Now he is upset with Walmart for telling its customers to expect prices to rise because of tariffs. Oh, and now he is going after people who post 86 47. Now, who in their right mind would do anything like that?
Well, quite.
I wonder how long it'll be before he starts wandering among the tombs, like the chap in the Bible?
“86” is American slang that means to throw someone out of a restaurant or bar, and by extension, to get rid of someone or something. And Trump is the 47th president.
Not just people but also things. For example, if someone wanted their food without onions, the waitstaff would write "86 onions" on the order.
I once heard of a case where someone got exactly 86 olives on their order because someone in the kitchen was unfamiliar with this term.
More seriously, as this NY Times article (free link) says, “86” can mean eliminate, as in kill, someone—typically someone seen as a problem. (The article also provides some history of the term, @KarlLB.) And that meaning has the potential to push the statement into federal crime territory.
One would/should reasonably assume it’s not meant that way when used in reference to the president. But then, I don’t think anyone has ever credited Trump with being reasonable. (And, of course, there was an assassination attempt during the campaign.)
It can mean kill, but without context or the right kind of emphasis, I wouldn't take it that way. I've only heard people in real life say someone was 86ed when they were thrown out of a place and banned from returning.
I suppose the point is that Trump took it as a serious threat against him.
Trump takes the slightest criticism as a serious threat against him, or uses it as an excuse to attack his enemies. And he does consider Comey, whose tweet started all this, as his enemy.
It is a little surprising he hasn’t made some form of lèse-majesté the subject of one of his executive orders.
I read a book when I was a kid that explained that - somewhere in the past - there was an entire series of numerical codes that restaurant workers would use to quickly communicate with each other, and "86" was just one that stuck around after all of the others had fallen into disuse.
Now he is upset with Walmart for telling its customers to expect prices to rise because of tariffs. Oh, and now he is going after people who post 86 47. Now, who in their right mind would do anything like that?
Well, quite.
I wonder how long it'll be before he starts wandering among the tombs, like the chap in the Bible?
I take it you are wondering when 47 will be wondering among the tombs.
There is another way of understanding my last question. Who in their right mind would want to post something like 86 47--in a bit of a sarcastic tone.
The people are including the numbers on signs worldwide now.
Speaking of protests, many communities will be celebrating the NO KING day on 14 June. It aligns with trump's birthday and the anniversary of the foundation of the American Army. They are going to have a big military parade which will cost $45 million to put it on. Myself, I can think of better ways of spending that $45 mil.
Now he is upset with Walmart for telling its customers to expect prices to rise because of tariffs. Oh, and now he is going after people who post 86 47. Now, who in their right mind would do anything like that?
Well, quite.
I wonder how long it'll be before he starts wandering among the tombs, like the chap in the Bible?
I take it you are wondering when 47 will be wondering among the tombs.
There is another way of understanding my last question. Who in their right mind would want to post something like 86 47--in a bit of a sarcastic tone.
The people are including the numbers on signs worldwide now.
Speaking of protests, many communities will be celebrating the NO KING day on 14 June. It aligns with trump's birthday and the anniversary of the foundation of the American Army. They are going to have a big military parade which will cost $45 million to put it on. Myself, I can think of better ways of spending that $45 mil.
Now he is upset with Walmart for telling its customers to expect prices to rise because of tariffs. Oh, and now he is going after people who post 86 47. Now, who in their right mind would do anything like that?
Well, quite.
I wonder how long it'll be before he starts wandering among the tombs, like the chap in the Bible?
I take it you are wondering when 47 will be wondering among the tombs.
There is another way of understanding my last question. Who in their right mind would want to post something like 86 47--in a bit of a sarcastic tone.
The people are including the numbers on signs worldwide now.
Speaking of protests, many communities will be celebrating the NO KING day on 14 June. It aligns with trump's birthday and the anniversary of the foundation of the American Army. They are going to have a big military parade which will cost $45 million to put it on. Myself, I can think of better ways of spending that $45 mil.
The pope has dual citizenship in Peru and the USA. He may not be recognized as the head of the church by Orthodox or Protestants, but he is still the pope.
The pope has dual citizenship in Peru and the USA. He may not be recognized as the head of the church by Orthodox or Protestants, but he is still the pope.
Indeed he is, but he has no jurisdiction over those who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church, whether in the US or elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what has all this to do with Trump?
Trump acts like a king. Wants to be a king. We have no king. But we have a pope who is a Peruvian and a citizen of the USA. It is a matter of who has the higher authority--at least in the case of Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, when the pope speaks, other denominations also listen if not follow.
Trump acts like a king. Wants to be a king. We have no king. But we have a pope who is a Peruvian and when the pope speaks, other denominations also listen if not follow.
When you say "listen", does that include contexts like "Well, let's see what idiotic bozo-isms are coming outta Rome this week"?
Because, if so, I'd agree that the Pope gets more attentive listening across sundry denominations than even, say, the Archbishop Of Canterbury, much less the General of The Salvation Army.
Of course, I'm sure he gets good attention as well, but how it all percentagizes between positive and negative, I don't know. Some time during Francis' papacy, I saw a Unitarian cleric deliver a sermon in which he called attention, complete with a slide-photo, of Francis' support for refugee rights. But I'm sure he wouldn't have given more than a few seconds of dismissal to anti-lgbqt statements coming from Francis.
I don't "share a pope" any more than I share the neighbor's Isuzu pickup.
I would tend to agree. Though I think @Gramps49's statement might have been something like "The UK and America share a royal family", argued on the basis that the Windors have become part of widely-followed American popular-media(eg. William and Harry fighting over Taylor Swift tickets, in the Enquirer, I think it was). IOW a shared cultural property, but not having an equivalent hierarchical status across all faiths.
(I will say that it's still not quite clear to me which two entities @Gramps49 is construing as sharing Pope Leo. I assume one is the RCC, but is the other the USA, or Lutherans, or Peruvians, or...?)
I was under the impression that a US citizen taking up citizenship of another nation gives up their US citizenship, that the US only holds to dual-citizenship for those born with citizenship of two nations. Did I get that wrong?
I was under the impression that a US citizen taking up citizenship of another nation gives up their US citizenship, that the US only holds to dual-citizenship for those born with citizenship of two nations. Did I get that wrong?
I think you are right. My friend has German residency but, if she wants to go for citizenship, she has to give up her US citizenship. She pays taxes to both countries although she's only in the US for two weeks a year.
AIUI it's not illegal for US citizens to hold another nationality, although it is often fiscally disadvantageous. That's why some US dual citizens prefer to renounce their American nationality.
I was under the impression that a US citizen taking up citizenship of another nation gives up their US citizenship, that the US only holds to dual-citizenship for those born with citizenship of two nations. Did I get that wrong?
That changed under the Carter administration. Since then it has become normal, and we have many family members and friends who are dual citizens. An advantage to the US is that their citizens are always liable for US taxes, which can be a significant issue for some people. Renunciation of US citizenship is contingent on paying any back taxes.
OK, so the changes haven't been forwarded to all concerned, as when Flausa was looking into becoming a UK citizen a couple of years ago I'm pretty sure she was told that she would need to renounce her US citizenship (for which there would be a significant cost). The costs of both acquiring UK citizenship and giving up her US citizenship were too much, so she's still paying taxes in the UK and filing US tax returns, has a vote in US elections but not UK ones (she can vote in Scottish elections where eligibility is sensibly based on residence not nationality).
When I was a child (so Reagan era I think) we had friends who were foreign nationals working for Uneaco and their children were born in the US where they had been posted and had birthright citizenship but I think they had to choose by age 21. I know it caused a lot of complications and at one point they ended up with risk of their children being stateless (possibly their home nation didn’t permit dual citizenship).
U.S. law does not impede its citizens’ acquisition of foreign citizenship whether by birth, descent, naturalization or other form of acquisition, by imposing requirements of permission from U.S. courts or any governmental agency. If a foreign country’s law permits parents to apply for citizenship on behalf of minor children, nothing in U.S. law impedes U.S. citizen parents from doing so.
U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities). A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship.
SCOTUS ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), a case involving a naturalized citizen originally from Poland who voted in an Israeli election, that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of citizenship involuntarily.
OK, so the changes haven't been forwarded to all concerned, as when Flausa was looking into becoming a UK citizen a couple of years ago I'm pretty sure she was told that she would need to renounce her US citizenship (for which there would be a significant cost).
Renouncing US citizenship, for a person living in a foreign country, requires appearing in person at a US embassy or consulate. I would be very surprised (well, until the current administration) if, upon such an appearance, it was not made clear that renunciation was not required from the perspective of the US.
I was under the impression that a US citizen taking up citizenship of another nation gives up their US citizenship, that the US only holds to dual-citizenship for those born with citizenship of two nations. Did I get that wrong?
You can renounce a citizenship without it having any effect. A case in point was William Joyce ("Lord Haw Haw") who renounced his British citizenship and worked as a German propagandist during WWII. After the war he was arrested, tried for treason as a British citizen and hanged.
You can. This is why it’s not safe (among other reasons!) for my husband to return to Vietnam. They can still claim him as a citizen and execute him for escaping from prison camp. My friend D says they won’t have to bother—she will murder us personally if we take that kind of risk now with the Orange Plague in power.
Maybe sorta kinda, but not really. The words of the oath notwithstanding (more below), there’s no actual requirement that naturalized US citizens legally renounce or relinquish their previous citizenship, relinquish foreign passports or the like.
Notably, the oath requires that a new citizen “entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen” (emphasis added). Equally notably, it does not mention citizenship of another country, nor does a person taking the oath explicitly renounce any other citizenship. Also perhaps notably, a United States citizen taking a similar oath as part of the process of becoming a citizen of another country would not lose US citizenship as a result.
So far as I know, the only people who, absent taking additional action on their own, lose their previous citizenship when naturalized as US citizens are those people whose previous citizenship is in a country that doesn’t permit dual citizenship and that treats becoming a citizen of another country as an automatic renunciation of citizenship.
Which country is next on the wretched man's list, I wonder?
I hope future visiting heads ask to scrutinise the "evidence" and offer to publish the findings. Call the fuckers bluff live on air as he lies.
And someone needs to tell him on air that the advisors getting him to behave like an ignorant bore are not his friends and don't have his best interests at heart.
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
He won't do that as it's true!
Silly me.
Still, there's that old adage about the pot and the kettle...or the other one about people living in glass houses...and the God-Emperor really isn't very bright. I wouldn't put it past him to insult the King, especially if he doesn't get to take tea with the (late) Queen.
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
You mean the Native Americans?
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
My point, of course, was that he might criticise the UK for doing the same things as his own country has done in the past. There are, of course, many other present-day nations who have been guilty of similar acts...
When you think of it, Great Britian has a long history of being conquered.
Long, but fairly ancient. There hasn't been a successful external conquest of Great Britain since 1689, and even that was sort of pre-arranged. Generally when parts of Great Britain have been subject to the ravages of an invading army it's been from others parts of the island or, at a pinch, other islands in the archipelago.
When you think of it, Great Britian has a long history of being conquered.
Long, but fairly ancient. There hasn't been a successful external conquest of Great Britain since 1689, and even that was sort of pre-arranged. Generally when parts of Great Britain have been subject to the ravages of an invading army it's been from others parts of the island or, at a pinch, other islands in the archipelago.
Well, if it weren't for the lend lease program, it could have been conquered more recently.
Then, again, the fascists have arisen once again through the house of Drumpf.
When you think of it, Great Britian has a long history of being conquered.
Long, but fairly ancient. There hasn't been a successful external conquest of Great Britain since 1689, and even that was sort of pre-arranged. Generally when parts of Great Britain have been subject to the ravages of an invading army it's been from others parts of the island or, at a pinch, other islands in the archipelago.
Oddly enough, the Revolution of 1688-89 led to the UK being ruled by an Orange...
When you think of it, Great Britian has a long history of being conquered.
Long, but fairly ancient. There hasn't been a successful external conquest of Great Britain since 1689, and even that was sort of pre-arranged. Generally when parts of Great Britain have been subject to the ravages of an invading army it's been from others parts of the island or, at a pinch, other islands in the archipelago.
Well, if it weren't for the lend lease program, it could have been conquered more recently.
So what? The US did that because it was in our national interest, not out of the goodness of our collective heart.
Comments
Well, quite.
I wonder how long it'll be before he starts wandering among the tombs, like the chap in the Bible?
This article from Yahoo! News might explain:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/old-slang-term-86-probably-123040285.html
It's fascinating to see how slang and jargon can so easily become part of the language...
One would/should reasonably assume it’s not meant that way when used in reference to the president. But then, I don’t think anyone has ever credited Trump with being reasonable. (And, of course, there was an assassination attempt during the campaign.)
Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, as Shakespeare's Henry IV rather ruefully observes.
Trump takes the slightest criticism as a serious threat against him, or uses it as an excuse to attack his enemies. And he does consider Comey, whose tweet started all this, as his enemy.
It is a little surprising he hasn’t made some form of lèse-majesté the subject of one of his executive orders.
OK, but it's a low bar!
I read a book when I was a kid that explained that - somewhere in the past - there was an entire series of numerical codes that restaurant workers would use to quickly communicate with each other, and "86" was just one that stuck around after all of the others had fallen into disuse.
I take it you are wondering when 47 will be wondering among the tombs.
There is another way of understanding my last question. Who in their right mind would want to post something like 86 47--in a bit of a sarcastic tone.
The people are including the numbers on signs worldwide now.
Speaking of protests, many communities will be celebrating the NO KING day on 14 June. It aligns with trump's birthday and the anniversary of the foundation of the American Army. They are going to have a big military parade which will cost $45 million to put it on. Myself, I can think of better ways of spending that $45 mil.
86 47
We have no king, but we do share a pope.
I don't have no pope.
Although I do expect Trump to start shouting at a storm, with his jester Vance by his side. He would make a great King Leer
Who shares a pope?
Indeed he is, but he has no jurisdiction over those who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church, whether in the US or elsewhere.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what has all this to do with Trump?
When you say "listen", does that include contexts like "Well, let's see what idiotic bozo-isms are coming outta Rome this week"?
Because, if so, I'd agree that the Pope gets more attentive listening across sundry denominations than even, say, the Archbishop Of Canterbury, much less the General of The Salvation Army.
Of course, I'm sure he gets good attention as well, but how it all percentagizes between positive and negative, I don't know. Some time during Francis' papacy, I saw a Unitarian cleric deliver a sermon in which he called attention, complete with a slide-photo, of Francis' support for refugee rights. But I'm sure he wouldn't have given more than a few seconds of dismissal to anti-lgbqt statements coming from Francis.
I would tend to agree. Though I think @Gramps49's statement might have been something like "The UK and America share a royal family", argued on the basis that the Windors have become part of widely-followed American popular-media(eg. William and Harry fighting over Taylor Swift tickets, in the Enquirer, I think it was). IOW a shared cultural property, but not having an equivalent hierarchical status across all faiths.
(I will say that it's still not quite clear to me which two entities @Gramps49 is construing as sharing Pope Leo. I assume one is the RCC, but is the other the USA, or Lutherans, or Peruvians, or...?)
I think you are right. My friend has German residency but, if she wants to go for citizenship, she has to give up her US citizenship. She pays taxes to both countries although she's only in the US for two weeks a year.
That changed under the Carter administration. Since then it has become normal, and we have many family members and friends who are dual citizens. An advantage to the US is that their citizens are always liable for US taxes, which can be a significant issue for some people. Renunciation of US citizenship is contingent on paying any back taxes.
SCOTUS ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), a case involving a naturalized citizen originally from Poland who voted in an Israeli election, that a United States citizen cannot be deprived of citizenship involuntarily.
Renouncing US citizenship, for a person living in a foreign country, requires appearing in person at a US embassy or consulate. I would be very surprised (well, until the current administration) if, upon such an appearance, it was not made clear that renunciation was not required from the perspective of the US.
Naturalized U.S. citizens are required to "entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen", essentially giving up their previous citizenship, at least in the eyes of the U.S. government. How their (former?) government treats this is not under the control of the naturalized citizen or the U.S. government.
As far as I know there is no restriction on natural born U.S. citizens, to borrow a phrase from the Constitution, having dual nationality.
Notably, the oath requires that a new citizen “entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen” (emphasis added). Equally notably, it does not mention citizenship of another country, nor does a person taking the oath explicitly renounce any other citizenship. Also perhaps notably, a United States citizen taking a similar oath as part of the process of becoming a citizen of another country would not lose US citizenship as a result.
So far as I know, the only people who, absent taking additional action on their own, lose their previous citizenship when naturalized as US citizens are those people whose previous citizenship is in a country that doesn’t permit dual citizenship and that treats becoming a citizen of another country as an automatic renunciation of citizenship.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/23/trumps-evidence-of-south-africa-white-genocide-contains-images-from-democratic-republic-of-congo
Which country is next on the wretched man's list, I wonder?
I hope future visiting heads ask to scrutinise the "evidence" and offer to publish the findings. Call the fuckers bluff live on air as he lies.
And someone needs to tell him on air that the advisors getting him to behave like an ignorant bore are not his friends and don't have his best interests at heart.
I wonder if, when he meets King Charles III, he'll accuse the Crown of being guilty of buying and selling slaves, or of conquering innocent indigenous peoples...
He won't do that as it's true!
Silly me.
Still, there's that old adage about the pot and the kettle...or the other one about people living in glass houses...and the God-Emperor really isn't very bright. I wouldn't put it past him to insult the King, especially if he doesn't get to take tea with the (late) Queen.
Oh, they'll probably just end up good-naturedly trading Epstein anecdotes.
You mean the Native Americans?
You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
My point, of course, was that he might criticise the UK for doing the same things as his own country has done in the past. There are, of course, many other present-day nations who have been guilty of similar acts...
Long, but fairly ancient. There hasn't been a successful external conquest of Great Britain since 1689, and even that was sort of pre-arranged. Generally when parts of Great Britain have been subject to the ravages of an invading army it's been from others parts of the island or, at a pinch, other islands in the archipelago.
Well, if it weren't for the lend lease program, it could have been conquered more recently.
Then, again, the fascists have arisen once again through the house of Drumpf.
Oddly enough, the Revolution of 1688-89 led to the UK being ruled by an Orange...
(1066 And All That is your reference book)
So what? The US did that because it was in our national interest, not out of the goodness of our collective heart.