Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Playing the Trump card.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: Sophia Tesfaye writes 'Trump later budged a bit, conceding, 'Let's assume that the studies, which say that I'm wrong, are true. That doesn't mean that I'm not right.''. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: He seems to be Donald Rumsfeld's twin brother.

 

I WOULD TRADE NOW ON:
bae (at half strength)
AT APPROX 565.00 capita (at half strength)
AT APPROX 486.20 centrica AT APPROX 145.00 directline AT APPROX 358.70 g4s AT APPROX 252.90 gkn AT APPROX 298.40 glencore AT APPROX 343.00 m&s AT APPROX 319.30 rollsroyce (at half strength)
AT APPROX 839.50 rsa (at half strength)
AT APPROX 601.00 standardlife AT APPROX 417.90

THIS IS NOT TRADING ADVICE. CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Hadley Freeman was laughing because Trump seems to signal the end of the Republican party, as something anyone intelligent could take seriously. Unification: She is wrong - he signals the end of the western political classes, through and through - no one in the world can take it seriously even now, but the next generation won't waste time with any part of it, so absurd are the Norman Tebbits and Donald Trumps and Boris Johnsons and so on.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 12:32:54 on 28/11/2017

Related points:

References:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/09/the_daily_donald_gop_now_in_full_panic_mode/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.