Traveler19491

56 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 That was a recession, and did not lead to a depression and it came back twice as strong.  

1

Actually, recessions refer to the economy as a whole, not just the stock market. If your reference was actually to the American stock market, here are a couple of reasons why the market is so high...only one partially due to Trump:

"Part of the answer lies in bond yields. While the long-term rates dictated by the bond market remain as low as they are today, there is a limit on the jitters that will be felt elsewhere. Low yields make bonds an unattractive investment, encouraging investors to buy others." (Those "others" being stocks)

"US economic data look good. Unemployment is falling, consumer confidence is high, and leading indicators from so-called “soft” survey data suggest that optimism following the election of Donald Trump remains high, and will in due course translate into stronger economic activity. If the confidence in Mr. Trump and the economy proves justified, US assets can keep going."

(Both quotes are from The Financial Times.)

Before you attempt to assign low unemployment to Trump, I would point to the fact that it was Obama's record-setting 75 months of job growth that is to account for the current low rate of unemployment.

The hassle with optimism among investors concerning Donald Trump lies in the belief that he will cut taxes on business. However, Trump's tax plan is currently stalled in Congress with no consensus on when it will begin moving. Absent those tax cuts, there is a good chance that the enthusiasm with Mr. Trump will fade...and so will the stock market. It is likely that the contrarians are having a field day. The market is over-priced, the optimism is unwarranted, and the experts are sounding alarms about the economy, including Trump's protectionist talk and his plans to cut taxes while incurring massive spending on infrastructure. An inflated deficit will spell trouble for the economy.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

For a couple of days it seemed as though the anti Trumpers were restraining themselves on the meaningless anti Trump rants, and actually debating the situation, but I see it didn't last long. Back to pointless calls for him to be impeached/ locked up/ etc without putting forth any actual evidence to support their case.

It's that sort of posting that reduces the number of contributers on threads like this to the same few egging each on to see who can come out with the most outlandish Trump put downs.

Carry on, but you ain't impressing anyone that is undecided.

 

Thank you so much for your permission to "Carry on". Fortunately for us, though, we're not looking to impress anyone about anything. This thread, along with all the other threads about Trump, is not about convincing anyone. I seriously doubt that at this point there are more than a tiny handful of undecideds. Trump's behavior is lauded/overlooked by his sycophant supporters while those capable of looking beyond the mind-numbingly obvious BS are increasingly disgusted by what this megalomaniac is doing to the U. S. internally and to our image and relationships with historic allies abroad.

While you are correct that, currently, there is no "smoking gun" linking Trump to any illegal activity, the investigation is young. Perhaps he will come out clean, although I seriously doubt it. It may well be that he had nothing directly to do with the Russian interference in our election, but as time goes on it appears increasingly likely that many on his staff or under his influence did. Apart from that, there are myriad questions about other activities that the Don has allegedly been involved in that would likely come to light in any in-depth investigation, which would explain a lot as to why Trump et al are so intent on derailing said investigation and are so committed to smearing the reputation of the man heading it.

As to your perpetual whining about those of us who despise Trump having the unmitigated gall to air our grievances in a public venue...tough luck, buttercup. We are free to vent our revulsion and express our disgust in whatever manner we please, so long as we adhere to the forum's rules. Don't like it, then I might suggest you finally follow through on your oft-repeated yet meaningless threats to never comment on a Trump thread again.

54 minutes ago, mesquite said:

There is no legal requirement for the President to release his tax returns to the public.  Similarly, there is no legal requirement for President Trump to testify under oath simply because he said he would.

And who, with an ounce of sense, would ever expect Trump to follow through on his word? That would require some level of honor, dignity, and moral character. Putting Trump together with those words in the same sentence would be the height of naivete. Or stupidity. Take your choice.

1 hour ago, mesquite said:

President Trump will not release his tax returns and he will not testify under oath about Comey.  He throws this kind of stuff out there and the resistance takes the bait.  He loves this kind of stuff and while people are arguing about these things and badmouthing Trump, he moves on with his agenda.

Which "agenda" would that be? Repealing Obamacare and ripping away access to medical care from 24 million people? The repeal that the Senate pronounced "DOA". Or tax reform and helping out the woefully underprivileged oligarchs? Or his trillion dollar infrastructure plan that no one has been able to figure out how to pay for? Perhaps it's the "big, beautiful wall" that has somehow metamorphosed into a fence? Or his endless weekends on the golf course at taxpayer expense? Please...do tell.

Just now, JHolmesJr said:

he shared some stuff that you don't approve of….but which he has authority to do so.

 

So now you think he's gonna fire off some nukes…without checking with you.

And precisely where did I infer that he needed to check with me? Talk about leaps. You are deflecting and refusing to answer my argument. I already acknowledged that he had to authority, then used a simple example to illustrate why doing so was probably not the wisest thing he could have done. As you usually do, you spout some ridiculous drivel but refuse to directly answer any direct arguments. On numerous occasions, you have been provided with facts by a variety of individuals on TV, all of which you consistently ignore, spout some childish nonsense, then try to change the subject. Typical trumpette. Pathetic.

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

you personally may not like that he shared what he shared but he has executive privilege to act as he sees fit. When you become president you can show the world how its done.

What part of "entrusted with" do you not get? A key ally of ours in the fight against terrorism had their trust betrayed by a simpleton who feels it necessary to share our most highly guarded secrets with a hostile foreign power for no other reason than to brag. It has already been stipulated numerous times that he has the authority to share classified information with whomever he chooses. However, the wisdom or advisability of doing to is another thing entirely. Using your highly flawed logic, he has the authority to launch nuclear missiles whenever he chooses. After all, he is the President and Commander-in-Chief. However, that might not be the most prudent thing he could do. Similar to sharing classified data with an enemy. Let me put it in language you might have an easier time understanding...it was stupid. But then, America and the world have come to expect little more from the orange one.

17 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

The preposterous part is that you are putting it out as if it s factual, which at this time it is not.  If it comes to fruition that what you allege turns out to be factual then I for one will admit that I am wrong and you can tell me that you told me so.  However, I do not think that you should work on the supposition that he has actually committed everything you allege he has, not until you have direct factual evidence, which I am sure you do not have and like me, never will. 

Your insistence on whining about the fact that those not enamored of Trump continue to post about issues that have long been in the media with regard to Trump and his questionable behavior is seriously lame. At no time has anyone posited that they are facts. These are all accusations. No one put anything out as factual. Boomerangutang noted that it is likely that the Special Counsel will be interested in looking into these accusations. Your delicate feelings with regard to Trump notwithstanding, these are  issues that the Special Counsel will probably look into. Your insistence that everyone on here comply with your expectations as to what "suppositions" they should and shouldn't operate on is a bit much.

18 hours ago, stander said:

May 3rd: GRASSLEY: "Director Comey have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation?" 

COMEY: “Never."

And Comey told the truth. He has never been the  source. He gave the memos to a friend. It was the friend who was the source. Comey was smart enough to know that he might well be asked this very question under oath at some point, and that is one of the primary reasons why he was careful not to directly leak the memos himself. Nice try, though.

32 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Comey is a sad guy who got fired. Angry at the world. Grandstander who's head got too big for himself. Trump was right to get rid of him. 

Talking about a "grandstander whose (I fixed that for you) head got too big for him" and Trump in the same post. You do know what a "Freudian slip" is, don't you?

12 hours ago, Ramen087 said:

Being under oath and testifying  in a court of law means a great deal.  Doesn't have anything to do with the person testifying.  They're all subject to the law of the respective court. 

You are correct in your assertion that they both mean a great deal. However, given that perjury is committed endlessly in U. S. courts, it very much does have a lot to do with the person testifying. Yes, every individual who testifies under oath is subject to the law. However, their being subject to that law and that law being enforced are often two very separate and distinct things. Ergo, back to the person testifying and their willingness to obey that law, which Trump has demonstrated countless times that he is not, as the court transcripts quoted in this article vividly illustrate: http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797.

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

And virtualy everthing Trump has done or proposed has been condemned by Sanders. And still you support Trump.

Be kind. Logic is not a strong suit with these people.

20 hours ago, alocacoc said:

Everything you mentioned is upon his personal behavior or very vague. You forgot to mention his haircut by the way.

 

But yes, you asked me to forgive you. Sure, no problem. I forgive you.

 

It's Sunday and I'm in Laos. Peace.

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

How typical. You have successfully demonstrated the complete vacuousness of the stereotypical trumpette, and the entire intent of the post just flew right over your head. I hope you didn't catch a cold from the downdraft.

If you go back and reread the post, I wasn't talking about Trump. I was talking about how your ability to so casually and unthinkingly support a man who is guilty of all of the things I listed is a direct reflection on your individual character. And just for the record, one's personal behavior necessarily informs their performance of their responsibilities.

And yes, his haircut sucks.

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Politeness goes a long way so why are you asking if I've had a "Malfunction?"   Of course you said that but you also said and I quote, "Trump lies constantly and can't stop lying, even when under oath."  Doesn't matter whether he is before a court, civil or criminal or congress, if he lied under oath then he would be charged.  So please, make up your mind, either he did, as you put it or he didn't like you say now, "Like perjure himself under Oath. Can't have it both ways, so again "Has he been charged with Perjury?"  Requires a simple yes or no answer.

People lie under oath all the time. Ask any courtroom attorney. Perjury is difficult to prove, hence charges are seldom brought(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/perjury092498.htm). Most perjury cases involve criminal law, not civil law (which constitute all of the cases where Trump has lied under oath...and which instances are wonderfully well documented in court records [http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797]). Your efforts to distract with a seriously weak argument that "he would be charged" notwithstanding, the fact is that Trump has lied under oath numerous times.

10 hours ago, alocacoc said:

He is a businessman. Lawsuits are a common thing in this world. Checkout how often he was the plaintiff and how many he won. He's a real fighter, a true American and deserves our respect.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
 

OK, thanks for giving us such a clear insight into your personal character.

You respect a man who cheats on his wives.

You respect a man who mocks the disabled.

You respect a man who disrespects all of the men and women who have ever been taken prisoner of war.

You respect a man who disrespects the parents of a fallen warrior.

You respect a man encourages violence against people who disagree with him.

You respect a man who has labeled our Constitution "archaic" and "unfair".

You respect a man who assaults women for his personal pleasure and brags about it.

You respect a man who cheats others out of what he rightfully owes them.

You respect a man who was too cowardly to serve his country during time of war.

You respect a  man who attacked the former President for taking too much time off, then proceeds to take more time off than any other President in history.

You respect a man who embraces his racist supporters.

Forgive me, but I would have to observe that your "values" regarding respect could use a serious overhaul.

On 6/10/2017 at 6:41 AM, rooster59 said:

Asked on Friday if he would be willing to go under oath to give his version of his interactions with Comey, Trump replied, "100 percent."

The man has a long history of lying under oath, so his offer to testify under oath holds about as much water as a sieve.

This revealing piece in Newsweek lays out Trump's long-standing penchant for lying under oath.

http://www.newsweek.com/mr-speaker-stop-trump-let-gop-lose-election-489797

I recognize that all of the little trumpettes are immediately going to spring to his defense insisting that had he "actually" lied under oath he would have been prosecuted for perjury. Lying under oath and being successfully prosecuted for such are often two very different things. First, there are many reasons as to why a prosecutor may have chosen not to press charges. Second, the orange one's uncanny ability to twist words and statements to mean what he wants them to mean might well make it difficult to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had intended to commit perjury. Third, the argument can always be made (and his lawyers would certainly make it) that there was no intent because he actually believed what he said was true (which I can almost accept, but that just throws fuel on the argument that the man is delusional).

Given the choice between believing a man with an arguable history of having committed perjury and a man with a long history of commendable service to his country (something the orange one has never so much as thought about,  much less done), between a man who enjoys a reputation among those who worked under him for honesty and integrity (words not contained in the orange one's vocabulary), and a man who promoted the birther conspiracy, who has a long record of cheating those he owes, who lies as easily as exhaling, who can't even remain faithful to his spouse, who has to exaggerate trivialities just to make himself look good, who can't give a straight answer to a simple question, and who has been proven to lie about having lied...I think I know which one I'm going with. Here's a hint...he's not orange.

P. S. - Here are four pages of Trump's "Pants on Fire" lies...in case you're bored or something. Trump under oath...yeah.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/pants-fire/

14 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

Thank you oh wise one.  All you are doing is regurgitating what is being put out by the MSN and certain tabloids.  Put your own thoughts out there, not those of others or is it you don't have any? 

Actually, his lies are printed verbatim, then fact checked for veracity. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/100-lies-and-false-statements?utm_term=.ynKklbmX7#.mtmqGN5bM) He fails miserably. That you are willing to swallow his bovine fecal matter and want to compare it to prime rib is your choice, but don't ask people with actual functioning brain matter to go along with you. This walking lump of bloviating adipose tissue lives in an alternate reality where only he knows the "truth", is omniscient, omnipotent, and adored by all. Sorry, but someone who lies then lies about having lied, is not someone to be "trusted". And anyone who chooses to trust a known liar gets exactly what they deserve, which you have. Failed health policy, failed tax policy, and working hard at a failed infrastructure policy. Hell, the idiot can't even corral those in his own party...who are the ones fighting him the hardest.

Actually, no one has to regurgitate anything. All one has to do is listen to the orange one's own words, then spend a little time with Google. His lies are really pretty childish, as the vast majority of them are proven to be prevarications with such ease it is sad. These falsehoods proceed from his mouth as easily as he exhales, and with about as much forethought. Many of them are little more than pathetic exaggerations meant to enshrine himself in a halo of reverence for his fans to bask in, but a not insignificant portion of them are constructed with the clear intent to defraud, like his endorsement of Trump University, where he promised those forking over their money that the instructors were "hand chosen" by himself, or the many developments where the actual builder simply paid the con man a fee to slap the name "Trump" on the development, followed by advertising material mean to convey the impression that it was Trump himself who was the developer. There was even one such development that he was sued over, and he even attempted to lie on the witness stand about his involvement with the developer (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/6/10/1670589/-Trump-with-a-long-record-of-lying-under-oath-says-he-will-tell-us-under-oath-that-Comey-lied).

So a guy who has no problem attempting to lie under oath says he's willing to testify under oath. Yeah, that should carry a lot of weight. Oh, sorry...I know you will believe every word. But, those of us capable of engaging in rational thought won't.

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They may need no reason, but their constituents would have something to say if they were engaged in an obvious waste of money.

A congressman can issue an article of impeachment, but a majority is needed for it to go to the senate.

"...if they were engaged in an obvious waste of money."

Hmmm...like 8 Benghazi investigations? Or 60+ votes to end Obamacare? Or several government shutdowns? Those kinds of obvious wastes of money? Seems the R's have no problem wasting taxpayer money when it suits their purposes.

6 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                                     As for #10, you can hope hope hope (like a little kid on Xmas eve hopes for a candy-colored rocking horse) .....that the 'Russia story is dead' but it's got legs and they're getting longer and sturdier each week.  McCain equates it to a giant centipede.

 

                            Half the things you mentioned in your list are old news from months ago.  Are you sure you want to keep whipping a dead mule?   And the first 3 items on your list are what Comey/FBI were thinking IN JANUARY.  We're now in June.  A lot has happened in five months.  Whereas the more perceptive among us have known Trump and his cohorts were rotten to the core from the get-go, the majority of Americans are realizing it, as each day rolls by.  

 

                          If you left open a jar of mayonaise in January, it may not smell too bad after five days.   However, the same open jar would be vile, 5 months hence.   And we ain't seen nothin' yet.  Lots more to come.  Congress hasn't even mentioned many of the key pertinent points.  

 

                          Perhaps the FBI knows a few things.  Thus far, Trumpsters have succeeded in slowing the process.  But they can't forever keep back the tide of evidence pointing to Trump and his honchos, possibly including Ivanka - intrinsically involved with Russia's meddling in the US election.

 

                             You're insinuating that Pence can be taken down because of his ideology.  Won't happen, because ultra-right wing 'Taliban of the west' ideology doesn't matter to Republicans.  Pence will be taken down for repeatedly lying to Congress and Americans.  So that leaves sniveler Ryan to occupy the WH.

Good points, all. One other thing...if it comes to the point where Pence turns out to be toxic also (which I tend to think he will be) and the Sniveler (excellent moniker) winds up sitting in the Oval Office, one decent thing that would likely arise would be a goodly amount of "gun shyness" about doing anything that might warrant scrutiny (and there's also the possibility that Ryan's hands aren't clean. An investigation of this nature turns up all kinds of things). Hence, it might come about that the Republican addiction to dirty tricks could die out for awhile. One can hope.

Just now, Thakkar said:

 

I knew it! I just KNEW IT!

 

We live on different planets in two parallel universes and ThaiVisa is the communications portal. I bet your planet has pink unicorns, you lucky bastards.

OK, that one made me laugh out loud! Wish you wouldn't do that when I'm drinking covfefe.

1 minute ago, stander said:

Ten things we have learned from the Comey hearing.

 

1              President Trump was never under investigation.

2              President Trump did not obstruct justice.

3              President Trump did not collude with the Russians.

4              Russia did not alter the election result

5              Comey leaked his own memo.

6              Loretta Lynch pressured Comey to cover for Hillary Clinton.

7              There was ample evidence to put Hilary Clinton in jail, but Comey chose not to pursue

8              CNN and other fake news outlets have been lying and making things up this entire time.

9              The Democratic party no longer has the ability to scream “Russia” every time President Trump tries to do something.

10           The “Russia" story is dead and any Democrat who continues to push it will look foolish and insane to the American people.   

 

Ten things we have learned from the Comey hearing:

1. The so-called President was not under investigation...at that point.

2. The conclusion that Trump did not obstruct justice is highly subjective and open to interpretation of the law. The final decision will be up to the Special Counsel.

3. There has been nothing whatsoever to affirmatively demonstrate that the so-called President had no knowledge of anything that may have happened. That conclusion will be up to the Special Counsel.

4. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Russian hacking of the DNC and attempts to hack an electronic voting machine manufacturer had no effect on the election. That conclusion will be up to the Special Counsel.

5. Comey did not trust the DoJ, did not trust Sessions, so leaked an unclassified memo of an unclassified meeting to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. It worked.

6. Loretta Lynch requested that Comey reword the language in press releases. Not illegal, but not ethical either.

7. Comey found much to criticize Clinton over, but insufficient evidence to request an indictment and acted within the bounds of his prosecutorial discretion, much to the chagrin, hand wringing, and whining of the trumpettes.

8. Right wing snowflakes, absent any facts to support the orange one, rely on screaming "fake news" in the face of facts.

9. The Special Counsel is just barely into his investigation and is still hiring staff, mostly consisting of criminal prosecutors, FBI agents, and people with extensive experience in both espionage and organized crime investigations. The Special Counsel is just getting started, but the poorly educated and willfully ignorant trumpettes want to posit BS about how this is all a made up scandal and a witch hunt, neither of which could be further from the truth.

10. The investigation into the involvement of Russia in meddling with our electoral process is just beginning, but the snowflakes on the right who prefer to live with their heads firmly deposited in the sand are desperate to make it all go away. The American people are fast becoming disillusioned with their carnival barker so-called President and his oafish antics. The slowly declining numbers of Trump supporters are down to the die-hard worshipers of the orange messiah who will never accept that he is nothing more than a two-bit con man who couldn't care less about them.

There were a couple of small errors in your post. I corrected them for you...no charge.

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

 

Agree completely.

I'd add that Pence is even more dangerous than Trump. While Trump is an incompetent narcissistic grifter, Pence is a true believer, a Christian Taliban.

 

He is now laying low and avoiding scrutiny, biding his time. It is time for the press to stop being distracted by the Trump freak show and shine a light on Pence's dangerous fundamentalist lunacy.

 

Between Trump and Pence, it's a choice between Kleptocracy and Theocracy. It is a choice between two poisons.

 

To ensure the healthy survival of secular democracy, Democrats have to at least win the Senate in 2018.

I would concur. I would also add that this is one major reason why the RNC will want to rid themselves of Trump. If the investigations continue and there is uncovered some evidence of Pence's involvement (quite possible), then the continuation of the GOP itself is threatened. An entire administration that was involved in collusion and coverup? The results in 2018 and 2020 would be earth shattering. Every single Republican who supported Trump and Pence and who tried their best to deflect or distract from the investigations would find themselves on the chopping block at re-election time.

33 minutes ago, dcutman said:

 

No matter how much the biased media tries to discount this fact, Trump is and will remain President through this term and most likely trough a second. 

Get used it.

 

 While that is a possibility, at this point I would consider it remote. Trump is wreaking havoc on the future-scape as it pertains to the 2018 mid-terms and he has the RNC along with numerous Congressmen and Senators who will be facing tight re-election contests very nervous. GOP popularity is declining, especially in the swing states that elected Trump. The GOP will in no way permit Trump to destroy their majorities. No, I seriously doubt that Trump will ever be impeached, at least not as long as the Republicans control the House. However, the very real prospect of losing the Senate and their majority suffering a severe decline in the House is enough to have the RNC plotting how to avoid such a "disaster".

Which is why I envision the use of the 25th Amendment. It wouldn't take much to convince Pence, who is already salivating at the thought of becoming President, and the majority of the Cabinet to band together to declare Trump unfit to govern, thereby putting Pence in the Oval Office, someone the country at large sees as a far more rational and level-headed figure (not that he would be much of an actual improvement...he wouldn't). In one move, the GOP would eliminate the entire Russian cloud, terminate the Congressional investigations, get rid of a continual source of embarrassment, end their having to forever make excuses and explain Trump's irrational and humiliating behavior, and do away with the single biggest threat to their majorities. Once they decide to act, it would be quite simple to convince Trump to resign rather than suffer the overwhelming public humiliation of leaving office having been declared mentally incompetent. His ego would force him to grab that out.

So, I wouldn't count too heavily on seeing the orange one still in office at age 78. In fact, I just don't see him celebrating his 72nd birthday in the White House. Possible, but not probable at this point. He's too much of a loose canon for the RNC to afford letting him continue to erode their mid-term prospects.

So here is your nightmare scenario...you don't have to worry about the Democrats. Not in the least. They don't have the votes to get an impeachment off the ground, even if the evidence of criminal wrongdoing was discovered and proved overwhelming. The Democrats are powerless to do anything.

What you have to worry about is the Republicans. They see Trump as a threat, and as long as these investigations continue, that threat becomes a very serious one at that. The Republicans are that hideous "establishment" you hate so much. But the fact is, they still hold the ultimate power. They can force Trump to resign. If he refused and they considered him a big enough threat, they could simply come up with some evidence of collusion or obstruction and begin impeachment proceedings. It would be a huge gamble for the Republicans, but if they slipped far enough in the mid-term projections and felt they had nothing to lose...why not?

2 hours ago, USPatriot said:

Yes the same man and his fib that couldn't find anything on Clinton. From an unsecured email,server to the maid answering emails. Clinton belongs in jail.

Wow, you people really are nothing more than one-trick ponies. Clinton is all you got, so you have to forever circle back to her. Here's a little newsflash...this thread isn't about Clinton. Do try to keep up.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

As asked for and never answered on another thread, what is the connection to Soros? Facts please.

Soros is nothing more than their catch-all boogeyman. When compared to the scores of uber-rich conservatives, Soros is nothing more than a gnat next to a golden eagle. Interesting that they never whine about the multitudes of conservative billionaires out to buy our democracy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/a-guide-to-the-billionaires-bankrolling-the-gop-candidates/391233/

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

most of us loyal supporters know that that the plan is to tie him up with time wasting questions for the next 8 years.

 

he know this too. This chicanery will soon be at an end.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember "The Perry Como Show", but he had an interesting theme song..."Dream Along With Me". Seems apropos to your ridiculous comment.