Push the door open with your hand and partially pass through the doorway.
Look over your shoulder on the door side and wait for the person behind you to put their hand on the door, ensuring it doesn't swing shut in their face.
It's only necessary to open the door like a hotel porter if the person behind you is pushing a baby buggy, is in a wheelchair, is carrying too much to hold the door themselves, is too infirm to hold the door open themselves, etc.
Whilst holding the door open like a porter, don't stare at the person you are holding the door for. Allow them to initiate small talk if they feel comfortable, otherwise politely reply 'you're welcome' to their polite 'thank you' and be on your way.
This etiquette is appropriate for anyone regardless of gender, or any other group belonging.
It may not always be obvious that someone can't open the door themselves due to a physical condition, especially if the doors are large, heavy and/or self-closing like a fire door. If you offer help, a brisk and slightly destracted demeanor is a useful tool to avoid the impression of an ulterior motive, like theft, or s*xual harassment.
I don't think you're too intelectually challenged to understand my comment, but I appreciate it might be emotionally challenging.
I'm sorry about that, but think we're all up to the task of living a fair and equal life whatever we have to give and take. To think otherwise is unfair, unequal and discriminatory by default.
Well, he's the onlly candidate remaining who said he wouldn't support Trump if he was criminally convicted, so I agree, he's the only viable option.
He can also string a sentence together, although I recognise the bar is pretty low there.
He did decline to condemn Jim Jordan for House speaker last week, which I thought was a pretty poor show under the insurrection involvement circumstances.
Feminism is the movement for equal rights for women.
You can't have equal rights for women without having equal rights for everyone else, by default.
Why do you think that equal rights is too big for women, people of colour, differently abled, LGBTQ+, etc. people to handle? Like we're not real people, nor equal to the task?
Why is it inconceivable that women might see how everyone has much to gain from equality?
Any of us in an advantagious position where others are subjugated has a price to pay. It's not healthy for anyone.
What do you mean by 'woke people' and how do you think these 'woke people' have misappropriated the term 'woke'.
I've explained how I think the AAVE term 'woke' has been misappropriated and that is by using it a a pejorative in a bid to continue and reinforce the subjugation of an oppressed group.
Except that excessive surety would reduce the interest rate on the loan, so Trump's fraud wasn't just about getting loans, but favourable terms on those loans That means less interest income for the banks.
Also, banks have a finite amount to lend, so had Trump not received such large loans at favourable rates, other loan applicants may have received loans at less favourable rates increasing the banks' profits.
I can't think of why it might have been an advantage to any bank to agree to very large loans at favourable rates without enough asset security.
What does 'WOKE People' mean and how do you think 'WOKE People' have misappropriated the term?
Please bear in mind that I referred to misappropriating the AAVE word 'woke' as a pejorative, so taking a word of black empowerment and ridiculing it in a bid to maintain the status quo of racial subjugation.
As the word 'woke' is derived from African American Vernacular English and a part of black empowerment and the Civil Rights movement, to misappropriate it as a pejorative is an act of racial discrimination in itself.
It's not a good analogy because the banks weren't buying the assets from Trump, they were holding them as surety.
If a used car salesperson inflated the value of their stock to get a loan it would be fraud. If they failed to repay the loan, the bank could find that the sale of the stock wasn't enough to cover the outstanding debt. That's different from someone being persuaded, or prepared to pay over the odds for a used car.
One of Trump's arguments in his defense was that his asset evaluations weren't over-inflated because someone might be prepared to pay over the odds for his assets, but like a used car salesperson, grifting buyers is not the same as guarenteeing a loan.
Banks will likely have different standards with respect to appraising information than a fraud investigation that has been going on since 2019. If it took that much effort to verify information, people would have to wait years to get a loan and banks would make a loss having invested that much time and money into investigating.
The deception on Trump's part wasn't necessarily obvious,, nor straight forward either. For example, he gained a tax reduction for Mar-a-Lago in part by designating some of the land to nature, whilst inflating the value by claiming all of it could be developed.
I'm not sure if bank managers can be held liable given Trump signed his name to declarations of accurate and true information with the documents presented.
Your argument is a bit like Trump claiming it wasn't fraud because he paid everythng back. There doesn't have to be a victim to establish the existence of fraud, and fraud is a crime in it's own right.
Even if the banks knowingly accepted false documentation, that would be their separate fraudulent behaviour. It wouldn't negate, or lessen the fraud committed by Trump.
I'm not sure that Cohen's testimony does cast doubt on the summary judgement.
The summary judgement was about the existence of fraud. It's largely a documents case and the documents have proven the existence of persistent fraud within the Trump business empire for which the Trumps are responsible.
The reason why summary judgements are issued is because no other testimony, or evidence is required.
Cohen is testifying in the rest of the case consistng of six other charges and the size of the disgorgement order that will be issued.
The gag order is very narrow and only refers to court staff and personell.
I'm not sure Trump's statement to the press, although a blatant lie, is a breach of that gag order.
Whether it might count as another form of contempt of court, Trump having been told to be quiet and then storming out during procedings and then lying to the press, remains to be seen.
It certainly comes across as witness tampering and attacking the judge, but those items are not specified in this gag order as far as I know.
If Cohen admitted he didn't get direct orders, it doesn't mean he didn't get indirect orders, implied orders, or that Trump didn't know about the inflated/deflated value of properties.
It might demonstrate that Cohen wasn't totally clear, or totally truthful in his testimony, but it doesn't prove Trump's innocence.
It might damage Cohen's testimony, but that can be cleaned up with corrobrating evidence. Cohen might be a large cog, but there will be other parts to this machine.
The BBC describes Cohen being subject to a steady staccato questions by defense attorney Alina Habba. At one point Cohen asked her, "I answered every question that you want, why are you screaming at me?"
The Guardian reported that Trump was asked to keep his voice down by Jude Engoron, particuarly when conferring with his counsel was intended to influence witness examination.
It desn't sound like a balmy day in court, it has to be said.
I doubt very much the various prosecutors are corrupt, but that's not to say that the system is perfect, nor that it will be viewed as the best it could be in one, or two hundred years from now. I'm certainly not convinced that US plea deal tactics are the best way to reveal truth and justice.
It's clearly the best available in this moment, however, given the high profile and highly skilled prosecutors bringing the Georgia and Washington cases. The judges are admirable, too.
I don't think you can argue that the only agenda is to interfere with the election, either. Besides the fact that Trump is getting way more privileges than anyone else would in the same circumstances in a bid not to corrupt the democratic process, I come from a country where our Prime Minister was ditched because he hypocritically went to a party during the pandemic lockdown.
It's utterly unfathomable to me that the US hasn't turned their back on Trump for being a sex offender, never mind the fraud and alleged conspiracy to overturn the democratic process. It's like asking a creepy uncle to babysit your kids: you know in the back of your mind it could ruin your kids' lives, but you deserve a night out so just push the thought away.
I'm not sure anyone can separate holding him to account for his liabilities and alleged crimes and stopping him from running for presidential office again. If he has engaged in wrongful activities he shouldn't be above the law just because he's running for office, and if he is running for office, legally holding him to account for his wrong-doing is a structured and thorough means of demonstrating he's an inappropriate candidate.
In the UK we'd just have a committee meeting about it.
It doesn't necessarily impy the RICO case is weak.
Scott Hall was a minnow and a good place to start with respect to getting the plea deals underway.
Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro having demanded their right to a speedy trial were the next best place to go, so the Trump defense tea didn't get a preview of the whole RICO case. It's worth the sweetheart plea deal, especally as neither of them are likely to get such a good deal in the Washington federal case.
Jenna Ellis is another relatively small fish, but might also pay her dues elsewhere.
And it wasn't all explained because it doesn't account for other convictions within the probationary time period and whether the nature of the plea deal in the federal case will negate the deferment in this one.
It doesn't explain that if this guilty plea is expunged after six years, whether that apology letter to the people of Georgia will remain on record, or not.
And it doesn't account for Jenna Ellis testifying that the same criminal activities occurred in several other states where charges may also be brought as the evidence unfolds.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,996)
RE: Stormy Wednesday...
If this is the case, perhaps it's rather churlish not to share you knowledge and experience so I and others may learn.