US Politics, October 2019 — I guess statement you could say with thread. I made a thread. The thread was PERFECT.

The Cruelty Is The Point

putting the lower score first is a real beta move

Mark E Smith reads the electoral college results

thx Tombot I hadn't seen that one yet. 55% is pretty good, movin in the right direction

xps

nasty guy

the wrong lower score once again

LOL, president dummy just went on a press appearance rant, total gibberish greatest hits set, and when he was done he felt compelled to come back to the mic to ramble denials about, of all things, the alligator-filled moat ("whatever that is, their word").

Now the press is trying to sell the fact that I wanted a Moot stuffed with alligators and snakes, with an electrified fence and sharp spikes on top, at our Southern Border.

can I note that this tweet is even better if you grew up somewhere that “moot” was slang for vagina

would vote for president salvador dali

It's early but, "a Moot stuffed with alligators and snakes" for next month's title?

Australia: a moot stuffed with crocodiles, snakes, spiders, jellyfish, toads, octopuses and sharks.

It seems almost impossible but I'm sure Our President will say 432 things of equal or greater stupidity over the next four weeks.

Trump is the Hooded Fang

Please, media, don't misquote Mr. Trump by attempting to correct the spelling of his neologism 'Moot'. That would be very dishonest, very unfair, and SAD. And also enough to get you hung for treason.

Trump's demand that Adam Schiff be arrested for treason and executed is straight out of QAnon, a conspiracy theory obsessed with fictional indictments for treason that end with mass hangings of Democrats.

So that's nice. #WWG1WGA

— Mike Rothschild (@rothschildmd) October 2, 2019

guys what's going to happen when the inquiry actually starts

sharp spikes on top

These would be Moot points.

so tired of winning

Moot the Hopple

if the covfefe tweet happened now nobody would even bother commenting on it

Theory: Trump actually said maybe like a ditch filled with snakes because he never knowingly encountered the word 'moat' before this weekend and doesn't know what it means. Hence the ott grousing about false 'moot' reportage.

Oh, a GYME!

my trump wants to potty all the gyme, potty all the gyme, potty all the gyyyyme

Thread idea: words you would bet $100 actual cash that donald trump does not know

I think he meant to write Moot' with a hyphen

i would bet $150 donald trump could not accurately use the word "anti-luddite" in a sentence if given thirty (30) seconds and no help

i would bet $150 donald trump could not accurately use a computer of any type or vintage if given thirty (30) seconds and no help

what kind of supposedly rich person doesn't know what a moat is?

if a moot is big enough you can floot a boot in it

just saw a clip of Obama joking in 2011 that the republicans might want a border moat with alligators, it's probably where he got the idea

Seriously, one of the biggest missed journalistic opportunities is just a simple 'Mr. President, could you please define ____?' or 'Mr. President, could you please explain _____?'. Where the blank is something very rudimentary, something most fourth graders could at least kinda fumble their way through. I don't pretend at this point that it would make a whole helluva lot of difference electorally but it would be nice to know exactly where his baseline of ignorance lies.

there is no baseline

I'm willing to bet he doesn't know offhand what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, for example. Now, you might feel compelled to pooh-pooh that as preposterous, but I'd beg you to take a moment and consider the assertion based on everything we know about the 'man'.

Of course I would love that as theater but can't see it moving the needle much. Everyone knew who he was, and wasn't, years ago.

Gotcha tactics with Herman Cain - remember Bekkistan? - became meme fodder but didn't accomplish anything other than what normal electoral gravity did.

this "does DT know _______ or can DT do ___" is one of the rolling thought experiments on the deadspin podcast.

I wonder how many presidents he could name...presumably Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, the Bushes, Obama, Nixon, Clinton, probably Kennedy, maybe Carter, Ford, FDR, Eisenhower, Truman but I'm not 100%...oh i guess Andrew Jackson. I think the over/under is 10.

he would 100% say ben franklin was a president

I'm certain he couldn't name just the presidents who served while he's been alive. Not all of them.

These are not assumptions I'd feel safe making about any other living person, no matter how maddeningly ignorant and incurious they were.

there have been times where I've been like, "okay, he doesn't LITERALLY think the F-35 is invisible" or "he doesn't ACTUALLY think Hillary destroyed her emails with bleach" but it would appear that he indeed appears to believe both of those things

Yeah, he just made reference to the 'acid washed' jeans emails within the past week. It's not an arrangement of words employed by someone who understands words.

i don't think he really understands what that scandal is about, just that it worked for him to keep mentioning "emails."

likewise, i don't think he knows what he wanted ukraine to uncover about biden. he just wanted to create the appearance of impropriety but subjecting biden to an investigation.

Talked about this in the August thread too

his supporters don't care that he lies all the time and they love the fact that he's an unrepentant racist, but they do seem to have trouble defending how lazy/obviously dumb the guy is, choosing to always deflect to the time Obama said "57 states" or whatever. I keep hoping some interviewer or debate moderator is gonna nail him by just asking him to explain something any middle schooler would know but they haven't really done that yet. Actually they kinda did a bit in 2015 but the other GOP candidates would step in to take a bullet for him

― frogbs, Monday, August 19, 2019 2:23 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

I fantasized about that happening in the last election. However, if this happened he would just trail off into some rant that has nothing to do with the question.

Hypothetically, the only way to get him on it is to give him misleading "clues" that will cause him to BS around what information he thinks you're giving him rather than what he's actually supposed to know. Helps if you appeal to his lingo and the way he compartmentalizes things.

"Can you name all of the branches of government that you believe are doing the best jobs, and all of the ones that could be working even harder? What does each one do and what could they be doing? What could their top leaders be doing better? Many people are saying there are too many. How many are there?"

Something like that.

what a shit show of a presser with the Finnish President right now

A Finnish reporter just asked President Sauli Niinistö of Finland what favors President Trump has asked of him.

There were audible gasps in the room.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) October 2, 2019

I think a real approach they could take is when he says "lots of people are saying x", asking who specifically and can he provide examples.

Or for claims about Schiff or whoever committing treason, asking what law is being broken by them.

xp

almost as awkward as when selina meyer presented the prime minister of finland with an angry birds clock!

xp

Just put him on the spot any time he makes a wild claim

xp

the last reporter Reuters reporter was killing it

the last reporter Reuters reporter was killing it