Trump, May 2017: 100 days of [unintelligible]

It's a double dis, given Trump's documented fear of descending stairs.

Melania's (arguably) passive aggressive actions and gestures are lame. Let me know when she pushes him down the stairs.

The only arguable is whether the aggression is passive. That hand swat from yesterday was amazing and clearly very intentional.

But yes, I encourage her to up the ante.

I heard that when he learned getting to the top of Masada would take some effort, he tried to get Marine One to fly him up there and land at the site, but that got nixed so the visit got nixed. Stamina!

melania is definitely trying to kill him on those stairs

yeah he wanted to land his fucking helicopter on top of it

xp

you guys have it all wrong. yesterday she was giving him a low-five! today it's . . . it's . . . i am eager to read the rightwing spin on that

Melania had to brush that hair from her eyes, one of the most dangerous things about descending stairs is long hair in your eyes causing vision impairment.

right wing spin will be to turn against melania and her disgusting attempts to embarass Our President

xpost She should try just slicking it back on either side.

I heard that when he learned getting to the top of Masada would take some effort, he tried to get Marine One to fly him up there and land at the site, but that got nixed so the visit got nixed. Stamina!

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, May 23, 2017 10:29 AM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

him wearing a kippah at the western wall was bad enough but the idea of landing a helicopter at Masada makes me want to puke

he was terrified to leave the country and sleep in a bed that was not his own, but it was actually the best thing that could have happened to him, at least in terms of distracting media coverage. a few days ago he seemed like howard hughes lining bottles of piss in a crumbling kingdom. now he's touching an orb and committing a series of funny but ultimately forgettable gaffes.

And he's going to come home beaming, like he's accomplished anything, when in fact the only thing he's accomplished is giving America a modest break. And then he's going to come back, tired and cranky, and start fucking up again, all while multiple looming investigations proceed.

wait when she doesn't take his hand does he just put his hand on her ass?

I thought the accepted protocol was, in fact, to lightly cup the buttock of a person who refuses to take your hand.

grab 'em by the pussy iirc

to lightly cup the buttock of a person who refuses to take your hand

this is close, but i think you're supposed to form your hand into a little cup, then gently give a tap so that the suction handcup makes a special noise.

seriously struggling with how loathsome that clip is

normally i'd find it pretty distasteful to revel in the failing relationship of someone, even in the public sphere. but in this case i feel like it's 100% appropriate.

well what would you do if you spouse was caught admitting they like to grab the genitalia of not you?

interesting chart in the middle of this vox article on obamacare repeal being the politically toxic thing for the GOP right now, rather than trump: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/23/15674450/paul-ryan-special-election

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/DGLN6JJLHOYiGZ6YXBi0_HClPjI=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8560111/Screen_Shot_2017_05_22_at_3.42.22_PM.png

xp: Depends. Is Not Me hot?

unfortunately not surprised on the incredibly low amount of policy advertising from hillary

rebranding Isis now as a new idea is predictably stupid; there's ALREADY had a better insult.

Daesh, which folks were trying to get people to use for years now

i can't blame her campaign, really. when your opponent is this giant fucking world record asshole who is literally one of the worst people on earth and flaunts it at every opportunity, it's probably pretty tempting to just point at him and say "look. look at that. you're not going to vote for that, right?", and surely they did tons of focus testing that determined that "look at that. don't vote for that" was more effective then "i'm going to keep doing what barack obama did, basically" as a message. but the increase in personal attacks compared to previous campaigns is pretty jarring.

has this been posted yet?
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-beleaguered-tenants-of-kushnerville

Oh this will help:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-23/centrism-takes-on-the-extremes

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i5Tz3OMvJCKQ/v0/800x-1.jpg

persuasive argument

I thought the accepted protocol was, in fact, to lightly cup the buttock of a person who refuses to take your hand.

― PJD PDJ DPJ (DJP), Tuesday, 23 May 2017

I tried this on Saturday, didn't work

https://i.redditmedia.com/KZfgmGbUIZWLYq2CUxvS-wLZU0xv6t8EfP_KrssM8iA.png?w=1024&s=0a1fe2c8b98221e77b0e94cc8e629927

i can't blame her campaign, really. when your opponent is this giant fucking world record asshole who is literally one of the worst people on earth and flaunts it at every opportunity, it's probably pretty tempting to just point at him and say "look. look at that. you're not going to vote for that, right?", and surely they did tons of focus testing that determined that "look at that. don't vote for that" was more effective then "i'm going to keep doing what barack obama did, basically" as a message. but the increase in personal attacks compared to previous campaigns is pretty jarring.

I think this is a reasonable explanation that has been very easy to dismiss in hindsight, though it would've held more weight if voting was mandatory and not something you have to actually compel people to go and do. I mean, my mom has a pretty poor voting record but she was all over early voting for Hillary in 2016, but I guess there were just fewer people like her than there were people who just didn't feel like buying what anyone was selling.

Trump taking aim at them where it hurts: their self esteem.
Is there anything particularly wrong with this? No rhetoric is going to be remotely useful but it's probably better to call them dorky failures than use the kind of grandiose hyping up of 'evildoers' that Bush kept engaging in.

― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:23 AM (six hours ago)

yeah i like "evil losers"

It's terrible, not merely because of the inarticulacy of it, but also because of what it implies. Losers = bad people, people who win = good. Well, the fact is, the families of the tragedy are the losers, here.

Have you heard about the evil losers
Beaten by the Donald Trump every time

evil dopes

Angry young jihadi men are just medieval cosplay versions of elliot rodger. They are total losers. The only thing wrong with Trump's statement is that he is also a loser and for similar reasons.

Would it help to start saying that ISIS stands for "I'm Sexually Impotent, Señorita"? Or maybe just start calling them tinydicks. Is that offensive?

A certain senator is getting feisty!

I hope Gen.Flynn decides to comply with our Intel Committee subpoena to produce business documents. Otherwise all options should be on table

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) May 23, 2017

The Plankton tweets!

theres a ludlum fanfic that shouldve been let die

we only defeated the Taliban thanks to Bush's crafty "Taliban stands for Total Abject Losers I Believe Are Nerds" strategy

'evil losers' is going to be trump's 'we will fight them on the beaches' isn't it

#BreakingNews - @realDonaldTrump retains atty Marc Kasowitz as private atty in independent counsel probe more coming

— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) May 23, 2017

Angry young jihadi men are just medieval cosplay versions of elliot rodger. They are total losers. The only thing wrong with Trump's statement is that he is also a loser and for similar reasons.

fwiw, the most persuasive research I have seen on the backgrounds of people who join ISIS suggests the majority are from aspirational middle class families and have above average educational achievements but hit some kind of roadblock. In the west the classic stereotype would be people who have fallen into petty crime, drugs, etc, and converted in prison but the archetypal recruit in, idk, Tunisia or Kazakhstan, is probably going to be closer to something like an engineering graduate to gets out of university and realises the job market is terrible or police / military officers who get to a certain rank but can't progress any higher. They are then fairly susceptible to people who will maliciously play on that resentment and bitterness to convince them that they can help overthrow the corrupt secular, western-tainted systems by taking part in a global religious revolution. There is obviously an appeal to self-esteem, wounded pride, etc as well.

The "losers" narrative is a fairly ineffective but not incorrect way to undercut the idea that there is some heroism involved in killing children but obviously doesn't address the numerous roadblocks (everything from corruption to racism to static social mobility) that contributes to the initial resentment. It is less dangerous than the clash of civilisations narrative or the unintended glamourising that a lot of the right has relied on in the past though.

so trump used to be more articulate? https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

That's our Trump, not PC, talking straight.

I echo the above, that him speaking of ISIS the way he speaks of Marco Rubio or Arnold Schwarzenegger neuters whatever force such blunt talk had to begin with. He might as well call them girlie men.

From a linguist http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=32844

XP There's still time!

ty caek xp