Jump to content

2024 Presidential Election Thread - Let's keep the party going.


Recommended Posts

Posted

Wait, wait. I'm confused. Is Vance trying to act like he was in actual combat when he was a military journalist? Isn't that stolen valor?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Which is bullshit because it seemed to be implied that Dottie sort of dropped the ball on purpose when Kitt steamrolled her ass at home plate.

I think you read the sequence of events in the movie backwards, although the framing makes it seem like that's the implication. The movie opens with Dottie telling her boy that it's important for his brother to win every once in a while, which seems to foreshadow the end and indicates she dropped it on purpose. But that scene is actually in the "present," and chronologically takes place long after she dropped the ball. In the past, when the movie is set, Dottie *never* lets Kit win, at anything, her entire life. And Kit was actually a pretty impressive person in her own right, and should have had lots of accolades, except that she was constantly overshadowed. And going into that final at bat, she indicates she fully is ready to do it again. But when Kit actually pulls it off, and wins the game, Dottie sees how much it means to Kit, and realizes the importance of putting competition aside when your family. It wasn't until she saw Kit get a moment in the sun that she realizes she was destroying their relationship.

It's actually backwards: Her dropping the ball set in her mind that letting your sibling win every once and a while is a good thing, not the other way around.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Wait, wait. I'm confused. Is Vance trying to act like he was in actual combat when he was a military journalist? Isn't that stolen valor?

spacer.png

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Caution: yarn link embed. Do not poke with a sharp stick.
  • Haha 6
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

I am fine with yarn if it worked for people I figured it was more widespread since there were other complaints. I've contacted them but never heard anything. 

A bunch doesn’t appear on mobile. Not sure if it’s yarn or something else. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wow they have nothing at all

the fucking gall of them to get the vapors over her fucking necklace, then end the same fucking email begging maamaw and paapaw for $5 for the """"""""""""billionaire"""""""""" pissbaby.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Wait, wait. I'm confused. Is Vance trying to act like he was in actual combat when he was a military journalist? Isn't that stolen valor?

I think he was technically a correspondent.  Probably something like Lieutenant Steven Hauk.

spacer.png

  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I think he was technically a correspondent.  Probably something like Lieutenant Steven Hauk.

spacer.png

In his heart, he knows he's funny

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
15 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

I think you read the sequence of events in the movie backwards, although the framing makes it seem like that's the implication. The movie opens with Dottie telling her boy that it's important for his brother to win every once in a while, which seems to foreshadow the end and indicates she dropped it on purpose. But that scene is actually in the "present," and chronologically takes place long after she dropped the ball. In the past, when the movie is set, Dottie *never* lets Kit win, at anything, her entire life. And Kit was actually a pretty impressive person in her own right, and should have had lots of accolades, except that she was constantly overshadowed. And going into that final at bat, she indicates she fully is ready to do it again. But when Kit actually pulls it off, and wins the game, Dottie sees how much it means to Kit, and realizes the importance of putting competition aside when your family. It wasn't until she saw Kit get a moment in the sun that she realizes she was destroying their relationship.

It's actually backwards: Her dropping the ball set in her mind that letting your sibling win every once and a while is a good thing, not the other way around.

I stand corrected

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Get over it. It’s not anti semitic because they didn’t pick a Jew. They didn’t pick Pete, was it anti gay? They didn’t pick Whitmer, anti-women? Didn’t pick Beshear, age discrimination? Didn’t pick Pritzker, anti-rich or anti-fat?

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
16 minutes ago, WelfareBuysMyWeed said:

I think you read the sequence of events in the movie backwards, although the framing makes it seem like that's the implication. The movie opens with Dottie telling her boy that it's important for his brother to win every once in a while, which seems to foreshadow the end and indicates she dropped it on purpose. But that scene is actually in the "present," and chronologically takes place long after she dropped the ball. In the past, when the movie is set, Dottie *never* lets Kit win, at anything, her entire life. And Kit was actually a pretty impressive person in her own right, and should have had lots of accolades, except that she was constantly overshadowed. And going into that final at bat, she indicates she fully is ready to do it again. But when Kit actually pulls it off, and wins the game, Dottie sees how much it means to Kit, and realizes the importance of putting competition aside when your family. It wasn't until she saw Kit get a moment in the sun that she realizes she was destroying their relationship.

It's actually backwards: Her dropping the ball set in her mind that letting your sibling win every once and a while is a good thing, not the other way around.

Surly used to be my playground.

  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

emoji1782.pngemoji1782.png
2f4b967ae4c48a5f2469d5410eee5b70.png
507d2d382bea86a71db30a1179686a85.png
ae45eeb426940837911048376f803020.png
f845fef8c2266c7fbadbb2e928038e90.png

I'm just going to observe that, even assuming that the necklace did cost $62,000, her husband was a fucking partner at DLA Piper.

Yeah--I think he can afford to buy his wife some nice bling.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, Js1 said:

Get over it. It’s not anti semitic because they didn’t pick a Jew. They didn’t pick Pete, was it anti gay? They didn’t pick Whitmer, anti-women? Didn’t pick Beshear, age discrimination?

don't give the issue any air. they are looking for something, anything, to stick and it just isn't.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just going to observe that, even assuming that the necklace did cost $62,000, her husband was a fucking partner at DLA Piper.

Yeah--I think he can afford to buy his wife some nice bling.

I'm guessing it would take all of 10 minutes to find photos of Usha Vance wearing a Cartier neckless or Oscar De La Renta dress.  Or JD sitting on a Louis Vuitton Bombaca Sofa.  Link

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just going to observe that, even assuming that the necklace did cost $62,000, her husband was a fucking partner at DLA Piper.

Yeah--I think he can afford to buy his wife some nice bling.

Also one place that being a 'childless cat lady' makes quite the difference on the personal finance front

Posted
28 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wow they have nothing at all


Russian bots using their old scripts 

they ran the same scam with First Lady of Ukraine having an ‘expensive’ purse 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the chief critics is a guy named Behrends that allegedly took his place as a SM during the deployment to Iraq, before which Walz resigned to run for Congress.

Apparently, Behrends didn't make CSM either (never got the promotion, much less didn't complete the coursework) and is salty about it.

It’s pretty common to retire a level below your highest attained rank either due to not completing coursework or deployment to a certain duty or an agreed upon extension to your retirement date, etc. It’s a big deal only in that it affects your retirement benefits package, nothing else

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

So regarding the stolen valor comment...or is it stollen valor?  Vance attributes this quote to Walz: "We shouldn't allow weapons that I used in war to be on America's streets."  Then says that Walz never went to war and bailed on his unit just before they were to be deployed.

Only problem is that I can't find any reference to Walz ever saying that.  Shocking I know. 

Posted

I have a feeling this is how Dems will feel the morning after the election. A ticket that finally goes on the offensive after the party has been taking it on the chin from the other sides for decades.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just going to observe that, even assuming that the necklace did cost $62,000, her husband was a fucking partner at DLA Piper.

Yeah--I think he can afford to buy his wife some nice bling.

Isn't that the MAGA model, a white dude supporting his wife financially?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Loch Ness Monster said:

Lots of policies discussed!

 

 

"Immediately, if not sooner" is really flying under the radar but is an absolute gem of mush-brained Trump lines.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 minute ago, tbone_ said:


What are you going to do to bring down rent prices for my kids?

This is such a stupid fucking question. (Notwithstanding the even stupider fucking answer).

Well I don’t know dipshit. Rents and prices are high because owners care about keeping the value of their real estate up. How about you try to start a trend by selling your house for 2/3rds what it’s worth to help some kid.

Oh, don’t like that idea? You’d rather have the government solve your problem? Fuck you you socialist fuck.

/rant over


communism has cheap rent !!!!

 

also, Trump supporters once again showing they’re the dumbest humans to ever walk the earth 

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...