Stop WAR in Ukraine ! http://twitter.com/@euromaidan
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
(But this does not kill Celebrity Apprentice. Burnett retains the rights to that title and can place a new host in the role. It does, however, take out the advance winner choice criteria.)
I'm waiting for his Twitter announcement claiming he had already dumped them and they're just trying to take all the credit, along with the vow of vengeance once he's running the FCC.
As a supposed candidate, he's done a very good job of demonstrating his office diplomatic style.
" As of today, Donald J. Trump is no longer affiliated with NBC. Mr. Trump stands by his statements on illegal immigration, which are accurate. NBC is weak, and like everybody else is trying to be politically correct— that is why our country is in serious trouble.
Mr. Trump says, “We must have strong borders and not let illegal immigrants enter the United States. As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now. Long ago I told NBC that I would not being doing The Apprentice because I am running for President in order to Make our Country Great Again.”
Mr. Trump continued, “If NBC is so weak and so foolish to not understand the serious illegal immigration problem in the United States, coupled with the horrendous and unfair trade deals we are making with Mexico, then their contract violating closure of Miss Universe/Miss USA will be determined in court. Furthermore, they will stand behind lying Brian Williams, but won’t stand behind people that tell it like it is, as unpleasant as that may be.”
AyaK 10389 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
06-29-15, 04:03 PM (EST)
4. "RE: NBC to Donald Trump: you're fired."
Good riddance.
BTW, Burnett has always owned the rights to The Apprentice, but I doubt he'll try to recast it . . . unless he could get, say, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to host.
AyaK 10389 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
06-29-15, 10:44 PM (EST)
7. "RE: NBC to Donald Trump: you're fired."
The Koch brothers are hard-core libertarians, not conservatives, so they'd be far less interesting than the left wing believes. And they are staunchly anti-communist, from their father's experiences in Russia in the 1930s, so they'd probably get in a jab an episode at Barry O.'s absolutely insane appeasement of Vladimir Putin, which means that Barry and the feds would constantly be trying to get them (at least until 2016).
And Soros would only be interesting if he taught "apprentices" how to manipulate government benefits. Come to think of it, that's also how the Koch brothers' father made his money when he came back to the U.S. after litigation from Big Oil had driven him to work in Russia in the 1930s (look up Anna Nicole Smith's ex, J. Howard Marshall -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Howard_Marshall -- and their father Fred C. Koch -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_C._Koch -- for that story). Maybe that's the most valuable lesson that such a show can teach.
...if one can consider New Jersey outside the asylum. (Estee, now you get a free shot at Alabama).
Chris Christy finally made it official. He's running. And I'm leaning his way, with the caveat that there's still a long time to the Republican nomination and the election.
I hope he has a chance at being nominated, he has (IMO) the best chance - maybe tied with Bush - of beating Hillary. Pending investigations of her are much more serious than those of him. Responsible (denied, of course, but she's not willing to fully disclose possibly important documents) for a dead Ambassador and a number of associated other diplomatic personnel, and totally ineffective (other than the debacle in Benghazi, which was effective in a very negative way) Sec. of State. Her Senate record, meager as it is, isn't a great addition to her resume, either.
Christy is moderate, straight talking, a great speech maker, spontaneous, willing to compromise, willing to be pragmatic, and he isn't a tea partier. All good things, in my book. He has a few points on which I would disagree, but I think he'd make a decent President, and would be the pick of the present litter of Republicans and Democrats. And so much better than the stumbling example Hillary has presented so far.
If the media (NBC, I'm looking at you) can stop hammering on him about the Bridge-gate, of which he has been, without exception exonerated, (so far), he could stand a chance. One indication that the Democratic powers that be agree with this is the continued pounding from NBC (and MSNBC) that persisted long after no foundational basis was found for his involvement, and long after the other media outlets had stopped daily reporting on the incident. They (IMO) seemed to be very afraid of his candidacy and invested in continuing the smear campaign against him.
So far all those probes and investigations, internal, State, Port Authority, Manhattan, and multiple Senate investigations (even those instigated by Democratic - thus biased against him - Senators) have not found any evidence of his involvement, and if this continues to be the case (some probes are lingering, and some criminal cases are still to be tried of those who are implicated), it should not be a factor except in the minds of those who wouldn't be voting for him anyway.
I'd like to hear a view of this from those who know contracts too.
However, something tells me (screams, actually) that this isn't a case his lawyers advised him to pursue. It sounds like chest thumping Trumpery.
Maybe there can be some discussion about whether disparagement of the intended audience along with the associate loss of revenue would qualify as a reason for lawful termination of the agreement.
Unethical business practices? Over the top whining?
AyaK 10389 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
07-03-15, 04:10 AM (EST)
14. "RE: AyaK's funny bedtime story."
LAST EDITED ON 07-03-15 AT 04:13 AM (EST)
Estee and kingfish, you're right that this is a contracts question. The real question is whether Univision is in breach, in which case Trump would be entitled to damages, or whether Univision had a provision in the contract that permits them to cancel for bad behavior/reputation risk/etc.
Although all sports contracts have those kind of cancellation covenants, it would be possible to negotiate a commercial contract without such a clause -- but I have no idea whether the Miss Universe pageant and the Trump Organization have such a clause in their contracts. In some cases, courts are willing to read such a clause in even if the contract doesn't have it -- but I doubt that a court would do that when dealing with two large, well-advised companies like Univision and Trump.
As a guess, and this is only a guess, I'd expect that the contract has such a clause but that the clause (and the standard for violating it) is written so vaguely that Trump's lawyers believe that they can make the case that Trump's statements did not rise to the level that would permit Univision to invoke that clause, which means Univision would be in breach. I don't know whether that's really the case, but Trump has always had good legal advice, and so I'd expect that he has gotten advice that he has at least better than a 25% shot at prevailing (an old rule of litigation is that you never take a civil claim with less than a 25% chance to court).
Of course, some cases with less than a 25% chance get filed and even won (the McDonald's hot-coffee-burn case for example, which I discussed at length once in the archives here). And Trump may well be a significant underdog, especially if he continues to run his mouth and spout ethnic slurs. But, simply on its face, I can't tell such about whether this claim has merit. And I don't care enough to look up the court filing and see if the contract is attached as an exhibit!
I too would guess that there would be a general clause that would allow either party to break the agreement with a reasonable excuse for doing so. Trump is an egotistical bully and I can't imagine him signing a big contract without a way to screw the other party if it became advantageous for him to do so.
I shortly will be scheduling a press conference to announce that Kingfish-o-vision will cease all business relations with any Trump enterprise, and so will not be televising any of his promotions under the tide line because of his bloviating blowhardness (thanks, Ayak).
As you may have heard, The Donald did some trolling of his own the other day:
Appearing in the home state of South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who recently labeled Trump "a jackass," Trump claimed that Graham -- whom he called a "lightweight" and a "stiff" -- had once called him to ask for help secure appearances on FOX News.
Brandishing a piece of paper with a telephone number, Trump added: "So he gave me his number, and I found the card! I wrote the number down!"
"Let's give it a try," he suggested to the crowd, reading the number twice aloud to the audience.
Turns out the phone number worked just fine. Here is Graham's response:
Get ready. There's going to be more of this kind of stuff from The Donald - judging from the numbers so far, there's no reason for him to switch tactics.
Trump rises in polls every time he makes outrageous denigrating statements.
So, who's next?
I think he will expect to be ushered into office tomorrow if he slanders the legality, morals, work ethic, intelligence, and right to exist of African Americans, Italians, the Irish, American Indians, India Indians, Middle Easterners, Greeks, Asians, and anyone of German heritage.
After that, why even hold an election? Just inaugurate him now. There won't be anybody that he hasn't gravely insulted left to vote, anyway, so why bother with the election?
There's always women. He needs to run against Hillary Clinton so he can slander the legality, morals, work ethic, intelligence and right to exist of women ... and he'll be complete!
I've been to Africa. I've seen the elephants, lions, leopards, Cape Buffalo, and lots more. The bird life is just amazing. I saw elephants and buffalo in the thousands as they gathered by a river. It's a little harder to find some animals like leopards, but lions, elephants, and buffalo are plentiful enough so that shooting one of them (or one of any number of various ruminant species - impala, eland, etc.) is like shooting a cow in the field.
Which, in reality, Cape Buffalo are, pretty much. Dead, unexpressive cow eyes. But elephants have very expressive eyes, and it's easy to anthropomorphize them. Killing one of them is like killing a pet dog.
Hunting these animals is not all that different from killing a tethered animal. Not sporting in the least.
that an insane person is in the top four. How is it even possible that this is happening? Is this some sort of practical joke? What a scary scary place we live in if people believe Trump is a good representative for this country! I do wonder if his children are mortified by what comes out of his mouth. I can't see Ivanka being OK with it.
All along, I haven't believed Trump would ever be the nominee. Figured the Republicans would force out the low polling candidates and get behind Bush or Rubio. I'm beginning to question if that will happen. The confusion with the Speaker of the House position tells me that the Republicans have too much infighting to coalesce behind an establishment candidate. Although I still think it is a remote possibility, I think Trump could actually be the nominee.
I can also see another bad scenario for the Republicans - If Trump's poll numbers stay at the current levels going in to the caucuses and primaries and he doesn't win, his ego is such that he'll believe he was cheated and start an independent run despite his pledge not to.
cahaya 19299 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
12-08-15, 07:09 PM (EST)
38. "RE: NBC to Donald Trump: you're fired."
Trump rises in polls every time he makes outrageous denigrating statements.
So, who's next?
Read the headlines these days. His fearmongering reminds me of another political animal (read: beast) of the century past who adopted the same scare tactics to bring himself to power. This dude genuinely frightens me.
I'm waiting to see what the next polls say after this latest round of outrageous statements. If Trump maintains or increases his lead, I wonder if there is anything that could stop him from getting the nomination?
I think many of his supporters just dismiss anything the "liberal media" say about Trump.
cahaya 19299 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
12-10-15, 01:34 AM (EST)
47. "RE: NBC to Donald Trump: you're fired."
There will be a lot of disgusted Republicans voting Democratic.
Regardless of how they are portrayed, most of them aren't sheep.
It's one thing to garner 30% support in the polls. It's another thing to garner >50% of the delegates for the primaries and the nomination.
From what I've read, not only has Trump solidified his support from those who are drinking his fearmongering Kool-Aid, he has also alienated about half of the voting Republicans (I think we can include AyaK on that list), who find him repugnant.
The problem is that he's so outrageous that the media feeds on it, increasing his visibility (not viability) relative to the other two-cent and nickel-and-dime polling Pub candidates at their expense.
As one Pub strategist put it, it's a "game theory problem" where Trump isn't likely to get >50% of the delegates to be nominated, while no other Republican can fill this gap on their own with the remaining field so fragmented.
oops, I thought I had finally written a post which was both meaningful and insightful, then upon further reading of this thread, I realized I had just repeated what someone else had already said. Sorry about that.
I'm really disappointed because my posts are anything but meaningful and insightful. So much for breaking tradition!
cahaya 19299 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
12-16-15, 12:37 PM (EST)
49. "RE: NBC to Donald Trump: you're fired."
If you happened to catch any snippets of that GOP debate in Vegas last night, you might have noticed the lack of both meaningful and insightful comments made by the candidates in question.
And most of them kept repeating what someone else said and weren't the least bit apologetic about it.
Yep. He scares me, too--but, mostly because his supporters scare me. He wouldn't actually have the unilateral power to do most of the things he says he'd do (unlike Fiorina, who actually could do what she says she'd do in regard to Russia--which is also quite scary), but just as in the case of the guy you are referencing, his supporters could potentially change our form of government enough to allow it. And, that's a truly scary thought.
The fact that he's getting this kind of support shouldn't be so surprising to Republicans, though. They've spent years telling the American people that government is bad, the world is scary, and negotiation is for wimps. Our only hope for us is to elect outsiders who haven't been corrupted by the system or who will set it all right by running the country like a business. If we'll just consolidate power in their hands we'll balance the budget and they'll keep us safe using whatever means they deem necessary. If we don't like it, we're being un-patriotic.
Even their rhetoric has been leading us this direction. Regan gave us "Czars", and Bush got us all talking about the "Homeland". It's becoming rare to even hear mention of the USA, any longer; it's all about keeping the "homeland" safe, now. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in the "homeland" or the "fatherland" or the "motherland". I want to live in the United States, complete with all of the values and the checks and balances on power that the homeland supporters seem to want to erase.
But, here's Trump. He fits what they've been telling us we need just about perfectly, no? He's a government outsider (which he repeatedly proves by failing to demonstrate any clue about how things actually work). He's a businessman who rules his companies with an iron fist. Do what he says or you're fired. And, he has the rhetoric down pat. It's rather amazing that the GOP is so darn confused about his support. They've spent years setting up the scenario. All he's doing is giving them what they've been saying they want. Glad to see that some of them, at least, are starting to rethink that.
And attacking a Kennedy? America's royal family, wrapped in so much tragedy? He's definitely testing us.
But he'll probably get another 5 or so point rise in the polls. And I'm probably going to vote Democratic (Please, lord, don't let it be Hillary. Why doesn't Claire McCaskill run?)
But pissing off the Pope? He's such a sweet old man, how dare he!.
(Estee, there's some sweet meat on the table here.)
Donald Trump is looking like a real threat to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. And if he fails, the nominee in waiting is Ted Cruz. Is this really possible?
Bummer! I can give you some beefjerky if it would make you feel any better.
I had almost 12000 posts until the friggin war in the Ukrane happened! Now I'm relegated to lurking mostly and hitting the dead threads when I get bored.
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
