Peter Thiel's Lawyer Wants To Silence Reporting On Trump's Hair (gawker.com) 301
An anonymous reader writes: Follow the report that Gawker has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing multiple lawsuits funded by tech billionaire Peter Thiel, it's being reported that Thiel's lawyer, Charles J. Harder, is threatening to sue Gawker for reporting on the company that made Donald Trump's hair, claiming copyright prohibits Gawker from republishing his threat. He sent the company a letter on behalf of Edward Ivari, the owner of the company Gawker suggests may be behind Trump's hair. Gawker said it was sent a six-page letter that claims the story "was 'false and defamatory,' invaded Ivari's privacy, intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and committed 'tortious interference' with Ivari's business relations." Gawker reporter Ashley Feinberg suggested in a lengthy Gawker story that Trump secretly underwent Ivari International's $60,000 "microcylinder intervention" treatment, with the company's offices located on the 25th floor of Trump Tower. Gawker called Ivari's claims "ridiculous," and noted that the statements at issue were pulled from his own publicity materials and from public records of a 2001 lawsuit against the company.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This matters? WTH?
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
We. Are. Doomed.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
This matters? WTH?
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
IP news is always a hot topic here...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt he has any. He is just using a combover from his ass.
Re: (Score:3)
You owe me a new keyboard - mine has coffee all over it now.
But it would technically be a comb-under, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what else would be hot? Trump's PUBIC hair ...
I'm pretty sure all of that reporting is already in the pubic domain.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, what matters is that a prominent silicon valley VC is fairly publicly going after Gawker for personal reasons. The Hulk Hogan lawsuit, while valid, was bankrolled by Thiel. Now, Gawker is going bankrupt. And Thiel's lawyer continues to go after them.
While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.
Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.
Once more proving that Libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to sell Aristocracy to the gullible.
Huh what? Do you even know what libertarian IS? Hint: their political philosophy revolves around using state power only when absolutely necessary. A libertarian state would less vigorously enforce IP law. What we have right now is an aristocracy! Who do you think bought and paid for all the new copyright laws of the last decade or so? Libertarians? No. MPAA/RIAA and the monied interests behind them. That's what an aristocracy does. You could also call it a plutocracy.
It's a masterwork of PR that s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As I said, the gullible. QED.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Its 'Anarchy Lite' - all the great flavour of anarchy, with no loss of privelage
Re: (Score:2)
No, what matters is that a Silicon Valley 'Libertarian' is using the full power of the State to shut up his critics.
So Gawker didn't flaunt the law and refuse to take down the sex tape when ordered to by the court? Who knew. [archive.is] Gawker also doesn't have double standards on publishing sex tapes or nudes either? Who knew. [imgur.com]
You're just so damn upset that someone actually had the money after a decade to actually be able to provide a defense against Gawker acting like pricks, either posting sex tapes, nudes, outting people's sexuality, destroying lives and could actually fight back for a change.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when is having a double standard something you need to call in the State for to arbitrate? Oh, of course, only when it's the 21st century Earls and Dukes that are the target.
As I said in my first post, the gullible.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
But not those dumb enough to believe the lie. No, like Nigerian letters Libertarianism goes after those with an overblown ego, those who think they are going to be the Aristocrats. But unfortunately, the result for the rest of us is worse than just spam.
That's why I think we should all support the Free State Project [freestateproject.org]. Having them all huddle in their Gulch means the rest of us can start rebuilding our society free from interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Gawker is one case where voting with your wallet simply does not work. Since they own other, (arguably) more reputable and popular sites, they get some portion of the profits. Sure, their bankruptcy is
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what ha
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Gawker a 'media entity' is probably being generous. I'm glad you didn't even try for 'journalist' or something serious.
Gawker is barely a step up from the office scuttlebutt in terms of pandering to the lowest common denominator. They make the National Enquirer or the Daily Mail look like the flippin' NYT in terms of fact checking and intellectual rigor.
In another time, the vulgar 'hitpiece' style of commentary would have marked them as fodder only for the lowest of the low, not to be taken seriou
Re: (Score:2)
the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Now, regardless of the degree of truth or confidence a journalist may have in their story, they and their editors are likely to think twice before reporting on anything involving the very rich. "Remember what happened to Gawker?"
Nothing new. Its a time honored American practice of using the legal s
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Eh? I do not have the ability to crush a media outlet I don't like. I really don't understand why it's somehow selfish that I don't think that the rich should have that ability either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I do not have the ability to crush a media outlet I don't like.
And which media outlets have published secretly-recorded video of you or your friends engaging in sex acts? Gawker crushed itself by breaking the law, refusing a court order, and then having one of its executives make wisecracks during deposition.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Citation? Because wasn't one of the sticking points on the lawsuit he just won that he didn't know it was recorded? Your statement disagrees with a court decision so you'd better have some pretty good sources. And talking about sleeping with somebody and finding out they recorded it without your knowledge are very different things.
Re: (Score:3)
How about this? http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/12/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-settlement/ [cnn.com]
Bubba Clem could be heard on the full tape saying that if he ever wanted to retire, he simply needed to release the video.
Clem originally claimed that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, knew that he was being recorded. But after striking a settlement with Hogan, Clem walked that back.
Clem, who has denied being responsible for the tape's leak, has resisted Gawker's efforts to call him as a witness to be questioned about whether Hogan knew he was being filmed.
A lawyer for Clem filed a motion on Friday asking to be eliminated from the case. "Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution," the motion stated.
His attorney had previously said Clem intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not testify against himself. Clem's request will be considered Monday.
Bubba really REALLY didn't want to be on the witness stand about it, because he'd likely be in jail.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't do illegal things or commit civil torts, and you have nothing to worry about from anyone, whether rich or poor.
In practice that doesn't work, of course, because everybody breaks laws all the time. So the next best thing to do is to avoid calling attention to yourself by acting like a complete sociopath. Unfortunately Gawker's founder skipped kindergarten that day.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't do illegal things or commit civil torts, and you have nothing to worry about from anyone, whether rich or poor.
In practice that doesn't work, of course, because everybody breaks laws all the time. So the next best thing to do is to avoid calling attention to yourself by acting like a complete sociopath. Unfortunately Gawker's founder skipped kindergarten that day.
Had he acted like a complete sociopath he probably would have been fine. Do you know much about sociopaths?
Sociopaths are highly skilled at telling people what they want to hear. You know that bit of ego most people have, that likes to feel successful? That likes to be complimented? That likes to feel "right"? That likes to be reassured that its cherished worldviews (whatever they may be) are the same thing as objective fact so there's no real need to look too hard for falsifying evidence, no pressing desire to consider viewpoints one doesn't necessarily like and entertain how they could be true? Well, a sociopath sees that as a weakness. It looks sort of like a puppet-string to them. Few things provide more pleasure to a sociopath than to tug on this string and manipulate people in such a way that whatever they wind up doing, they think it's their own idea. A lot of salespeople/marketers are trained in similar techniques because they work.
For this reason, people who are not particularly discerning will often think a sociopath is very charming or charismatic. They might not believe you when you try to tell them otherwise, at least not until they personally witness unethical behavior. Even then, that ego of theirs doesn't want to admit it could have been so wrong about its initial judgment, that it could be so easily duped, so they may even defend what they witnessed until it's completely indefensible!
A ruthless dick who just wants to make sure you KNOW he's in control, like a lot of petty tyrants in positions of authority at too many workplaces, is just a ruthless dick. They might seem crude and amateurish to a real sociopath because their methods are obvious and tend to create opposition and resentment. An actual sociopath wouldn't have made the mistake you describe because it would obviously not be in his/her own interests. It wouldn't help them to get what they want. What you're describing is simple hubris.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't, fuckwit. They crushed themselves. Kill yourself.
Lookie who escaped from tumblr!
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm not exactly a fan of Gawker, nor do I think Hulk Hogan's lawsuit was unfounded - the problem I have is that a very rich person basically paid lawyers to find problems and subsequently destroy a media entity that he didn't like. This is somewhat dangerous precedent - don't piss off the rich.
Translation: Rich people should have fewer rights than I do.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." [quotationspage.com] - Anatole France
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they have the same rights as the rest of us. It's just easier for them to pay for it.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gawker outed Thiel as a fag. So that's why he's got it in for them. Waging war by proxy is a time-honoured tradition. (or should I say, homoured.)
It's not exactly random, "could happen to you next!" as the activists like to say.
Why would they do that?
Either, a) they are just digging up dirt to get clicks
Or b) they are a similar attack dog for someone else
Who the fuck is Theil? (ok, no a) is out)
Someone is just destroying someone else's attack dog. Big fucking deal, who cares.
Worry about Soros and the Koch brothers are doing, worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead. That's much more dangerous to YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead.
A hacked website was used as a source for that, which is news for a geek. But I do not have to worry about big Saudi money manipulating Clinton, because that is bullshit. Only the guileable have to worry about that.
Re: (Score:3)
It was news because Theil bankrolls a lot of anti-gay initiatives as well - despite being gay himself.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Gawker outed Thiel as a fag. So that's why he's got it in for them.
No, they did not. Thiel's sexuality was known around Silicon Valley, Theil just didn't want some people (The Saudi's in particular) knowing because he was trying to get them to invest in his dodgy hedge fund. Theil's more pissed off that Gawker exposed his crappy businesses, his influence over Facebook, his rather backwards views on women and his Libertarian lunacy.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that either (a) he shouldn't have the power to leverage the State to destroy Gawker for unrelated reasons, or (b) everybody should have the power to leverage the State to destroy Gawker for unrelated reasons. Either way, Thiel's money shouldn't matter -- but as this situation shows, we have a government which requires justice to be bought, and that's a problem!
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
This matters? WTH? With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
I'm guessing from your comment that you're ignorant of the context here. Peter Thiel personally dislikes Gawker, and is now bankrolling third-party lawsuits against them. It's "news" because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech. It's "for nerds" because those wealthy individuals happen to be high profile tech VCs targeting new media websites using, among other things, intellectual property law.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
I originally read the "Why this matters, WTH" comment as just referring to Trump's hair, not the actual lawsuit which is not only ridiculous but also a concerning attempt at closing down from of the press.
I really don't get the obsession about the man's hair though. Surely there are more important aspects of Trump to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing from your comment that you're ignorant of the context here. Peter Thiel personally dislikes Gawker, and is now bankrolling third-party lawsuits against them. It's "news" because the very wealthy are openly perverting the United State's permissive litigation rules in order to quell disfavored speech.
I can only say that outside of Gawker's legal team, I think just about every lawyer in the USA would argue that the system is working perfectly and has no problem at all with what Thiel is doing and would not consider it perversion.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only say that outside of Gawker's legal team, I think just about every lawyer in the USA would argue that the system is working perfectly and has no problem at all with what Thiel is doing and would not consider it perversion.
With the Gawker legal team, I imagine their impression would be dependent on how well Gawker employees were following their coaching and advice in court.
Re: (Score:2)
No, defending Gawker even though they're terrible assholes is exactly the opposite of hypocrisy. It's sort of like how the ACLU defends even the KKK's right to free speech.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.
Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you should be worried about the ability of a thin-skinned person with lots of money to shut down a media outlet. Today Gawker, tomorrow the Washington Post, then the NY Times.
Do you think that a democracy can function if the only news that is published is news that offends no one?
Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials [washingtonpost.com]to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.
He also promises to ‘open up’ libel laws to make suing the media easier. [washingtonpost.com]
The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, Donald Trump is pulling The Washington Post’s press credentials [washingtonpost.com]to cover his events because he is upset with the newspaper’s coverage of his campaign.
The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, called Trump’s action “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press” and pledged that his paper would keep reporting vigorously about the presumptive Republican nominee.
Of course he would. The press has changed over the years. They've become addicted to the special press access that they get to people where they get force fed whatever those people decide to feed them. Like scraps from the table. The Post forgot that's what the access gives them and they lost it. Now they have to do reporting the old fashioned way or just write opinion pieces and regurgitate what others report.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I could go on and on
To that we're in no doubt. Too bad you didn't find the time to critically appraise what you've read on some woo website before mindlessly parroting it..
Re: (Score:2)
Got a link for that one? Sounds interesting.
Hidden Technology (Score:5, Funny)
I have it on good authority that Trumps' hair is actually a Bio-Engineered organism that acts both as a self defense system and as a satellite reception system allowing him to send and receive signals from low earth orbit satellites. In the event of a physical attack the hair piece will intercept and deflect bullets up to .50.
It is an unverified rumor that Trump will name his hair piece as his running mate and potential Vice President.
Re: (Score:2)
But does it run Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
It is an unverified rumor that Trump will name his hair piece as his running mate and potential Vice President.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Trump has wanted hair like that ever since he was a little girl.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bring former Prime Minister Abbot [wikipedia.org] into this. He is a version of evil you don't want to contend with.
Re: (Score:2)
You never know when that newest vr game may include a trump hair "hat".
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the details of the technology behind the hair was fairly interesting?
Re: (Score:2)
That is also a ridiculously tortured summary. It should go like this: Edward Ivar, the maker of Donald Trump's hairpiece, is suing Gawker Media to stifle reporting about that hairpiece. He has hired lawyer Charles J. Harder to represent him in the case. Harder is the same lawyer who represents billionaire Peter Thiel, who is also suing Gawker media Harder is attempting to prevent republication of legal documents he has sent to Gawker, claiming copyright on them.
Once you de-torture and normalize the wor
Re: (Score:2)
No, but we should absolutely be worried about yet another attempt to use copyright law to diminish freedom: "Thiel's lawyer, Charles J. Harder, is threatening to sue Gawker for reporting on the company that made Donald Trump's hair, claiming copyright prohibits Gawker from republishing his threat."
All such abuses should be reported to help depotentate and overturn copyright law ASAP, least the Information Age
Re: (Score:2)
This matters? WTH?
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
We. Are. Doomed.
We are also doomed because it appears in 21st century 'Murrica, Donald Trump's hair source is considered Top Secret.
Re: (Score:2)
You, too, could be sued for billions and have your home and car taken and your wages garnished for publishing a blog post insulting someone's shitty hair.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, the people making fun of Trump's Hair, are often the same people that go nuts when people make fun of how bad Hillary looks (pantsuits n stuff).
I just wish the two parties would grow up and act like adults, but sadly it is only a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:3)
With everything going on in the tech world should we be worried about a lawsuit about Trumps hair?
Do you seriously think this will stop with the hair? His last "STFU" lawsuit was a smashing success, he's trying it again, but you think "this time" it won't progress any further? This is a guy with enough money to bankrupt media outlets through barratry, his favorite candidate is already getting ALL the media coverage, and now he's suing to discorage negative parts of that coverage. Do you truly not see where this is leading?
So nothing to do with Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with Peter Thiel, either, but accuracy isn't a quality I've come to expect from Gawker headlines.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about the hair. We all know since the Simpsons that a hair transplant that is evil can turn the most benign idiot into a scheming mastermind.
What more proof do you need?
Peter Thief? (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but if I were I think I'd change my name to something harder to misread.
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right.
(Credit where it's due - thanks "The IT Crowd")
Based on his love of litigation, I suggest he change his last name to File instead...
Gawker? (Score:2)
Why doesn't Assange just leak who manufactures Trump's the hair-hats? Or does he only leak about Hillary and/or relevant topics?
Re: (Score:3)
Because, in all fairness, it doesn't really matter. I may joke all day about the evil hairpiece and how it controls its wearer, but in the end, what does it matter? So he's under the rug. He's a guy and he wants to look young. If anything, it makes him human. What aging guy cannot relate?
With Hillary, I have the opposite problem.
News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
"drawing praise from staffers at the Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic; and at least three winners of the Pulitzer Prize."
Ugh.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, this is even worse than the media trying to make bush admit he did cocaine, and giving obama the pass since he mentioned in his book he did cocaine.
So, Hillary, wig or no wig? No one wants to know....
Re: (Score:3)
No one would care about Trump's hair, except that Trump is so incredibly sensitive about it. His defensiveness about the hair causes people to pay more attention to the hair. No one makes fun of Hillary's pantsuits much because she's doesn't become visibly angry when people make fun of her pantsuits. Same with Trump's hands - almost no one would have paid any attention to his hands if he hadn't gone and made a big deal about it when someone reported on it in Spy. It clearly pushed a button with Trump an
Re: (Score:2)
But not a funny one.
Re: (Score:2)
This is an election year. The media has to find something to talk about other than public policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the article?
Media's missed opportunity (Score:5, Informative)
The original story that set off this latest Peter Thiel tantrum is one of the best actual pieces of journalism about Trump that's been in any media outlet, anywhere. Even harsh critics of Gawker singled it out as an excellent story.
Here's what one Pulitzer-winner (Dan Fagin) said about the story:
David Simon, the former prize-winning journalist and screenwriter of "The Wire" said of the Gawker story:
He also said that if the US press had done work this good on the question of WMDs and the run-up the Iraq War, that war never would have happened.
You have to admit that the story itself, meticulously sourced and thoroughly researched, is pretty impressive.
http://gawker.com/is-donald-tr... [gawker.com]
It draws a very interesting picture of the man, Donald Trump.
And Mr Harder's lawsuit? It's pretty funny reading too, since he tries to assert that his legal demand for retraction and apology is covered by copyright law.
I realize that a lot of the ACs here hate Gawker and their properties because they were harsh on #gamergate and MRAs (who even named their now-defunct gamergate forum, "Kotaku in Action" to prove that they're not mad, they're actually laughing), but I recommend reading the stories for yourself and forming your own opinion.
http://gawker.com/now-peter-th... [gawker.com]
Re: Media's missed opportunity (Score:3)
I don't think people understand the criticisms in the compliments gawker has been given.
This is the media telling Gawker if they out that kind of effort into real news they wouldn't be a farce. This is them giving Gawker a bow, right before they piss on its grave. You wait and see, the people currently working for Gawker are going to be blacklisted into Walmart greeters when this all wraps up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because pretty much every MRA organisation is actually an anti-feminist organisation?
Can you tell me what places like A Voice for Men have ever done to improve the lot of men, instead of trying to push down women?
Re: (Score:2)
See what I mean? They're not mad, they're actually laughing.
I'm going to lose so much sleep... (Score:2)
I'm going to lose so much sleep worrying about trumps hair. It's the worst thing since Stalin's and Hitler's moustaches, which we all know were the real problem. Just look at what Gorbachev's red blotch did to the USSR. That's why I'm voting for Hillary. No obvious defect on her face or body to make fun of. Just the pant suits. I'm thinking that polyester can only do so much damage. /sarc.
Zeus's beard (Score:2)
The best they have on Trump is that he may secretly be somewhat bald? Is there any Trump story not newsworthy these days? Soon CNN will find out that he hangs the toilet paper facing in, not out, or something.
This election, holy moly.
lol (Score:2)
$60,000 ? (Score:2)
That money would have been way better spent training a ferret to sit on Donald's head.
Company caught on video (Score:2, Funny)
...making a delivery. [imgur.com]
Hair? Who cares about hair!? (Score:2)
Why care about his ridiculous hair, when the person itself is so much more ridiculous! (except if the hair was controlling the person ...)
All I can say (Score:2)
Of course if he weren't such a narcissist he wouldn't have resorted to such ludicrous measures in the first place.
I guess the lesson here (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know if it's right for Thiel to pursue his vendetta, but I can't really blame him.
Re:I guess the lesson here (Score:5, Insightful)
There is another explanation for why outing him would be bad for him: homophobia is bad. He was dealing with entities who are themselves homophobic (despite them being homophobic), and outing him would inform them of his homosexuality.
So no. There is a rational explanation you missed entirely.
So.... (Score:2)
So if you report on something a rich person doesn't like, they can sue you into oblivion? That sounds totally fair.
Appearance-Based Stereotypes (Score:2)
We hear critique of the outdated ethnic customs of a burqa & circumcision, but isn't it in the same league?
Time to salt the Earth behind them... (Score:3)
Gawker needs to take advantage of what little time they have left to send a message to asshat billionaires who think they can control the Streisand Effect. They have nothing left to lose - ie, time to basically turn into "WikiLeaks for things that piss off Peter Thiel". Billionaire Paparazzi. Make it so he can't take a shit in a public restroom without someone reporting on the time, duration, and characterization of the smell.
Sigh (Score:2)
Wow! I wonder what he tells the German newspapers, who reported on his Granddad Drumpf's whorehouse in Klondike, that he opened after having fled from military service in Germany.
I guess that's where Donald got his 'appreciation' of women.
Cease and Desist (Score:2)
Or there will be hell toupee.
Re:Serious question .... why any body cares? (Score:5, Funny)
It does say something about his judgement that he wears that thing in public and thinks it looks OK. I mean, there are expensive rugs that look really good and you can't tell. If dude is so rich and cares so much about his appearance, why would he go out looking like a troll doll with radiation poisoning? I mean, Charles Nelson-Reilly had a better hairpiece than The Donald. On the other hand, if Trump does NOT really care about his appearance, then why spend all the time and energy and expense to cover up the fact that he's bald?
Here's a great American president who didn't spend $60k on a bad weave:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Not only was he such a bad-ass that he kicked Hitler's ass, but he led this country into an era when we actually became great, and did not give one single fuck about the fact that he was losing his hair. He was like the presidential version of Dwayne Johnson. And let me tell you, 63% of American women have not said they will never vote for Dwayne Johnson the way they have about Trump. Hell, 63% of American men would probably give Dwayne Johnson an enthusiastic reach-around if he asked right now. That's how cool and manly bald-ass Dwayne Johnson is, like Ike.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a great American president who didn't spend $60k on a bad weave:
That was before TV. There is no way a baldie like Ike would get elected today. Since TV became mainstream, the only bald president was Gerald Ford, and he was appointed, not elected.
Re:Serious question .... why any body cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only was he such a bad-ass that he kicked Hitler's ass, but he led this country into an era when we actually became great, and did not give one single fuck about the fact that he was losing his hair.
To be fair, it was easy to become great when the manufacturing centers of Europe, the UK, Japan, and parts of China had been totally destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with the topic, but since we are speaking of Trump, here is another story about why it may not be a good idea to vote for a billionaire celebrity: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It actually a very clever strategy similar to an angler fish. You have this distracting thing staring your right in the face so you can't pay attention to what is really going on. It's an old sales tactic that works.
Re: (Score:2)
Sad to say, considering the hilarity of the hairpiece memes, but I think that's pretty good proof Trump's hair is actually real.
There's
Re: (Score:2)
Dude is 70 years old and a friggin' billionaire. Doesn't it strike you as a little insecure that he's worrying about what he can and cannot "pull off"?
And regarding his hair being "real", I'm not sure that color and texture exist anywhere in nature. However, there's simply too much to unpack regarding Donald's hair. I simply chalk it up to one of those great mysteries.
Re: (Score:2)
Iron-clad logic, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
We're judging the man for the stock in his self worth he places in his hair, and the poor choice to do what he does with his hair. It reflects on his personality, his motivations, and - yes - his judgement.
Obama gets a lot of shit for owning a closet full of the same suit. How would you have the PotUS spend his time - dealing with his hair and wardrobe, or actively engaging in world and US politics? Every man (or woman) only has 24 hours in a day; how they use it matters.