clever, maybe, but why surprisingly clever? this dude is known to be quite cunning, which a lot of simpletons who think they are more sophisticated than him, don't even realize. typical liberal / intellectual mentality. like calling the opposition "deplorables". you know how far using that term got her, even if she may have been right. holier-than-thou attitudes usually rebound on such people. think marie antoinette. "let them eat cake". guess what the crowd of french revolutionaries did to her.

edit: here you go, downvoting beggars:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette

read the "Trial and execution" section of the above article.

also, hn has plenty of such holier-than-thou types, to its discredit.

Can not agree more. The guy is dangerous. People who underestimated him have all to pay a heavy price.

If you're gonna use historical analogies, it pays off to be accurate. Marie Antoinette very likely never said "let them eat cake" and she wasn't particularly more detached than aristocrats at the time were generally (which, to be fair, is quite a lot, but not all aristocrats were killed in the revolution).

Marie Antoinette was not killed because she was particularly detached but for treason after plotting against the Constitutional monarchy of 1791 along with Louis XVI and many aristocrats at the time.

wow, fuck. unbelievable crap, but true, nonetheless:

after implying I should be accurate, you go on to make your own statements using weasel words like "very likely never said" and "wasn't particularly more detached" and more on the same lines in the rest of your comment. where is the proof for your weasel words, bro, just like you ask me to be accurate?

weasel words are not accurate words, bro, rather almost the opposite.

”physician, heal thyself” - before you fuck around advising other people what to do or not do.

i see a lot of trends of this on hn too. pathetic.

This is not appropriate language to use on HN and I'm not your "bro".

here is a similar excerpt from your same comment above, with different highlighting by me, which shows even better, your "weaselness" (for lack of a better word - maybe weaselishness or weasel(ish) nature? ):

>wasn't particularly more detached than aristocrats at the time were generally (which, to be fair, is quite a lot, but not all

laughable comment.

iow, what is evident to someone who sees beyond the surface meaning of the words you used, like I can, is that you want to attack someone verbally, without being held responsible for the consequences of your attack. in other words, you are a weakling and a coward.

that is why you waffle or equivocate.

and that is true of a lot of people, not just here but in the world. i have seen enough over my lifetime to know that that is the case.

for a very relevant and important current example, check out the news about the SignalGate scandal involving the topmost echelons of the US govt., how they fucked up, made a fool of themselves in front of the whole world, and then tried, unsuccessfully, like you, to cover it up.

jokers, and beggars, all such people.

update: wow, fuck, again.

proof. some time after writing this comment, on a whim, I thought of googling for the term signalgate, and what was my surprise, to see this Wikipedia page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_gro...

It just goes to show the notability of it, because Wikipedia only allows what they consider notable pages (according to their criteria, of course). iow, the topic is considered important by them.

> 3 hours before he announced easing tariffs, Trump tweeted that it's a good time to buy stocks. If he gave someone insider information, they could use that tweet as a cover.

Got a link to the tweet? I don't have a Twitter account.

Edit: apparently it is true, and it is on Truth social. Someone sent me a screenshot.

To the downvoters: what is wrong with you? It was an honest question.