing media of all kinds to communicate to people, and they have much worthwhile to say. I think they believe they can create teaching moments in their work, so I'll see it and decide. I should look to see if there's any charitable organizations benefiting from this as well.
Click to expand...
Some good could come out of it.
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
But then, there's "The Crown". It's pretty popular in Canada. I can't bring myself to start watching it, maybe because it's a serious drama/ soap opera about the Royals - and that sounds monotonous. I'd rather watch a comedy/ satire about powerful people.
Click to expand...
I have heard it is actually pretty good. For this season, the last, Gillian Anderson is getting high praise for her portrayal of Maggie Thatcher. But, like you, I am really not that interested in it, esp. this season since I was around for the events covered (Thatcher's tenure in 10 Downing, Falklands, Charles and Diana's wedding, eighties and nineties stuff basically). If I want to revisit the eighties, I have my memories and can easily find a good history of the era.
 
Mendalla said:
I have heard it is actually pretty good. For this season, the last, Gillian Anderson is getting high praise for her portrayal of Maggie Thatcher. But, like you, I am really not that interested in it, esp. this season since I was around for the events covered (Thatcher's tenure in 10 Downing, Falklands, Charles and Diana's wedding, eighties and nineties stuff basically). If I want to revisit the eighties, I have my memories and can easily find a good history of the era.
Click to expand...
What was going on with the royals during the Thatcher Era actually sounds more interesting (though, it's a more fictional version, I realize). Is it the type of series where I can easily jump into the second season without watching the first one?
 
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
What was going on with the royals during the Thatcher Era actually sounds more interesting (though, it's a more fictional version, I realize). Is it the type of series where I can easily jump into the second season without watching the first one?
Click to expand...
Not sure, though they jump around in history with a different actress playing Elizabeth II in almost each season just to handle the aging. So I imagine the seasons might be fairly standalone, especially if you know the history.
 
I've watched The Crown. We enjoyed it here. We didn't take it as gospel truth by any means. I think you could jump into it at any point. You know the story after all. Having the different actors playing different ages was well done actually. The oldest (so far) Prince Philip was played by Tobias Menzies who played Frank/Jack Randall in Outlander. That was odd because Jack Randall was a despicably horrible character.
 
I loved the original actors the best...still don't know why they didn't just age them with makeup.....anyway, I wouldn't skip season 1, but up to you Kimmio. The last season I found Diana seemed to come across as more of a wimp, rather than a quiet power house as time went on. And I was disappointed that it didn't take it to her death and the funeral.
 
Northwind said:
That was odd because Jack Randall was a despicably horrible character.
Click to expand...

OK, so this is something I totally do not get.

I do not understand associating "actors" with whatever character they play. And I totally get how this might happen.

But it completely means nothing to me. You can play Jack the Ripper one day, Jack, the best nicest pirate ever, another, and sensitive Jack, the "do it better the second time having learned a life lesson, probably at Christmas", and if you're a good actor, I can buy you all, although maybe not on the same day (but that would not happen to me, given my mega-limited media watching(.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top