Honestly it’s a little how my mom talks when she gets upset. Just a stream of things that are loosely connected but are all bobbing along on the same river of emotion.
It’s how I get stuff like “You never call me you call your cousin he’s cheating on his wife you know just because you broke up with your girlfriend doesn’t mean you have to take it out on me”. You can kind of see how there’s a shared feeling or theme there but it’s not articulated.
I’m going to guess that for someone who produces output like that, input of that type goes in easily. They’re just vibing on the emotions.
I randomly saw this “post emo” band at a local venue. It seems they’ve moved beyond words into pure emotional vomit: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVoS5NlhF-g
It’s one thing all the parodies like SNL miss. Every mockery of him makes more sense than his babble, because you need things to make some sense to be funny for more than 90 seconds.
“Covfefe” gives you what, two seconds of a joke? When you work it into something, that something ends up more coherent than actual Trump.
On Jan 17 Trump told a New Hampshire audience: “We’re going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you from your—you know, your political beliefs, what they do. They want to debank you, and we’re going to debank—think of this. They want to take away your rights. They want to take away your country. The things they’re doing. All electric cars.”
He’s talking about investment funds that cut out fossil fuels from their portfolio and focus on green energy. You can probably find one in your retirement account if you want to allocate a certain percentage to it. I think they were trying to put a stop to it when he was still in office.
Weird. I watched the live stream (well, a recording of it) and at about 2:25:00:00 ish, he talks about there being an imminent terrorist attack unless he’s president. It will come from the south border bevaue “they” let unwanted people through like mental patients, criminals, etc.
I don’t and can’t understand how this dude is the front runner again. AGAIN?!
An internal combustion engine came up to me, big strong internal combustion engine, tears in his eyes, and said “Sir, I want to thank for all you’ve done for this country, from the bottom of my spark plugs.”
Which is exactly who he’s talking to, which is exactly the type of person that has the time to get out and vote when the time comes without really thinking about anything else.
All the talk about Biden being mentally unifit coming out of the Trump camp has to be pure projection. Trump is what, only 4 years younger? He’s had some gaffes just as bad imo
for just a moment, think, you stupid ass: who’s more open to a two state solution and life in Palestine - biden or trump?
goooo ahead, elect trump and watch palestine literally disappear under bibi/trump.
USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, they’re people you dolt not point in a silly game, and you’re gimbling with their lives. Trump won’t give two shits about their genocide. He’ll probably raise more support for bibi.
damn do I have to spell every single thing out to you? with crayons?
trump’s not gonna help anyone but himself. meanwhile biden insists on a two state solution.
Trump is involved in the least conflicts out of our presidents in the last 2 decades. I’m not voting for the guy either, but Trump isn’t exactly beholden to Israel like establishment Dems (Biden) are. I’m not saying Trump will save Gaza, but his record during his last term points to less enabling than even a democratic president would.
I’m just saying there isn’t a lot of credence to the “Trump will be even worse for Gaza”, pretending like there is is just scare tactics. Biden literally is aiding a genocide right now, that means a lot more than “Trump might”.
Again, I’m not a Trump voter, I just think we should be fair here.
Yes? Is being a Biden critic equal to being a Trump voter? Those things are not the same, but okay. Trump is a bigoted turd, we all know this.
Here’s some facts, Biden is supporting a religious ethnostate carrying out at the least a mass displacement and slaughter of a people, and at the most, aiding and abetting a genocide.
Trump is the first US president since Carter to not lead us into a new war or escalate a current conflict. That’s a fact.
continue to cherry pick random bullshit and call it history, and even then your arguments are pointless.
got any more sport? you keep mouthing off but have nothing to show for it, not a single fact that supports your premise, you literally are a waste of time.
Mouthing off? Literally my only point was that Trump isn’t as much of a war hawk as other presidents, Democrats included, so the argument about him being worse for Palestinians isn’t very sound, that’s it.
Relax, my dude, we’re probably more aligned politically than you’re allowing yourself to believe right now and I understand that. This issue hits close to home for me, and I find support for the Palestinian occupation to be pretty bipartisan, unfortunately. Just trying to draw attention to that, it’s not so much that Trump is this paragon of peace, it’s that Biden isn’t, and that sucks.
Clinton (and Obama, for that matter) were exceptionally young presidents.
Clinton was the youngest president at the time of his induction since Kennedy (Kennedy was also the youngest President at the end of his term for other reasons, namely because it was the youngest a President had ever died, if that makes sense). JFK was the youngest since TR, who was the youngest ever, and Obama was only a year or so younger than Clinton at the time of induction.
Okay, but we have to pick the lesser evil senile candidate. We only have two choices. And even if a third party guy were to run, a vote for that guy would actually be a vote for one of the other two guys.
For sure. But the problem is systemic. Having to “vote for the lesser evil” is symptom of a “winner takes all”-election/governance.
Throw in private interests in of the primaries candidate selection, add extensive private ownership of media coverage, and you complete the pretence of “by the people”.
Either the US does a redo of the election process, or we’ll see if the next fascist coup attempt sticks or not. I suppose learning from history and Hitler’s initial failed coup, is a bit too on the nose. But, then again, had it happened in the US today, he wouldn’t have been put in jail for treason, and then might not have written Mein Kampf, and perhaps then also not manage to succeed in the second coup?
It’s not like we’re repeating this storyline play by play. Hitler didn’t use the term “fake news” in an effort to undermine the function of the press and critical reporting… Because he spoke German, and they called it “große Lüge” instead.
We should be precise. 7th grade reading skill is roughly where uou should be at 12 years old. A 7th grade reading level is literate, able to read and understand most words, and able to derive meaning.
Adult illiteracy is nothing to be ashamed of. More adults should seek help with their literacy skills, and people should not be made to feel stupid just because the educational and social support systems failed them in one way or another.
Celebrating ignorance is the real problem. Trump is not just illiterate, he’s incoherent. His statements are gibberish, and his followers revel in the confusion and consternation he evokes in others.
In my highschool journalism class, we were taught to write to the level of our readers, and that the average reading level for adults in the US is 6th grade. I think 3rd grade is the target now.
This concerns me more than the rest. It’s like Nostradamus: it invites one to draw conclusions from complete nonsense. And like the literary equivalent of a Rorschach test, the reader inevitably sees a piece of themself reflected on the page, and the experience is distinct yet repeatable by everybody.
That’s a problem even with proper English with good grammar. There’s a certain bias in the assumptions of the speaker and listener, which contributes to misunderstandings which are easily observed in almost every human interaction. The ambiguity of language is hard to avoid. The fact is that the speaker makes many unconscious assumptions about the listener understanding the context under which they are making their statements, and the listener must make assumptions on the context under which the speaker is making their statements.
The trouble is that, unless you’re incredibly verbose, the likelihood that every reader/listener has the same context in mind as the speaker, is incredibly small. We as humans have a natural set of assumptions for the context of any given statement; those assumptions are not necessarily the same from person to person, state to state, country to country, and regional geography to regional geography.
This isn’t to mention the nuance of idioms and cultural references that are invoked in many conversations, to which, if you don’t understand the underlying story/contexts in which that idiom or reference exists, misunderstandings are inevitable.
With all that being said, I find that most people at least put in adequate effort to ensure their thoughts are portrayed in a comprehensible way. Most of the misunderstandings which result from that effort are detailed above (as far as I’ve seen). What Trump is saying, however, shows no effort to explain our even make mention of what context this string of words should be taken under, and the only concepts I can derive from his incomprehensible word vomit are so generalized that it has left the majority of the message to whatever context you wish to install for it.
Depending on what context you choose to use for it, this string of words could be a powerful call to arms, or it could be the nonsensical drivel of a madman. I fall more into the latter category, since I have worked hard to remove as much assumption and personal bias from my active listening, and thus, in the absence of any indicators of context from the speaker, the statement does not make any sense at all.
I agree that celebrating ignorance is the problem.
I work in tech and the number of people who outright refuse to even listen to a very high level technical explanation, or follow instructions poorly with the excuse that they “don’t know tech” is very high IMO. I can usually see when people disconnect from a very very basic discussion about an issue. If it’s more complicated than “I’m working on it” then they don’t want to hear it.
I usually refer to this as “willful ignorance”, aka, people who are otherwise smart, and capable of learning, who actively put in the effort to not learn anything new. Usually, willful ignorance is more effort than simply listening and trying to understand.
A lot of the people you’re referring to seem to not only be willfully ignorant themselves, but also desire to celebrate people who are willfully ignorant and celebrate people who are blatantly ignorant.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against anyone who doesn’t know something, or people who don’t want or need all the details; I certainly don’t have anything against persons that don’t have the ability to understand. But if you can’t even entertain the summary of something, you’re the problem.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it think.
Maybe instead of an minimum age, american presidents shoud have a minimum iq, but at this point a basic ability to speak and decent common sense would be too much to much to ask
He has gone downhill. Not since 2016–he was about as bad then as he is now. But if you look at his interviews from the early 90s, it was clear he could at least string three words together and make some kind of sense.
Here’s an interview with him by Barbra Walters from 1990:
Skip ahead to the three minute mark. He uses some of the same phrases that he does today, like “people need to understand the press is incredibly unfair in this country”. It was clear back then that he was a scumbag, and Walters does not let him get away with his bullshit, but he can articulate a properly structured sentence.
They do believe the car thing. A relative of a friend told me she didn’t want Biden to take away her Honda CRV because she liked it so much. She seemed to think it was a nearly done deal, Biden’s coming to reclaim all fossil-fueled powered vehicles and make everyone buy electric cars. I didn’t ask for details.
Of course, the Republicans are standing strong against this atrocity.
Depending on the generation of CR-V, I suppose - and without any hard math/stats despite how hard I’ve tried - I suspect the net impact of your relative driving it for the rest of its usable life vs buying a brand new EV to be significantly less, considering Lithium mining, curb weight, etc.
I know why politicians claim it, because taking away something that belongs to someone is an affront to them the way “regulations requiring manufacturers to adhere to climate friendlier standards” isn’t, but it’s such an annoying instant radicalization people make.
Finding out gas stoves cause a significant percentage of childhood asthma and some states proposing a subsequent ban on household gas in new builds only became “BIDEN WANTS TO MAKE YOUR GAS STOVE ILLEGAL”. Subsidies for electric cars became “BIDEN BANNING GAS CARS” etc etc.
It wasn’t for lack of trying though, because Obama did call for and back legislation to ban certain scary guns. Their attempts at the taking of guns simply failed the standard legislative process. Many of you probably weren’t of voting age at the time, but this process of attempting to take the guns actually did happen during the Obama presidency.
I was of voting age in 2008. Banning or heavily regulating certain types of guns is not the same as sending the national guard into every home in the US to search for and confiscate them, which is exactly what conservatives have been saying will happen for at least a decade now. Iirc trump banned some kind of bump-stock-adjacent device, but I don’t recall any gangs of roving feds going door to door to round up all the ones that have already been purchased.
Moving the goalposts, not allowed. I will return the discussion back to course.
Banning of guns is what people generally think of as “$politician taking the guns” and is what drives 2A voters to vote against $politician. In the above discussion we were discussing Obama, and he did in fact do what I said he did.
Let me make sure I’ve got what you’re saying correct:
Banning or heavily regulating guns that people already legally own, guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years, is not the same as “taking your guns”, is that correct? Would it be fair to say that they only thing you would consider to be “taking your guns” would be house-to-house confiscation of all firearms in private hands?
In re: bump stocks - it turns out that a lot of people that purchased them (and forced reset triggers, which are a similar concept) got letters from the ATF telling them that they had to turn them in or destroy them. Because, see, the ATF could just force the companies that sold them to disclose customer records, which means yeah, they could come to your door and take it. Unless you paid cash at a gun store, there’s an electronic trail, and the ATF followed it for a whoooooooole lot of people. Continuing to keep one that you purchased legally at the time? That’s a felony, because the ATF has re-classified them as machine guns, which means you can’t own one since they were produced post-ban, and there’s no way to make it legal. (Currently, there’s an appeals court that has ruled the ban illegal, but we’ll have to see how that plays out.)
If you genuinely and unironically thought bump stocks and pistol-ARs weren’t going to have a reckoning, you are the perfect example of why we need to start taking guns away from conservatives.
Every good old boy knows a fascist making ghost guns in their garage.
Quit your fucking pathetic 2A pearl clutching and just admit it’s about the killing fetish already.
I’ll bet that if someone called you a pearl-clutching 1A fetishist that just wanted to groom children, you would–rightly–argue that no, civil rights like the ability to read books about gender identity and sexuality are protected civil rights that the gov’t shouldn’t touch.
Or if someone said that if you have nothing to hide, then you should care if the gov’t spies on you, you would tell them to fuck off and come back with a warrant.
…But as soon as it’s a civil right you don’t personally like, well, then it’s ammosexuals and murder fetishes.
The right is already trying to take your 1A rights in regards to press and religion–and largely succeeding!–but by golly!, you’re gonna just hand them your 2A rights so that when they finish taking your 1A and 5A rights you won’t be able to do dick except say mean things in public that will get you arrested on domestic terrorism charges (see also: cop city protests in Atlanta).
guns that have been widely considered a constitutional right for >75 years
That was really only a result of the NRA having a coup and going from a sporting organization to a 2A advocacy group in the 1970s. They lobbied for multiple decades and had a couple of supreme court victories in 2006 and 2012 that made it an individual right to own whatever the fuck kind of gun you want. It’s very, very recent.
Yeah, no. It simply wasn’t considered an issue before that point for the most part. Then you had Reagan passing bullshit laws because he was afraid of black people, and, well, shit took off.
It’s pretty clear from a reading of the documents surrounding the writing of the US constitution that it was always intended as an individual right–and legal obligation in many instances!–and that it was intended to mean military arms.
Obama didn’t increase firearm restrictions, but Trump did with the bump stock ban. Which, incidentally, is due to be overturned by the Supreme Court this year.
Yep, though the gun manufacturers, via the NRA, probably drive that one. They LOVE it when a Democrat is in office because they can say that and watch gun sales rise.
I’m convinced they also love shootings, or at least did, for similar reasons - I’m sure, for a while, gun owners worried this latest shooting might be the one that generates new restrictions on gun purchases, so out they went to buy. At this point I don’t think they have anything to worry about; we as a country seem to have decided mass shootings are Just Great, so that little fear probably doesn’t work as well any more.
Let’s never forget the NRA’s solution to school shootings, after Newtown, was literally, “More guns in schools.”
Just raw economics will win them over long run. EV will be price parity at some point not in the too distant future. In those sunny southern state, where solar + EV is just such a clear win, the rolling coal inbreds just can’t not see it.
Add comment