Seems to me most Americans, living in a country whose charter is not having monarchs, are okay with a demonstration called No Kings, and which is opposing autocratic leadership. You preen yourself as a populist Man of the People, Mr P. Perhaps you should join the march.

On 2/20/2025 at 2:17 PM, Externet said:

Good morning mister president.

What is your vision for Gaza and Greenland belonging to the U.S. ?  Are them to become others Puerto Rico or assets to trade for else ?   In four years when you be replaced by your successor; what reversals will you hate the most ?   By the way, is Puerto Rico on your sight ?

 

Apparently the "Trump said he "talked to the president of Puerto Rico"" story is false but the
Trump's remarks to the 2017 Values Voters Summit, at which he misspoke, saying he had met with the "President of the Virgin Islands".
story is true...

" Una mattina mi sono alzato
O bella ciao, bella ciao
Bella ciao ciao ciao
Una mattina mi sono alzato
E ho trovato l'invasor
... "

Catchy tune.

Makes me think of Money Heist

Good morning mister president of the U.S.

You spread your diarrhea months ago causing price increases to your U.S. citizens. Now you are reversing your decision. But the damage is done and will not restore anything; the corporate greed will not return to prices before your actions. Damage to the economy is done. It does not matter if the product is made in US or foreign. All raised.

Bad timing. Next decision you want to impose; reverse it before implementing and you may be successful.

11 hours ago, Externet said:

Good morning mister president of the U.S.

You spread your diarrhea months ago causing price increases to your U.S. citizens. Now you are reversing your decision. But the damage is done and will not restore anything; the corporate greed will not return to prices before your actions. Damage to the economy is done. It does not matter if the product is made in US or foreign. All raised.

Bad timing. Next decision you want to impose; reverse it before implementing and you may be successful.

Dear Mr Turnip ,

Please heed the advice of our neighbor, posted above. And please note that, while he correctly identified diarrhea symptoms, you should also seek treatment for mental constipation. I wonder if several years of you trying to live on a working class income would help loosen whatever is stuck up in there.

Dear malignant manchild of the United States,

Thanks for your gross violation of the memory and legacy of John F. Kennedy, by putting your name above his on the Kennedy Center. Though you are an inflamed ass pimple on the Presidency, you have shown your superiority to JFK at petty and puerile political games and narcissistic posturing. In this very narrow category of achievement you are a BIG WINNER!! However, I would ask you to honor the basic concept of a memorial dedication of a building by kindly dropping dead. Thanks!

How about

"Release the rest of the Epstein files, you scumbag.
Your time is up; and take your ass-kissing cronies with you."

Let America once again be the benevolent superpower leading the world, from oppression from dictators, towards the freedom of democracy.

Trump's misinformation is finally catching up to him | Opinion

And although this article paints a sorry picture for Republicans, starting with R Reagan, I would take Reagan, or either of the two Bush, in a heartbeat, over the current idiot running the US.

Edited December 20Dec 20 by MigL

19 hours ago, MigL said:

How about

"Release the rest of the Epstein files, you scumbag.
Your time is up; and take your ass-kissing cronies with you."

Imagine having your name in those files so much that an FBI team working for 11 months straight can't scrub your name out of it.

Just make sure my SFn account can't easily be traced back to any of my devices.
I understand his Government has instructed border guards to search devices for disparaging comments about him.
And they might find my comments about the demented, senile, lying, treasonous, war-criminal, pedophile, mean prick you guys call a President.

On 12/20/2025 at 11:51 PM, Phi for All said:

Imagine having your name in those files so much that an FBI team working for 11 months straight can't scrub your name out of it.

On Bluesky, some posters have found, with some of the redacted files, they could copy the redacted areas of some files and then paste it into a new document to reveal the text. Trump's name was mentioned 600 times in those. It turns out someone on the editing team didn't understand to use a secure redaction method.

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

On Bluesky, some posters have found, with some of the redacted files, they could copy the redacted areas of some files and then paste it into a new document to reveal the text. Trump's name was mentioned 600 times in those. It turns out someone on the editing team didn't understand to use a secure redaction method.

Seems to me this has happened before. They put down a new layer with the blackout, which is how it works with physical documents but not digital ones.

There was also some conjecture that some of it was done on purpose by agents who weren’t keen on participating in the coverup.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Seems to me this has happened before. They put down a new lay8er with the blackout, which is how it works with physical documents but not digital ones.

There was also some conjecture that some of it was done on purpose by agents who weren’t keen on participating in the coverup.

I saw (BBC or CNN) that those exact same files (and faulty redactions ) go back some 9 years.

To the Virgin Islands,I think I heard.

Which doesn't indicate a (recent) leak to me.

Edited yesterday at 03:57 AM1 day by geordief

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Seems to me this has happened before. They put down a new layer with the blackout, which is how it works with physical documents but not digital ones.

There was also some conjecture that some of it was done on purpose by agents who weren’t keen on participating in the coverup.

That makes sense. I remember a case where a man swirled his face in child abuse images with an art editor and the police found out they could reverse the swirl to reveal his face.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Seems to me this has happened before. They put down a new layer with the blackout, which is how it works with physical documents but not digital ones.

There was also some conjecture that some of it was done on purpose by agents who weren’t keen on participating in the coverup.

It would appear that whoever tried to redact these files was a novice Adobe Acrobat user. In many cases all you have to do is put your cursor inside a document window, hit ‘Select All’, ‘Copy All’ and then ‘Paste’ into a blank document in another text editor with a different colour background. (On a Mac that’s —>  ⌘A, ⌘C, ⌘V).

In other cases you may need to import the target into an OCR (optical character recognition) tool - start with Google Images at https://images.google.com and click the ‘Search by Image’ camera icon, then drag the file to a drop box box that opens - and click ‘Select Text’ and ‘Copy’ options.

The term used in political science for this type of Trumpian regime is a ‘Kakistocracy’ (Greek κάκιστος - kράτος)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakistocracy

“Government by  the worst,  least qualified, or most unscrupulous people”.

21 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Trump's name was mentioned 600 times in those. It turns out someone on the editing team didn't understand to use a secure redaction method.

I see others have suggested either kakistocracy or subordinate refusal to do a proper cover-up. Grand Cheetoh can't replace everyone on the lower rungs of agencies.

12 hours ago, geordief said:

I saw (BBC or CNN) that those exact same files (and faulty redactions ) go back some 9 years.

To the Virgin Islands,I think I heard.

Virgin Islands? Not anymore. (sorry)

14 hours ago, geordief said:

I saw (BBC or CNN) that those exact same files (and faulty redactions ) go back some 9 years.

Respect for the BBC, by the way, for having the integrity to apologize for their editing of D Trump's speeches, but not immediately offering up Millions ( or Billions ) to appease his petulance, as our American news outlets did.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Respect for the BBC, by the way, for having the integrity to apologize for their editing of D Trump's speeches, but not immediately offering up Millions ( or Billions ) to appease his petulance, as our American news outlets did.

Well that would be British taxpayers' money that they would have to justify giving away to a criminal.

If they are found liable for that /some amount (apparently v unlikely) in a court then they (or some body) would have to shell out that amount and also lose some reputation along with it.

All the BBC has for capital is its reputation for good journalism and public service -well it also has to justify its subvention from the British public via its political representatives.

I think caving into Trump would be an own goal on that score and decrease the respect most(?-well I hope most) of the British public have for it-as well as being the obviously wrong thing to do.

There is also a cohort of the British public that does not like the BBC and they may well enjoy its discomfiture. since they clearly did make an error (the case being made is ,presumably that they are biased against Trump and that this mistake is illustrative of that )

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Well that would be British taxpayers' money that they would have to justify giving away to a criminal.

If they are found liable for that /some amount (apparently v unlikely) in a court then they (or some body) would have to shell out that amount and also lose some reputation along with it.

All the BBC has for capital is its reputation for good journalism and public service -well it also has to justify its subvention from the British public via its political representatives.

I think caving into Trump would be an own goal on that score and decrease the respect most(?-well I hope most) of the British public have for it-as well as being the obviously wrong thing to do.

There is also a cohort of the British public that does not like the BBC and they may well enjoy its discomfiture. since they clearly did make an error (the case being made is ,presumably that they are biased against Trump and that this mistake is illustrative of that )

Also, the BBC doesn’t rely on regulation by the US government, nor does it need any business deals approved by the US authorities. So they don’t need Trump’s approval the way US news media do. Therefore, if they have a solid legal defence they can call his bluff.