Last night in Waterford Township, Michigan The Diapered Dotard larded over one of his typical campaign rallies, claiming, among other things, that Special Counsel Jack Smith is “an animal”, that our airports are bad, that migrant workers will responsible for a coming crime wave (says the man facing 90+ indictments) and that he doesn’t know who E. Jean Carroll is… (you will soon enough, fat boy, when you start signing her checks)… but I found most amusing his seeming genuine confusion as to why some (so he claims) call him a “whale”…

I have some ideas myself, of course, but Aaron Rupar’s followers on Twitter are also proving very helpful in clearing this up for him:

Occam’s razor.










Works for me.


But the oldest usage for the word “whale” dates back to the Old Norse term “vlar” meaning “round”.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best.


  1. What stood out to me were the two tweets listed on after the other talking in terms of casinos. The first mocked someone who owned multiple casinos claiming to not know what a whale was. He did of course and listening to Trump it seemed to me he knew damn well what it meant in that context, which leads me to the next tweet because it was casino slang (with owners/employees) for rich SUCKER. Rich people who, since the house always wins (unless someone has the willpower to walk away when they’re on a good streak – they almost never do) means rich people who will lose, and lose big time money. That’s why casinos love them and comp them rooms, meals, tickets to pricey shows (prices most of us can’t afford) and so on just to keep them around and playing. They know they won’t just make it all back but wind up with a HUGE profit on the investment.

    Yep. Whale to casino owners and managers is a well known term but it’s not one of respect. It is as I said slang for sucker.

    In a way, banks sometimes think of clients that are rich but not all that smart or business savvy as they think they are in the same way. They expect a big return, and try to ensure if someone fails to pay back the loan they will still get their money via collateral or other means. And if worst comes to worst that why they have lobbyists work the system for tax laws that help them write off at least a chunk of any losses. The thing is though is that it doesn’t matter if they get the loan paid off IF they could have gotten more.

    And that’s at the heart of this case. Trump says “they all got paid back” but he lied to get better loan terms than he would have otherwise gotten. Those banks that did get paid back didn’t get what they would have made out of the deal if it had been made on the terms it SHOULD have been made. Bankers hate that. I could write more about this and how at Deutshce Bank in particular Trump had to resort to a breakaway part of it that played shenanigans itself because the main part wanted no part of doing business with him but that’s a longer and more complicated thing to get into.

    The literal bottom line for those banks is they didn’t make as much as they should have on those loans because Trump committed financial fraud when he obtained them. And that’s a crime.

    • “…I could write more about this and how at Deutshce Bank in particular Trump had to resort to a breakaway part of it that played shenanigans itself…”

      I think most of us recall some Supreme Court justice who “retired” who had a son, named Kennedy, too… Sound familiar? That son worked for that part of DB. Will coincidences never cease?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here