Buy 1 Solar Powered Waving USA President $6.95 & Get 1 Dancing Mexican Cactus Free + Shipping (Free MEL C&C) @ Smooth Sales

33376

Buy 1 Solar Powered Waving USA President $6.95 & Get 1 Dancing Mexican Cactus Free + Shipping (Free MEL C&C) @ Smooth Sales

Go to Deal

Cashback

AssociatedArcherVice on 30/07/2024 - 15:41 smoothsales.com.au (7296 clicks)
Last edited 30/07/2024 - 18:15 by 1 other user

My Fellow OzBargainers,

It’s HUGE. It’s TREMENDOUS. You won’t believe this deal – believe me, you just won’t. We’re talking about the best deal in the history of deals. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.

For a limited time only, get your hands on a Donald Trump Lookalike Solar-Powered Waving USA President Figure for just $6.95 + shipping. This little guy waves at you, just like the greatest American president waves at all his tremendous fans. And guess what? That’s not all, folks.

Buy this fantastic, incredible, amazing figure and you get a FREE Solar-Powered Dancing Mexican Cactus. That’s right, folks – a FREE Mexican cactus that dances. It’s like a fiesta on your dashboard. The best part? This is all for you, my fellow OzBargainers.

Deal Details:

Price: $6.95 + shipping
Free Click and Collect: Melbourne Warehouse (for the locals)
Metro Shipping: Flat rate $7.95

This deal is going to be yuuuge, believe me. Don’t miss out – get yours now before they’re all gone. It’s going to be tremendous. You’re going to love it, I guarantee* it.

Make your dashboard GREAT again!

*no actual guarantees will be made.
Cactus will be added to your order when shipped. One cactus per order.

Toys & Kids Toy

3 Aug

Related Stores

Smooth Sales

closed Comments

- - - - jackspratt on 01/08/2024 - 15:51
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: Tell that to judge Kaplan - he disagrees. 🤣
        
        Oh, and you missed this bit (from your link), but I am sure you didn't intend to mislead:
        
        The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse
        
        1st-Amendment on 02/08/2024 - 12:43
        
        @jackspratt:
        
        Tell that to judge Kaplan - he disagrees
        
        "It instead is labeled “sexual abuse"
        
        So not rape then.
        
        Thanks for your effort though, the cope is noted.
        
        jackspratt on 02/08/2024 - 12:57
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: You should be thanking judge Kaplan - he's the one who clearly and unambiguously said it was rape.
        
        But please keep scratching.
        
        1st-Amendment on 02/08/2024 - 13:05
        
        @jackspratt:
        
        he's the one who clearly and unambiguously said it was rape.
        
        Where? You forgot to the important part, the citation.. Amateur hour is turning into amateur day..
        
        jackspratt on 02/08/2024 - 13:28
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Where?
        
        Goodness, you are obtuse, aren't you.
        
        It's in the Motion decision you conveniently provided a link to, and then equally conveniently decided to ignore the vast majority of, when it didn't suit your unsustainable assertion.
        
        I even provided the full text of the relevant portion from judge Kaplan you conveniently decided to omit, in your poor attempt to mislead readers.
        
        It seems you must have had a restless night.
        
        1st-Amendment on 02/08/2024 - 13:44
        
        -1
        
        @jackspratt:
        
        It's in the Motion decision you conveniently provided a link to,
        
        Oh, so the part that says it didn't fit the definition of rape, you read that as 'clearly and unambiguously said it was rape'?
        
        It literally says "The only point on which Ms. Carroll DID NOT PREVAIL was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her" and you took that as 'clearly and unambiguously said it was rape'?
        
        The TDS here is off the charts…
        
        I even provided the full text of the relevant portion from judge Kaplan
        
        Which explicitly said it didn't fit the definition. But this is how TDS works… ignore the actual evidence, just make up a version of events that fits your narrative…
        
        jackspratt on 02/08/2024 - 13:55
        
        +1
        
        @1st-Amendment: I am happy to share again the relevant full text of what judge Kaplan said, plus a bit more of his decision, which only the most witless here would fail to understand.
        
        The jury's unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”1
        
        As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
        
        jackspratt on 01/08/2024 - 22:39
        
        @1st-Amendment:
        
        Amateur hour is over, it's time to go to bed….
        
        So how was your sleep?
        
        JohnHowardsEyebrows on 31/07/2024 - 13:13
        
        @1st-Amendment: You are a bit special, I can see.
        
        vash5 on 31/07/2024 - 14:46
        
        +1
        
        @JohnHowardsEyebrows:
        
        You are a bit special, can see.
        
        Minimum requirement to join that cult my man 🙄
    - AlteredBeast on 30/07/2024 - 18:33
      
      +2
      
      Harris winning will strengthen the likelihood of WW3 😂🤦
      - SpainKing on 31/07/2024 - 13:20
        
        @AlteredBeast: Please explain
  - RolandWaites on 30/07/2024 - 18:31
    
    +3
    
    Just for the record, in debates Hillary won 3-0. Biden also was considered the winner 2-0 of the 2020 debates (Remember those? The first one Trump whined and interrupted the whole way though, then refused to do any more because of how bad he looked. He eventually was persuaded that was a bad move). Then Trump won the 2024 debate with Biden. By my count that's 5-1 against Trump.
    - AlteredBeast on 30/07/2024 - 18:44
      
      +4
      
      Thats for the record though 🙂
      I just watched the debate with Hillary and was clear as day that she was obliterated.
      
      Trump was also continuously interrupted by the two Moderators. Actually Trump had to tell the Moderators as to why he gets interrupted and she doesn't?
      
      Do you remember that debate?
      Here's a small piece as a reminder:
      
      https://youtu.be/Hbh2qXBMjuY?si=wbkSbvf4mD7ONp5d
      
      You should see the part where he was outlining her husbands abuse issues.
      
      Anyways, may the best candidate win 🙂
      - RolandWaites on 30/07/2024 - 19:01
        
        +2
        
        @AlteredBeast: I watched all three, and I watched both in 2020 and I watched the one a few weeks ago. Surveys of political analysts, officials from both parties and viewers conclusively found Clinton won each of the debates.
        
        Trump delivering a one-liner did not win him the debate. Watch the whole thing and tell who you think comes off as knowing more about governing and leadership.
        
        AlteredBeast on 30/07/2024 - 19:25
        
        +1
        
        @RolandWaites: Yes by result.
        
        That's like saying a movie failed on RottonTomatoes as 20% (shocking) but the audience score was 90%.
        
        I watched the debate on my own accord and judged it in my own perspective…and believe Trump won.
        
        If not then he wouldn't of been favored by the mass as the next president at that time 🙃
        
        On a side note - I'd be more comfortable for Hilary to run against Trump today as she possesses more experience and knowledge than Kamala.
        
        RolandWaites on 30/07/2024 - 19:45
        
        +1
        
        @AlteredBeast: But he wasn't favoured by the mass (population? Media?) at the time. Clinton received more votes.
        
        But really (except for the latest example) presidential debates rarely shift anything in the race. They're mostly for the politics nerds, not the average Joe.
        
        Elections are really personality contests these days. Experience isn't the overriding factor. It's going to be down to which of the two can convince the fraction of voters that is undecided at this stage that they are the better person.
        
        We'll find out who managed that in a dozen weeks.
  - smartazz104 on 30/07/2024 - 20:03
    
    Only in the minds of people who couldn’t pour water out of a shoe if the instructions were on the heel.
- 1st-Amendment on 30/07/2024 - 18:15
  
  +1
  
  who won't debate Kamala
  
  What are you talking about?
  
  This is the exactly the kind of ignorance that gives TDS sufferers such a bad rap.
  Presidential debates are conducted by the two nominees of each party. After Trump and Biden won their primaries, they became those nominees. Harris is NOT the official nominee yet, since she didn't win the primary she'll have to wait for the Democrat convention in August to be officially nominated. Only then would a debate be held.
  
  You need to upgrade your sources of information. They are feeding your TDS…
  - cmyk on 30/07/2024 - 18:29
    
    +3
    
    Get the tinfoil hat off will ya..
    https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-backs-away-…
    - vash5 on 31/07/2024 - 01:18
      
      +3
      
      Get the tinfoil hat off will ya..
      https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-backs-away-…
      
      My guy do you even read what you link??
      
      Headline:
      
      Trump backs away from debating Harris, defends Vance’s ‘childless cat lady’ comments
      
      3rd paragraph of article:
      
      But after Biden dropped out of the race and Harris became poised to be the Democratic presidential candidate, Trump has been questioning the terms of the original debate he agreed to with Biden. He has suggested the September 10 debate on ABC News should be moved to a different network, calling ABC “fake news.”
      
      4th paragraph of article:
      
      Last week, in a phone call with reporters, Trump was asked if he’d commit to debating Harris at least once. He responded: “Oh yes, absolutely. I’d want to,” and said there was an obligation to debate.
      
      6th paragraph of article and quoted directly
      
      “I want to do a debate. But I also can say this. Everybody knows who I am. And now people know who she is,” Trump said.
      
      People like you should not be allowed to vote.
      
      The Fact you had 3 upvotes at the time of my reply is a great example of how incompetent people who follow such foolish lies.
    - 1st-Amendment on 31/07/2024 - 07:52
      
      +2
      
      Get the tinfoil hat off will ya..
      
      So let's read your supplied media version of events and see how easily you were fooled:
      
      "Donald Trump seemed to"
      
      There it is, right in the first line, 'seemed to' is not a story, but gullible people will buy into anything that supports their existing beliefs
      
      Stop reading reading that junk, it's rotting your brain…
OneSilver on 30/07/2024 - 16:28

-7

Trump 2024!
- smartazz104 on 30/07/2024 - 20:03
  
  +2
  
  Yes in prison in 2024.
- dogboy on 30/07/2024 - 20:26
  
  I feel sorry for you.
GachaGamer on 30/07/2024 - 16:29

+6

So in the previous coffee beans thread that was trying to capitalize off the trump branding, I made a point that in today's highly political environment, its dangerous to needlessly push forth an agenda/market through outrage since you never know when some extremist on either side of the spectrum decides to do something stupid. That was on the 8th of July. On the 13th of July, a would be assassin attempted the assassination of former president Trump. So I'll bring the issue up again, why the (profanity) do we allow these types of posts? And are these posts worth potentially endangering yourself for???
- Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:30
  
  -7
  
  push forth an agenda/market through outrage since you never know when some extremist on either side of the spectrum decides to do something stupid.
  
  So that kid did what he did coz someone decided to sell Trump coffee beans??
  Gotcha👍🏻
  - GachaGamer on 30/07/2024 - 16:35
    
    +11
    
    How did you come to that conclusion reading what I said?
    
    Did you actually read what I wrote?
    
    Whether they're selling coffee or a stupid dancing toy is irrelevant to the crux of the issue - rage marketing in a highly political environment, and how it potentially exposes someone to the dangerous acts of another individual. The store in question here, has a history of posting just regular goods for their store. Yet it's only now that they've chosen to put forth a deal for a highly political toy, in an situation where both sides of the political spectrum are increasingly growing heated.
    - Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:52
      
      +1
      
      Did you actually read what I wrote?
      
      I did
      
      rage marketing in a highly political environment, and how it potentially exposes someone to the dangerous acts of another individual.
      
      But that’s a very defeatist approach to things.
      
      It’s almost like saying “women should stay at home coz there’s a lot of predatory men out there”.
      
      Assassination attempt on Trump was 100% avoidable, it should have never happened. Almost as if it was allowed to happen,
      
      chosen to put forth a deal for a highly political toy, in an situation where both sides of the political spectrum are increasingly growing heated.
      
      Businesses aren’t obligated to cater to the outraged kids over here who get so red at the mere mention of a man that has had zero negative impact on their actual lives.
      People need to grow up and learn to tolerate things they don’t agree with.
      - GachaGamer on 30/07/2024 - 17:08
        
        +5
        
        @Gervais fanboy: Yea no, that's not even the same issue and its incredulous as to why you have likened the two topics. It's not political to say that women deserve to feel safe regardless of what they're doing. It IS political to try and sell a toy of a highly political figure, after one of the most historical political moments in modern history, DURING the election season in which that political individual is running - one in which people consider another pivotal turning point in how the next several years will run.
        
        Businesses aren't obligated to do so, and never did I claim that they were. The issue is once again why they do so when its just so needlessly dangerous. And why such posts are allowed on this forum when we all know well that all it does it trigger a shitshow. You've stated that people should be tolerant of things, yet at the very same time are being intolerant of opposing opinions, dismissing them as that of "outraged kids". The irony.
      - Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 17:16
        
        +5
        
        @Gervais fanboy:
        
        People need to grow up and learn to tolerate things they don’t agree with.
        
        Do you think you're a good example of someone who has grown up and learned to tolerate things/people he disagrees with?
        
        Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 17:37
        
        +1
        
        @Crow K: Irony?
        
        You lie, neg and report things.
        I don’t.
        
        Do you think
        
        Don’t have to, you wouldn’t see me ever false negging posts or begging the mods to take down people’s posts.
        
        Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 17:43
        
        +5
        
        @Gervais fanboy: A lot of accusations about my activities and character for what should be a simple yes/no answer about your own behaviour.
        
        Strange.
        
        Still, if you're going to tell me you don't lie and you don't neg, then that's obviously a reliable statement we all believe and don't need to investigate further.
        
        Anyway, my original question still stands: are you a grown up person who tolerates people he disagrees with?
        
        Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 17:53
        
        @Crow K:
        
        A lot of accusations
        
        Fact - I had previously said ‘most’ people of a certain age group are aware of XYZ.
        You changed that to - me claiming ‘ALL’ people of that age group were aware of XYZ.
        When I pointed it out, you doubled down.
        You are a liar that wouldn’t even correct his lies when called out on it.
        
        then that's obviously a reliable statement
        
        Na, stuff that.
        You are always here replying to everything I post.
        So I ask you again, have you ever seen me frivolously negging deals or cribbing about mods not taking down a certain deal?
        
        It was a simple question and yet you couldn’t answer it. Hmm…
        
        my original question still stands
        
        Why be passive aggressive like this?
        You just indirectly clarified that you don’t find what I say reliable so what’s the point in me telling you anything anymore.
        As disingenuous as you are, Atleast be consistent with it. Why flip flop?
        
        Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 18:02
        
        +4
        
        @Gervais fanboy: A simple yes or no, my dude.
        
        Why you sweating so much?
        
        Yes or no? Are you an example of a grown up person who tolerates people he disagrees with?
        
        Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 18:09
        
        @Crow K: 🐦‍⬛
        
        Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 18:14
        
        +4
        
        @Gervais fanboy: In a nice loud voice, using your big boy words please.
        
        You haven't gone all shy on me have you, little buddy?
        
        youfnc on 30/07/2024 - 20:08
        
        +3
        
        @Crow K: He did his best to duck and weave. What a painful exchange that was..
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/07/2024 - 18:26
        
        +1
        
        @Crow K:
        
        Why you sweating so much?
        
        Guy calls out your passive aggressive behaviour and you respond by being even more passive aggressive… Self awareness = 0
        
        Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 18:34
        
        +3
        
        @1st-Amendment: Isn't it: Gervais tells everyone else about a standard of behaviour they should have, can't answer a yes/no question if he himself meets that standard?
        
        Is holding people accountable now a passive aggressive thing?
        
        1st-Amendment on 30/07/2024 - 18:41
        
        +2
        
        @Crow K:
        
        Is holding people accountable now a passive aggressive thing?
        
        The nature in which you do it is.
        And you're not holding anyone accountable to anything. This is an anonymous internet forum where people talk shit all day. You've vastly overestimated your authority here.
        
        Crow K on 30/07/2024 - 18:49
        
        +3
        
        @1st-Amendment: If you can't see the hypocrisy in criticizing other people's behaviour when it's something you yourself can't do, then I can't help you.
        
        For all the talk of me somehow overestimating my authority I certainly got a few squirms and "well what about" slabs of dissembling text out of a simple question that asked for a single yes/no answer, didn't I?
        
        I wonder why that is.
        
        Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 21:07
        
        -4
        
        @Crow K:
        
        everyone else
        
        Everyone?
        Damn, you start off with a lie, Ofcos you do.
        
        if he himself meets that standard?
        
        But you are acting in bad faith now (as you do)
        Coz I did respond and you dismissed what I said with —
        
        that's obviously a reliable statement we all believe
        
        So, if you don’t believe me at all to begin with and can’t provide any facts against me either, why are you insisting that I should even bother responding to you???
        
        can't answer a yes/no question
        
        I actually did present my point by asking you to focus on my actions rather than me telling you something that you aren’t going to believe anyways.
        I already answered earlier -
        
        “Don’t have to, you wouldn’t see me ever false negging posts or begging the mods to take down other people’s posts.”
        
        How did that not answer your question already.
    - 1st-Amendment on 30/07/2024 - 18:23
      
      +1
      
      rage marketing
      
      The only people selling rage are media outlets claiming Trump is Hitler and it's the end of the world.
      Here's a thought experiment for you. Had the media not spent every waking moment of the last eight years force feeding you 'rage marketing' about Trump, what is the worst thing that you can think of that happened?
      Was it the lower unemployment that gets people upset? The lower inflation? The greater global peace? The stronger borders? Take away the media lies and Trump did a pretty decent job when he was President. Most American voters seem to realise this hence why he leading in the polls.
      Switch off the media and see how much of this 'rage marketing' instantly evaporates.
      - GachaGamer on 30/07/2024 - 19:03
        
        +10
        
        @1st-Amendment: It's not one side doing rage marketing. Even as we speak, there are republicans denouncing Kamala for things including: taking away plastic straws; sleeping her way to her position; not having kids and being a traditional wife.
        
        And here are the answers to your "thought" experiment:
        
        Unemployment was actually lower under Biden than Trump, though Trump's unemployment rate was lower than Obama's - despite this, Trump remains the only president in modern history that has left his position with less jobs than we he started. Part of this is due to Obama inheriting/experiencing the GFC, whilst Trump experienced the coronavirus.
        
        Inflation was higher under Trump compared to Obama, but lower under Trump compared to Biden - this is mainly from confounding factors resulting from both the aftereffects of covid, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the related issues.
        
        Global peace has been worse since Trump took increasingly provocative stances. Be it his decision to befriend several authoritarian leaders, or his personal relationships with individuals the west now considers non-friendly's. Look no further than any evaluation of the perception/approval of America under Trump's leadership - with America being what most would consider the largest deterrent, yet under Trump's approach grew increasingly agnostic against what would be considered many of America's traditional allies.
        
        Borders actually did not improve under Trump, whilst legal immigration declined under trump, illegal immigration increased during the period of his presidency, with his final year having more than his first year despite covid. In fact, 2019 had the highest number of illegal border crossings than any given year of Obama's presidency. They did however get "worse" during Biden's time.
        
        So how does any of this prove that Trump would be the superior candidate? Most American voters aren't even privy to these facts, and the reason Trump is leading in the polls is because of political theatre.
        
        dogboy on 30/07/2024 - 20:20
        
        +3
        
        @GachaGamer: I think it is a bit unfair to use facts against a Trump supporter. All they know is hate and bigotry.
        
        1st-Amendment on 31/07/2024 - 08:32
        
        +3
        
        @GachaGamer:
        
        It's not one side doing rage marketing.
        
        I agree. But it is the media on both sides doing 99% of it.
        
        And here are the answers to your "thought" experiment:
        
        Alrighty let's see how this goes…
        
        Unemployment was actually lower under Biden than Trump,
        
        Ok so you've missed the point here. At the point in time when Trump was President, (prior to the Covid anomaly which skewed everything everywhere), unemployment was at it's lowest since the 1950's. So the claim that Trump was bad is clearly 'rage marketing', since he had the best figures in 70 years at that point.
        Also, Biden is worse than Trump in employment, remove the Covid bump and there is a clear upwards trend here: https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-une…
        
        My point is here is not to argue detail of a 0.1% here or there, it's that under Trump things were doing 'pretty good', unlike the media version (rage marketing - I like that term, I'm going to use it) of events where we were told every day that he was Satan.
        
        Inflation was higher under Trump compared to Obama
        
        Stagnant growth is just as bad as too high when it comes to inflation. Again the point is that things were not 'bad' under Trump they were actually in the good range (very good in fact). Again not Satan.
        
        Global peace has been worse since Trump took increasingly provocative stances.
        
        So no wars is 'worse' than multiple wars? That sounds like mental gymnastics…
        When he left office, Obama said that the biggest threat was North Korea (remember when Kim was firing missiles over Japan?). Trump sorted that out immediately and now we never hear from him again.
        Putin invaded Ukraine under Obama because he knew he could. He stopped under Trump, then invaded again under Biden because he knew he could.
        
        Soft men create hard times…
        
        Look no further than any evaluation of the perception/approval
        
        By whom? People who agree with you that the media conveniently cherry picks? Based on the actions of our enemies, which is the only metric that counts, it's clear who is worse.
        
        Borders actually did not improve under Trump
        
        Oh man, you're getting into lala land now. The border situation was deliberate interference with by Congress who blocked him at every turn. You can't deny that Trump has the strictest approach to border control. This is literally his most popular policy. We can see the effects of that now that Democrat policy has been in place for the last 4 years: https://www.statista.com/statistics/247071/illegal-aliens-ap…
        
        So how does any of this prove that Trump would be the superior candidate?
        
        You didn't read the question. The argument is not that Trump is 'superior' it's that on paper, Trump presidency was 'mostly good'. Decent employment figures, decent economic figures, decent foreign policy figures etc. You can argue about 1% here and there, but you can't deny that it was overall 'mostly good'.
        Now compare the figures to the reporting where every day it was reported that Trump was Satan. You spoke of 'Rage Marketing', and this is the perfect example. The media turned a 'mostly good' Trump presidency into the apocalypse all through 'rage marketing'. Trump isn't your enemy, the media is.
        
        Most American voters aren't even privy to these facts
        
        I know a few, and they tell me they see it every time they go to buy food, or 'gas', this is why Trump has record support among Blacks and Latinos, not because they all woke up and decided to love Trump, but because they see every day how bad things are getting by looking in their wallets. And things were better with Trump in charge.
        
        the reason Trump is leading in the polls is because of political theatre.
        
        The reason he is leading is because despite attempts by media to deceive them, people can see through the lies every time they get a 'pay check' or buy food or gas.
        Trump is not the bad guy in the story, the media and their 'rage marketing' are. And thankfully a lot of people are waking up to this fact.
        
        GachaGamer on 31/07/2024 - 09:15
        
        +2
        
        @1st-Amendment: So you've gone from "The only people selling rage are media outlets claiming Trump is Hitler and it's the end of the world." to "I agree. But it is the media on both sides doing 99% of it." which doesn't address the issue of you calling out 1 single side as the bad actor, and only trying to "both side" the argument when called out, only to again highlight one sides alleged bias.
        
        Unemployment was actually not the lowest under Trump. Seasonally adjusted for, then Eisenhower, Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson and Biden all had lower unemployment rates during their term(s). Trump is not even below the seasonally adjusted average for the last 80~ years. You saying that we can't count it because of Covid, yet ignoring the the factors impacting other presidential terms is hypocrisy.
        
        This notion of stagnant growth being part of the Biden administrations legacy is odd. Under Trump even factoring in Covid, inflation adjusted annualised growth was still higher under Biden. Ask any reputable economist, and they would answer that whilst things could've been done better in retrospect, the actions the Biden administration took were to the benefit of the economy given the then economic circumstances. So are you saying that Biden's term was marred by stagnation? Then what of Trumps who's growth was worse? Would that then count as regression?
        
        So how are these wars the fault of the current Biden administration? Did they cozy up to Russia and support the invasion of Ukraine? Were they personal close associates of Putin? North Korea has not been solved, to this day no tangible results have been proven whilst the rogue state continues to practice launch weapons at its border neighbours. This nonsense that Obama allowed for the invasion as did Biden is hysterical. And you say "soft men" as if Trump didn't weasel his way out off enlistment.
        
        By the many research institutions around the world who have done independent polling.
        
        And how so am I getting into "lalaland"? You do understand how congress works correct? And the current state of both the upper and lower chambers of American congress? You do understand the state of bipartisan support for border legislation correct?
        
        Trump was not "mostly" good, very few of his actions have been considered good, with the subsequent effects on the economy being less a direct result of his own actions, and more of the wider global situation. And no the media isn't the "enemy", what IS the enemy is you parroting Trump's point about distrust over the media as your rationale to excuse your bigoted views.
        
        Source "trust me bro"
        
        No the reason isn't because people have suddenly had a realization. It's that the majority of people don't actually read (much like yourself) deeper into the fine details of policy. Instead what they rely on is impression and showmanship. Both of which Trump is good at. Trump is in fact, very much a bad guy to a lot of Americans, and the very idea that you dismiss them as being brainwashed just highlights the issue even more. You espouse the very arguments being made by those on the right side of the media, yet adamantly claim that the media itself is brainwashing those individuals, unable to even see your own brainwashing.
        
        1st-Amendment on 31/07/2024 - 10:11
        
        @GachaGamer:
        
        So you've gone from "The only people selling rage are media outlets claiming Trump is Hitler and it's the end of the world." to "I agree. But it is the media on both sides doing 99% of it
        
        It's the same thing… Media is the bad guy in the story… both left and right. They all sell rage…
        
        Unemployment was actually not the lowest under Trump
        
        Read what I wrote. At the point of Trumps presidency in 2019 it was the lowest (3.4%) Since the 50's (Truman/Eisenhower era)
        I also said that I'm not quibbling over 0.1% here or there, the point is that it was good and not bad. The media said bad, it was quite clearly good.
        
        This notion of stagnant growth being part of the Biden administrations legacy is odd.
        
        It is odd, and I never made it. It was stagnant under Obama, the worst/slowest recovery after a major financial collapse. Again, I'm not quibbling over small percentage points, the claim was that Trump was bad, but the economy hummed along quite well.
        
        So how are these wars the fault of the current Biden administration?
        
        We are not privy to what happens behind closed doors, but we know that everyone behaved themselves when Trump was in charge and they didn't under Obama or Biden. Again, the media idea that Trump was bad is quite clearly false since there no new wars. Isn't no new wars good? How can good be construed as bad unless you are deliberately lying?
        
        By the many research institutions around the world who have done independent polling.
        
        Oh right, polling… lol
        What about actual wars? Doesn't that carry more weight? Or just 'opinions' of 'experts' who have a nasty habit of being wrong most of the time?
        
        You do understand the state of bipartisan support for border legislation correct?
        
        I understand that illegal immigration is at record levels due to Biden Policies. Do you agree with the official figures?
        
        Trump was not "mostly" good
        
        Economy was good, unemployment was good, conflict was good, border control was good, middle east peace was good. That sounds like mostly good to me. What metrics do you have to support the idea that Trump was Hitler like the media has been saying for the last 8 years?
        
        distrust over the media as your rationale to excuse your bigoted views
        
        What 'bigoted views? Please be specific here.
        
        I distrust the media because they have constantly been found to lie and lie and lie again. Take the example of the Trump assassination attempt. CNN were there live reporting and their headline was "Secret Service rushes Trump off stage after he falls at rally".
        
        Tell me that is anything other than a deliberate lie.
        https://www.turkiyetoday.com/world/popping-sounds-at-rally-h…
        
        Go to Google and start typing 'Assassination Attempt on Trump" and watch how auto-complete doesn't work. It's easy to see if you open your eyes.
        
        Source "trust me bro"
        
        I provided sources in my reply. What a strange thing to say. What have you provided other than your opinion? The hypocrisy here is comical.
        
        No the reason isn't because people have suddenly had a realization
        
        They have actually. I spend a bit of time over there, I know a few people living there and I've noticed the change first hand. Do you have sources for your opinion other than what you read online?
        
        It's that the majority of people don't actually read (much like yourself)
        
        Source: "Trust me bro"
        I read a great deal, just not media junk. I read court transcripts and official government publications and policy docs. Reality is almost always different to the media version of events. You should try it some time, you might be shocked.
        
        You espouse the very arguments being made by those on the right side of the media, yet adamantly claim that the media itself is brainwashing those individuals, unable to even see your own brainwashing.
        
        Interesting hypothesis. But since I don't watch/read hardly any media on any side how can I possibly be brainwashed by it? Your credibility is taking a hit here when you make these unsubstantiated claims.
        
        This leads to the obvious question, where are you getting your info from?
        
        Trump is in fact, very much a bad guy to a lot of Americans
        
        Sure, because the media said so and stupid people exist. The point of my post was that can you point to all these bad things he is supposed to have done without citing a media beat-up? Because when you turn off the media, the official figures all look 'mostly good', very few bad things. Certainly not the Satan/Hitler/End-of-the-world claims that get thrown around every day in the media.
        
        Crow K on 31/07/2024 - 11:09
        
        -1
        
        @GachaGamer: You're doing God's work fact checking this guy, but you're also speedrunning the "oh, 1st-amendment is a dyed in the wool actual conspiracy theorist" course.
        
        Someone @me if he starts on his SovCit "all taxation is theft and not metaphorically" stuff again, it's marginally more interesting than "things about American politics i saw on a telegram video while Doing My Own Research"
        
        1st-Amendment on 31/07/2024 - 12:07
        
        +1
        
        @Crow K:
        
        fact checking
        
        An opinion is not a fact. I really wish people would learn the difference…
  - GachaGamer on 30/07/2024 - 16:39
    
    +7
    
    Sorry, but not even for a moment would this be believable. Given the circumstances of what has just occurred, you posting this deal now of all times, and then stating "its just a joke" would be like someone bringing a gun rights flag right after a shooting had just occurred. You clearly know what you are doing, and there was no chance everyone in this forum would just take it for shits and giggles.
  - Kaise on 30/07/2024 - 16:40
    
    +2
    
    The issue with the waving figure is who it's of… Maybe you should post another deal with someone from Germany who shares similar values doing a salute and see how that goes..
    - bargaino on 30/07/2024 - 16:55
      
      +3
      
      Paging Dr Godwin …
  - May4th on 30/07/2024 - 16:47
    
    do you do custom orders? I'd like to order a saluting hitler and waving chairman mao. any discounts on combined shipping?
    - 1st-Amendment on 31/07/2024 - 10:23
      
      +1
      
      I'd like to order a saluting hitler and waving chairman mao
      
      You can't do the Hitler one, but Mao, Stalin, Castro etc are all good. Che is the best one, you can wear your Che T-shirt to Uni and show all the cool kids how edgy you are. Some mass murders are more acceptable than others for some arbitrary reasons…
nomoneynoproblems on 30/07/2024 - 16:29

+2

Cringe
THL on 30/07/2024 - 16:29

+7

*no actual guarantees will be made

Yep that actually sounds exactly right
gusk12 on 30/07/2024 - 16:30

+4

Not a deal, looks like a piece of junk to me.
OneSilver on 30/07/2024 - 16:30

+1

Deal was $3 when trump was in office biden has made this increase in price
Ocker on 30/07/2024 - 16:30

+6

I am waiting for them to bring out a Daniel Andrews version - that will really light up the boards of OZB
- McFly on 30/07/2024 - 17:31
  
  I'd buy one. So many possibilities…
monky on 30/07/2024 - 16:31

+1

It actually moves around a lot, great for target practice!
stickyfingers on 30/07/2024 - 16:31

+3

Landfill
Sammyboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:34

+2

Should make one that turns its head!
Epiuse on 30/07/2024 - 16:34

This is why I love ozb 🍿
AircraftFreight on 30/07/2024 - 16:35

+32

Mods and Admins do better, this is just an attempt at someone to stir shit up here in the comments. Not a deal, $3.34 on AliExpress
- Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:35
  
  -7
  
  Just keep scrolling then, why bother to read the comments and then engage on top of it.
  - AircraftFreight on 30/07/2024 - 16:36
    
    +7
    
    Not a deal $3.34 on AliExpress - thats my main comment along with the comment to the mods and admins
    
    Domestically, $1 cheaper here https://ecchoice.com.au/shop/chruchils/gifts/other/donald-tr…
    - AssociatedArcherVice @ Smooth Sales on 30/07/2024 - 16:41
      
      -7
      
      $11 shipping and you don't get a free dancing cactus!
      - HolyCr4p on 30/07/2024 - 18:48
        
        +1
        
        @ArcherVice: $11 shipping !!!!!
        
        Shut up and dont take my money
    - Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:42
      
      +2
      
      Fair enough
      
      Mods and Admins do better, this is just an attempt at someone to stir shit up here in the comments.
      
      I’ll pretend I didn’t just read this, I guess.
  - Gehirn on 30/07/2024 - 16:36
    
    +4
    
    I hate when people comment that I can get things cheaper elsewhere.
  - Dogstar on 30/07/2024 - 16:54
    
    -2
    
    Angy bois downvoting you because scrolling is hard. xD
cashews on 30/07/2024 - 16:36

+6

Landfill junk. Weird marketing for a business.
- Gervais fanboy on 30/07/2024 - 16:39
  
  -8
  
  Lowkey agree with that take
  
  Btw have you exhausted all your negs yet? How many more left?
DV0993 on 30/07/2024 - 16:37

+3

This is one way to identify the woke Ozbargainers
- werdplaya58 on 30/07/2024 - 17:00
  
  +9
  
  Yeah, this deal seems pretty woke to me - I mean it has solar power and free stuff. And it makes us embrace Mexican culture too.
MaxPanic on 30/07/2024 - 16:37

+7

Downvoting because it's not an accurate likeness. Has two ears.
- Dogstar on 30/07/2024 - 16:55
  
  +6
  
  So does Trump, miraculously.
haydent on 30/07/2024 - 16:40

+1

So, wait. You get two dancing cacti?
moorey on 30/07/2024 - 16:42

+6

junk
whitepuma on 30/07/2024 - 16:45

+4

regardless of your political view, the OP's description its hilarious
Gehirn on 30/07/2024 - 16:45

Why get this defeated leader when you can get Frieza for 0.25c?
- AssociatedArcherVice @ Smooth Sales on 30/07/2024 - 16:46
  
  +1
  
  We do still have a lot of Frieza's left….
Lets Go Brandon on 30/07/2024 - 16:50

+1

Great deal for #47!
tightm8 on 30/07/2024 - 16:52

+1

Shipping is what kills it for me.
GameBunny on 30/07/2024 - 16:53

+2

The mouth is too small, I will pass.
- lilchonk on 30/07/2024 - 17:11
  
  oh u teehee
9674784 on 30/07/2024 - 16:57

+4

Why would anyone promote a criminal, misogynist and racist?
- R4 on 30/07/2024 - 17:14
  
  +3
  
  Because of Kamala the cat lady
- McFly on 30/07/2024 - 17:33
  
  +4
  
  Oh do they have a Joe one as well?
- imcold on 30/07/2024 - 20:06
  
  +1
  
  That simple, every criminal deserves a second chance, it'll just show how the current American policy being sympathetic to criminals is an excellent policy, when even a criminal can become the POTUS. Just think of him as Aladdin on the road to becoming the leader of the free world.
- EitherWayUp on 30/07/2024 - 20:19
  
  +2
  
  This is exactly what the “orange man bad” crowd would say.
JohnHowardsEyebrows on 30/07/2024 - 16:58

+8

I am certainly grateful for Trump outing the low IQ fascists among us.
- R4 on 30/07/2024 - 17:12
  
  +4
  
  'fascists'
  
  lol!!
  - JohnHowardsEyebrows on 30/07/2024 - 17:17
    
    +6
    
    Project2025, champ. You might be too gullible to put two and two together, but the majority won't be. Oh, and the insurrection when he lost…
    - unity1 on 30/07/2024 - 17:45
      
      +7
      
      Name one single case where anyone, including Trump, was even levelled with the charge of insurrection? You keep using terminology which doesn't fit the events which took place.
      - McFly on 30/07/2024 - 17:50
        
        +2
        
        @unity1: They regurgitate the terminology they're fed.
      - JohnHowardsEyebrows on 30/07/2024 - 17:55
        
        +3
        
        @unity1: He's being indicted you cabbage. The only thing getting in the way is his hand picked supreme court judges.

This was posted 4 months 23 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Buy 1 Solar Powered Waving USA President $6.95 & Get 1 Dancing Mexican Cactus Free + Shipping (Free MEL C&C) @ Smooth Sales

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals