351
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 hour ago

Probably pooped his pants lol

[-] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 42 points 13 hours ago

According to Trump, Weinstein got “schlonged. ... He got hit as hard as you can get hit."

I uhh.. don’t think that’s what that word means..

[-] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 6 points 34 minutes ago

I’ve never heard that word used like this, but I think he’s trying to say “boned” which equates to wronged. He (Trump) is wrong though. Weinstein got what he deserved.

[-] Jeffool@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

When Trump was running the first time for the 2016 election he got a lot of attention for using that word. I remember an NPR host saying how he'd used it before in a similar context that Trump did (a political loss), but at the same time he was regretful about it. I don't remember the details but actually let me search...

Neal Conan. I'm fairly certain I remember him talking about it on the radio, was why this rang a bell for me. But apparently he even wrote an op Ed about it: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1223-conan-schlonged-20151223-story.html

Conan used it literally once in a political context and regretted it as you can read above. And he seems to have vaguely meant it in a way you might say "wow, they got fucked" as you might say about someone being cheated, or "fucked up" for beaten up. Like ruined in some way, not with a literal sexual meaning, just a vague association because of the word itself.

Not that this makes it any more couth or anything; feel how you want to feel about it. Clearly saying "they got fucked" still has that same vulgar sound, so we avoid it in polite conversation, so I imagined a word that sounds so vulgar would probably be avoided by a high profile politician, as given people feel weird about it. And it happened twice.

I just think it's interesting that it's come up again. Language is weird.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago

Well, to his credit, he could be correct in that Weinstein got "schlonged" in prison.

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

He was pounded in the ass.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 13 points 8 hours ago

his ass was probably burning from sitting in his shitfilled diaper that long

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 76 points 16 hours ago

I went and checked the source: https://bongino.com/ep-2353-live-with-president-donald-trump

He sits down at timestamp 33:34 and says that remark at timestamp 1:09:12. So he was there for 35 minutes.

The characterisation "a few minutes into their discussion" seems disingenuous.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 37 points 16 hours ago

Raw Story may be on the same side as us but they are still complete trash. Headline is often a straight-up lie.

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 20 points 15 hours ago

35 minutes doesn't seem very long for an interview. Is expecting the presidential candidate to remain lucid and coherent for slightly more than a half hour too much to ask?

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 15 hours ago

No no, that's not what I'm saying. Just that there's no need to over dramatise the events in a way that makes your point shakier than it has to be.

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 0 points 7 hours ago

And what I'm saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.

[-] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 hours ago

A few minutes is like, five minutes.

Actually, now I'm remembering all the times I've disagreed with people on their use of the phrase "a few," so I'm starting to see how this could be more a matter of opinion...

Still something I wouldn't expect a professional writer and/or editor to let slip unless they were purposely looking to embellish, though.

[-] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 3 hours ago

I think we agree here. "A few" is debatable, based on opinion, but also context matters. If I say I need a few minutes to either put on my shoes, prepare dinner, wake up, take a shower, or take dump, those are all different lengths of time. I just feel that conversation and interviews take a lot more time than the edited results we commonly see in print and on TV. Things like pauses to reflect on questions, introductions, and warm up questions never make it to publication. If I was asked to sit for an interview and it ended after 35 minutes, I would absolutely characterise that as "a few minutes". And unless I'd ended it myself, I'd be concerned that it ended too quickly. If it had ended that wuickly, I'd be worried about what insane things I had done in those few minutes to provide them with enough material for a piece or that they had cancelled the piece entirely because they quickly determined I wasn't worth continuing the interview. That is my opinion, but I feel that it's well grounded in my experience and expectations, especially for a sit down interview with a candidate. I can see how calling 35 minutes "a few minutes" could be characterised as exaggerated, but getting incensed over it in a headline (a large font single line intended to grab attention in a few words) is overcompensating a bit.

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 hours ago

I would disagree with that, but I'm not a native speaker, so I'm on shaky ground here.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago

There's no context where 35 = "a few".

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 95 points 19 hours ago

He's suffering from frontotemporal dementia. This is relatively certain. The town hall was classic sundown syndrome. The fundamentalists know this and are going to have him removed from office shortly after the election (if he wins). The democrats would gladly take the opportunity to remove him, as would many republicans. Unfortunately that would put Vance in the oval office which should terrify anyone who doesn't want to larp a handmaid's tale.

As a European I find it utterly bewildering that people seriously consider voting for him. But alas I don't get a say in it.

[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 8 points 3 hours ago

If you watched exclusively right-wing media, you would get heavily edited (and mercifully brief) presentations of Trump, along with hours of talking heads playing him up while demonizing Harris (and of course heavily edited presentations of the Democrat). The issue is not with their choice of Trump but with their choices of what media to consume - the latter choices lead quite logically and inevitably to the former choice.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Careful with yer language there, pardner, lest you force us to export some freedom to your country. We've been spoilin' for a real fight for some time now. Our poors would love nothing better than a meaningful mission, food, housing, and healthcare, and we've got all this incredible murder tech that we don't get to use, all provided by Uncle Sam.

JD Vance is a flawless beauty with wonderful concepts of ideas, and I won't hear anything different, got it, Sharon?

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 28 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

That shit was harrowing at the retirement home I worked at. I only worked during the day, so the worst thing I saw was falls. My fiancé's brother worked at night, though. The residents would get stir crazy at night. They'd try to "escape," and they'd be found laying in the nearby hospital's flower bead. This was in NON-assisted living. Trump definitely reminds me of those residents. They'd end up walking to the hospital because it was the only place they knew how to get to, but they didn't know why they were walking there. They just wanted to escape. A lot of them expected their old house/ kid's house.

[-] Zementid@feddit.nl 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

There are fake Bus Stations in front of some Nursery Homes with patients for dementia, because when they escape.... they wait for the Bus.

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 1 points 55 minutes ago

That's a good one!

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

My grandma did that. She escaped a dozen times, even behind a passcode door.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 31 points 18 hours ago

Dude there's a whole cottage industry here that's dedicated to trying to understand why people vote for him, and the answers are as varied as they are stupid.

[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago

But how else will podcasters, ring light, and audio equipment manufacturers make a living? Who will hear about FACTOR meals and $40 underwear with neon laser rainbow cats?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago

The best explanation I've come up with after discussing politics at length with them is that they are gaslit. Pure and simple. They just have enough gullibility to see one tiny thing that coincides with something they were taught or otherwise believe. It also explains why they are being scammed so easily on truthsocial.

Trump just has that dirty salesman skill of creating a story with just enough validity or truth and twisting everything to his favor.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 4 points 11 hours ago

There's a lot more that we can add to that. Washington politics are so amazingly dirty, they have been for decades, everyone knows it, and Trump is different from other people. He's actually even dirtier than most career politicians, but he feels different from them.

You also have the problem that some government institutions are corrupt and big business is very corrupt. It's easier for people to imagine that conspiracy theories are true when they can openly see badness happening around them left unchecked. For example, if I watch on TV or YouTube and I see a court case where the prosecutor, lead detectives, and the judge are all incredibly biased and some of them are bad liars, then I know something is wrong with that courthouse. I might extrapolate and conclude that something is wrong with all courthouses. Which is to say, I've become more vulnerable to conspiracy theories because real bad behavior is left unchecked.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

It's also important not to forget the interpersonal aspect of how their lot get news. A lot of them believe their family and friends' words more than a published news source. I see an echo to how urban myths got spread in pre-internet days: a neighbor's cousin's best friend's coworker swears the story really happened to them! It must be true!

When a story is emotionally-engaging enough, it will get spread without ever being questioned. Trump's path to power basically hijacked (and reinforced) that pre-existing tendency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ZeroCool@slrpnk.net 132 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Bottom line, if he can’t handle the stresses of a campaign then he can’t handle the stresses of the Presidency and you can bet your life that they’re already plotting to remove him by way of the 25th amendment inside of a year. So this isn’t about Trump anymore, this is about preventing a Vance ~~Presidency~~ Dictatorship.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 22 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

What stress as president? He just golfs and when pushed for a decision on something, just picks randomly from the options presented. He doesn't even bother understand what the options are. Remember the whole injecting bleach crap? That was him literally glancing at a slide and running with it, obviously with no prior briefing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 56 points 19 hours ago

Among the bizarre topics Trump discussed was his empathy for former producer Harvey Weinstein, saying that he was treated badly after being found guilty on one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault in New York.

He recognizes fellow travelers. Creep.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 37 points 19 hours ago

I really hate that the only people reporting anything like this are sites like rawstory and dailybeast. Meanwhile, NYT and NPR are reporting on how Kamala is testy and Trump is friendly.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 18 hours ago

Oh yeah. Seems that she's "emotional", unlike Trump. Think that people are probably projecting their misogyny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dariusj18@lemmy.world 82 points 21 hours ago

Remember: the presidency ages people. How long would he be president?

Oddly, this is something that didn't seem to happen to Trump. We all know why of course, he didn't actually do the job of being President.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 58 points 21 hours ago

Because he doesn't actually do any work, and only worries about himself.

In contrast, presidents like Obama and Biden age quickly because they're actually working nonstop, and stressing out about world events.

[-] b34k@lemmy.world 43 points 21 hours ago

That’s why he’s aging so fast right now… he’s working really hard to try and stay out of prison!

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 30 points 21 hours ago

Donald did no work. He only watched TV, golfed, held rallies. He spent more time on the toilet producing whatever it was that took so many flushes than he did on the job.

Donald aged quickly afterwards and especially after the start of his court cases for the numerous crimes.

[-] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 41 points 21 hours ago

I won't be sad when this shit stain is gone from public life.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 39 points 21 hours ago

I will be extremely sad if he leaves us with President Vance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NoForwardslashS@sopuli.xyz 26 points 20 hours ago

Don't you think he looks tired

[-] figaro@lemdro.id 14 points 18 hours ago

So I just watched the clip. Granted the clip was only a few seconds, and yes I believe he is old and senile. But.

The clip doesn't seem to give evidence of anything specific. He might have to pee for all we know.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dance_ninja@lemmy.world 34 points 21 hours ago

"Among the bizarre topics Trump discussed was his empathy for former producer Harvey Weinstein, saying that he was treated badly after being found guilty on one count of rape and two counts of sexual assault in New York."

From the clip it's hard to get context, but it sounds more like he was saying things that were too crazy for his handlers.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
351 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19062 readers
3823 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS