Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Trump Marriage on Rocks
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Rudy Canoza
Jan 26, 2017, 11:28:07 AM1/26/17
to
On 1/26/2017 6:56 AM, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Icy Vibes Between the Trumps: What's the Deal With Presidents and Rocky Marriages? - by Beth Greenfield Yahoo
>
> January 25, 2017 - Less than a week in, and already Donald Trump’s marriage to First Lady Melania has been the topic of giddy stories and social media posts about the union’s possible implosion.
>
> Two instances have gone viral: the inauguration video snippet that has FLOTUS swapping her fake grin for look of misery as soon as her husband turns away, and the images of Trump exiting his car at the White House, rudely leaving Melania in the dust before the Obamas politely step in to welcome her.
It's imploding - no doubt.
> Icy Vibes Between the Trumps: What's the Deal With Presidents and Rocky Marriages? - by Beth Greenfield Yahoo
>
> January 25, 2017 - Less than a week in, and already Donald Trump’s marriage to First Lady Melania has been the topic of giddy stories and social media posts about the union’s possible implosion.
>
> Two instances have gone viral: the inauguration video snippet that has FLOTUS swapping her fake grin for look of misery as soon as her husband turns away, and the images of Trump exiting his car at the White House, rudely leaving Melania in the dust before the Obamas politely step in to welcome her.
It's imploding - no doubt.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 27, 2017, 1:31:54 PM1/27/17
to
On 1/27/2017 3:19 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:56:06 -0800 (PST), bruce2...@gmail.com
>> And while reactions have been divided — with some expressing sympathy for the First Lady and even likening her to a hostage (#FreeMelania was trending on Facebook on Wednesday), and others blaming her for being complicit — the rumors of marital friction began way before the inauguration.
>>
>> They may come especially easily regarding Trump, as he is only the second divorced U.S. president ever, and the first to have had more than one failed marriage. (The first divorcée was Ronald Reagan, although his split from Jane Wyman came so long before his presidential campaign that no one seemed to mind.)
>>
>> But rumors of marriages on the rocks, whether based on truth or fiction, have followed U.S. presidents and their wives throughout history. “The most important distinction is, of course, marital differences that occurred between presidential couples in private and those that were suggested in public,” Carl Anthony, National First Ladies Library historian and biographer, tells Yahoo Style.
>>
>> “The first time there was a public report of a marital dispute between a presidential couple took place in 1888,” he says, referring to a “baseless” charge of Grover Cleveland having physically abused his wife in public. The next instance, notes Anthony, came in 1927, when rumors swirled of possible divorce between Calvin Coolidge and his wife Grace.
>>
>> Subsequently arising would be chatter about tensions between Andrew Jackson and wife Rachel (who was, for a short time, a bigamist); FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt (as he had a supposedly lengthy affair with his secretary, and she was thought to have had two affairs, one with lady journalist Lorena Hickock); Richard Nixon and wife Pat (whose marriage was often viewed as loveless); JFK and Jackie, as the president’s many rumored affairs were known to cause friction; Jimmy Carter, whose famously TMI admission that he had “committed adultery in my heart many times” against wife Rosalind caused his approval ratings to drop; and, of course, the Clintons, with Bill’s alleged affairs causing constant upheaval.
>>
>> Tabloids have even put the Obamas on the verge of splitting, over claims as basic as differing parenting styles to colorful ones about the president’s supposed affair with, um, Beyoncé.
>>
>> But it’s within a president’s best interests to keep his marriage in tact while in office, according to Rhodes College political science professor Michael Nelson. A president, or even aspiring president, has every reason to do whatever it takes to keep his wife from divorcing him, Nelson told Science Daily several years ago, as the political price would be high.
>>
>> Still, why is the marital misery of celebrities — particularly presidents and first ladies — such an endless source of craved public fodder?
>>
>> According to Pamela Rutledge, a media psychologist and head of the Media Psychology Research Center, while we’re attracted to celebrities because we admire them and envy their success, “We like to seem them having problems, because it reminds us that they are human, too — that their lives are not perfect.”
>>
>> It’s not surprising, Rutledge explains, because “from a biological perspective, we are hardwired to notice disasters — the equivalent of rubbernecking on the highway. It is how we determine whether there is danger for our own survival.” She adds, “While Brad Pitt or Donald Trump’s infidelities don’t directly impact us, internally our brains are structured for an environment that existed millions of years ago, and we are hardwired to determine if such a behavior matters or threatens us. Is this a behavior that is accepted in our tribe? Will there be retribution?”
>>
>> The Trumps, in fact, “trigger many of our social warning signs,” Rutledge explains, “such as age difference, which often implies an exchange of beauty for wealth.” Besides that, “They are atypical for the roles they are about to be taking on many fronts, creating the appeal of the unusual, or a surprise, biologically — and a level of cognitive dissonance, rationally, as we consider the POTUS and FLOTUS in the context of Donald and Melania. Thus we are very interested in looking for a reason that this makes sense so we can adjust our mental models — or evidence that it doesn’t, and regain cognitive consonance.”
>>
>> In other words, we’re grasping at anything we can here to help us make sense of the new administration — even if it’s melodramatic and highly unlikely scenes of split á la House of Cards. But hey, stranger things have happened.
>>
>> -- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/style/icy-vibes-between-the-trumps-whats-the-deal-with-presidents-and-rocky-marriages-195425480.html
>
>
> My aren't we all hate-filled with the Fake News [sic]
It isn't. And write "news" - lower case 'n'.
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 06:56:06 -0800 (PST), bruce2...@gmail.com
>>
>> They may come especially easily regarding Trump, as he is only the second divorced U.S. president ever, and the first to have had more than one failed marriage. (The first divorcée was Ronald Reagan, although his split from Jane Wyman came so long before his presidential campaign that no one seemed to mind.)
>>
>> But rumors of marriages on the rocks, whether based on truth or fiction, have followed U.S. presidents and their wives throughout history. “The most important distinction is, of course, marital differences that occurred between presidential couples in private and those that were suggested in public,” Carl Anthony, National First Ladies Library historian and biographer, tells Yahoo Style.
>>
>> “The first time there was a public report of a marital dispute between a presidential couple took place in 1888,” he says, referring to a “baseless” charge of Grover Cleveland having physically abused his wife in public. The next instance, notes Anthony, came in 1927, when rumors swirled of possible divorce between Calvin Coolidge and his wife Grace.
>>
>> Subsequently arising would be chatter about tensions between Andrew Jackson and wife Rachel (who was, for a short time, a bigamist); FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt (as he had a supposedly lengthy affair with his secretary, and she was thought to have had two affairs, one with lady journalist Lorena Hickock); Richard Nixon and wife Pat (whose marriage was often viewed as loveless); JFK and Jackie, as the president’s many rumored affairs were known to cause friction; Jimmy Carter, whose famously TMI admission that he had “committed adultery in my heart many times” against wife Rosalind caused his approval ratings to drop; and, of course, the Clintons, with Bill’s alleged affairs causing constant upheaval.
>>
>> Tabloids have even put the Obamas on the verge of splitting, over claims as basic as differing parenting styles to colorful ones about the president’s supposed affair with, um, Beyoncé.
>>
>> But it’s within a president’s best interests to keep his marriage in tact while in office, according to Rhodes College political science professor Michael Nelson. A president, or even aspiring president, has every reason to do whatever it takes to keep his wife from divorcing him, Nelson told Science Daily several years ago, as the political price would be high.
>>
>> Still, why is the marital misery of celebrities — particularly presidents and first ladies — such an endless source of craved public fodder?
>>
>> According to Pamela Rutledge, a media psychologist and head of the Media Psychology Research Center, while we’re attracted to celebrities because we admire them and envy their success, “We like to seem them having problems, because it reminds us that they are human, too — that their lives are not perfect.”
>>
>> It’s not surprising, Rutledge explains, because “from a biological perspective, we are hardwired to notice disasters — the equivalent of rubbernecking on the highway. It is how we determine whether there is danger for our own survival.” She adds, “While Brad Pitt or Donald Trump’s infidelities don’t directly impact us, internally our brains are structured for an environment that existed millions of years ago, and we are hardwired to determine if such a behavior matters or threatens us. Is this a behavior that is accepted in our tribe? Will there be retribution?”
>>
>> The Trumps, in fact, “trigger many of our social warning signs,” Rutledge explains, “such as age difference, which often implies an exchange of beauty for wealth.” Besides that, “They are atypical for the roles they are about to be taking on many fronts, creating the appeal of the unusual, or a surprise, biologically — and a level of cognitive dissonance, rationally, as we consider the POTUS and FLOTUS in the context of Donald and Melania. Thus we are very interested in looking for a reason that this makes sense so we can adjust our mental models — or evidence that it doesn’t, and regain cognitive consonance.”
>>
>> In other words, we’re grasping at anything we can here to help us make sense of the new administration — even if it’s melodramatic and highly unlikely scenes of split á la House of Cards. But hey, stranger things have happened.
>>
>> -- https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.yahoo.com/amphtml/style/icy-vibes-between-the-trumps-whats-the-deal-with-presidents-and-rocky-marriages-195425480.html
>
>
> My aren't we all hate-filled with the Fake News [sic]
It isn't. And write "news" - lower case 'n'.
NoBody
Jan 28, 2017, 9:43:17 AM1/28/17
to
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 10:31:51 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
It's a proper title so it can be capitialized, IDIOt.
wrote:
Rudy Canoza
Jan 28, 2017, 11:48:57 AM1/28/17
to
you take out a copyright on your lie, you stupid dildo?
Flakey Foont
Jan 28, 2017, 11:58:20 AM1/28/17
to
On 1/28/2017 9:48 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> you stupid dildo?
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:
You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!
We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.
[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152
Here's his reply:
From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?
Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]
Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731
Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
> and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
> you stupid dildo?
Shaddup tRudey, your act is about to get DESTROYED here again:
You're the pathetic Jonathan Ball, you miserable little turdblossom!
We return you to the Jonathan Ball exhibition display:
11 years ago, while posting under this current nym, Rudy Canoza, we had a
discussion about a revised marketing claim concerning grass-fed beef from
USDA. You claimed that you had written to and received a reply from
William T.
Sessions, Associate Deputy Administrator, Livestock and Seed Program. Here
below is the post you wrote using the nym Rudy Canoza containing your
correspondence with William Sessions.
[start- Jon to me]
Eat shit and bark at the moon, Dreck - the proposed
standard has NOT been adopted. I wrote to William
Sessions, the associate deputy administrator (how's
that for a title) at the Livestock and Seed Program at
USDA that is in charge of writing the standard for the
"meat marketing claims"; his name, title and e-mail
address are at a web page whose URL I gave yesterday,
http://www.fass.org/fasstrack/news_item.asp?news_id=1152
Here's his reply:
From: "Sessions, William" <William....@usda.gov>
To: <jonball@[...]>
Mr. Ball: Thanks for your message. The marketing claim
standards are still under review by USDA. Accordingly, the
standards have not been published in a final form for use. I
hope this information is helpful.
Please let me know if further information is needed.
Thanks,
William T. Sessions
Associate Deputy Administrator
Livestock and Seed Program
-----Original Message-----
From: jonball@[...]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 11:38 AM
To: Sessions, William
Subject: 2003 proposed standards for meat marketing claims
I have read about the proposed standards, and I've seen
many of the public comments sent to USDA. I cannot find
anything to indicate if the standards were adopted.
Were the standards as proposed in 2003 adopted?
Thanks in advance.
Jonathan Ball
Pasadena, CA
___________________________________________________
Jonathan Ball aka Rudy Canoza 08 Sep 2005 http://bit.ly/2cYknsh
[end]
Jonathan Ball. Pasadena, CA. Priceless! That email, posted from Jonathan
Ball,
you, and the return email sent to Jonathan Ball proves beyond all doubt that
you are Jonathan Ball. Of course, you don't live in Pasadena since moving to
5327 Shepard Ave Sacramento, CA 95819-1731
Here's the proof Jonathan D Ball http://bit.ly/1LFy9t8
> and I won't die soon.
Yeah you will. You're an old man who hasn't looked after himself. I wouldn't
go around goading people if I was as small and as puny as you are, liar Jon.
You ought to be very careful.
> You certainly have no means to hasten my death.
Are you really serious, weed? you're just over 5 feet tall and 64 years old.
You'll be 65 on December 2nd. You've got to stop threatening people and
goading them to come after you. You're pathetic.
Flakey Foont
Jan 28, 2017, 11:59:01 AM1/28/17
to
Ted
Jan 28, 2017, 4:44:49 PM1/28/17
to
--
"This troll is one of the dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and
also the most arrogant septic idiots one can come across."
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg
Flakey Foont
Jan 28, 2017, 5:35:44 PM1/28/17
to
On 1/28/2017 2:44 PM, Ted wrote:
>> you stupid dildo?
> LOL, Good one. :)
>> you stupid dildo?
> LOL, Good one. :)
NoBody
Jan 29, 2017, 9:02:19 AM1/29/17
to
On Sat, 28 Jan 2017 08:48:56 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
I enjoy you contantly demonstrating your poor education. Let me
educate you once again:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/title
"6
: a descriptive name :"
educate you once again:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/title
"6
: a descriptive name :"
NoBody
Jan 29, 2017, 9:03:18 AM1/29/17
to
noun".
Rudy Canoza
Jan 29, 2017, 1:18:33 PM1/29/17
to
upper case 'n'.
You lose.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 29, 2017, 1:18:56 PM1/29/17
to
Flakey Foont
Jan 29, 2017, 4:11:27 PM1/29/17
to
On 1/29/2017 1:33 PM, super70s wrote:
> Do we know if he had Melania sign a prenup?
Do we have an address to send your anthrax too?
> Do we know if he had Melania sign a prenup?
Do we have an address to send your anthrax too?
NoBody
Jan 30, 2017, 6:11:54 AM1/30/17
to
On Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:18:29 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
Gee you just said the two words *were* a proper noun. Glad you admit
your error.
your error.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 30, 2017, 11:13:56 AM1/30/17
to
<chuckle>
>>> demonstrating your poor education.
>>
>> I don't. The word news as you're using it is not a proper noun - no
>> upper case 'n'.
>
> Gee you just said the two words *were* a proper noun.
The term - which you admit you are misusing - is "fake news", with no
upper case letters unless "fake" is the first word of a sentence.
That's just how it is.
checkered demon
Jan 30, 2017, 12:58:34 PM1/30/17
to
On 1/30/2017 9:13 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> No. I said it isn't.
> No. I said it isn't.
NoBody
Jan 31, 2017, 6:28:06 AM1/31/17
to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:13:51 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
Make up your mind. You can't keep track of you lies.
Rudy Canoza
Jan 31, 2017, 10:56:59 AM1/31/17
to
nineo...@gmail.com
Jan 31, 2017, 7:03:49 PM1/31/17
to
Rudy Canoza
Feb 3, 2017, 2:15:09 PM2/3/17
to
On 2/3/2017 4:53 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell nobody lied:
> pseudo intellectualOn Thu, 2 Feb 2017 22:17:38 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/2017 11:30 PM, skankhunt42 wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-27 18:31, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2017 3:19 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell nobody lied:
>>
>> I'm not being one. This isn't a case of a typo* or one of its close
>> kin, thoughtos** and grammaros***. All of those are inadvertent
>> errors. What we have in "Fake News" is aggressive ignorance - that is,
>> willful stupidity. These people are intentionally stupid, and they
>> *like* being stupid.
>>
>> * typo - when one's fingers just strike the wrong keys, or strike the
>> right keys in an inadvertent wrong order. The absolute classic of
>> the genre is "pwned", which actually became a word but was originally
>> an obvious typo. One that regularly bites me is any word ending in
>> -ion, e.g. option. I routinely key those words as -oin, or less
>> frequently -ino. "Option" has always been tricky for me, because I
>> work in computer systems, formerly in application development, and
>> we used to create user menus with menu options. In writing the
>> documentation for the application, I frequently miskeyd "option" as
>
> "Miskeyed" is the corect [sic] word.
<chuckle> Shoot yourself in the ass much, boi?
> pseudo intellectualOn Thu, 2 Feb 2017 22:17:38 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/2017 11:30 PM, skankhunt42 wrote:
>>> On 2017-01-27 18:31, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 1/27/2017 3:19 AM, a fucking shit-4-braincell nobody lied:
>>>>> My aren't we all hate-filled with the Fake News [sic]
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. And write "news" - lower case 'n'.
>>>
>>> Quit being a Spelling Nazi!
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. And write "news" - lower case 'n'.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not being one. This isn't a case of a typo* or one of its close
>> kin, thoughtos** and grammaros***. All of those are inadvertent
>> errors. What we have in "Fake News" is aggressive ignorance - that is,
>> willful stupidity. These people are intentionally stupid, and they
>> *like* being stupid.
>>
>> * typo - when one's fingers just strike the wrong keys, or strike the
>> right keys in an inadvertent wrong order. The absolute classic of
>> the genre is "pwned", which actually became a word but was originally
>> an obvious typo. One that regularly bites me is any word ending in
>> -ion, e.g. option. I routinely key those words as -oin, or less
>> frequently -ino. "Option" has always been tricky for me, because I
>> work in computer systems, formerly in application development, and
>> we used to create user menus with menu options. In writing the
>> documentation for the application, I frequently miskeyd "option" as
>
> "Miskeyed" is the corect [sic] word.
<chuckle> Shoot yourself in the ass much, boi?
0 new messages