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…
Well, to his credit, he could be correct in that Weinstein got “schlonged” in prison.
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.
He was pounded in the ass.
Sure. But when I see “hit as hard as he can” I’m imagining face tanking a Mike Tyson punch, not getting deep dicked.
Depend on which arm Iron Mike is using
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.
Dude has been campaigning for over a year straight. This is the least of his issues.
He never stopped campaigning. Even when he was president he still went on the road.
Betteridge’s law of headlines. No, he’s not ok. And any sane, observant person has known this for a long time.
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.
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.
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.
That’s why he’s aging so fast right now… he’s working really hard to try and stay out of prison!
I feel like the Democrats ought to be pivoting towards attacking Vance at this point. The possibility of Trump kicking the bucket from natural causes and the GOP getting a sympathy (/conspiracy-theorist) bounce in the votes this late would be devastating, so they ought to be pulling out all the stops to anticipate and mitigate that before it happens.
Strategy? From the democrats? lmao
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
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.
Oh yeah. Seems that she’s “emotional”, unlike Trump. Think that people are probably projecting their misogyny.
I unfortunately think the majority of the country is more likely to vote for fascism than for a woman. I’m not holding my breath :( I need to find a way out
“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.
Article says “‘They’re going crazy,’ Trump said, pointing off camera.” Which I think further strengthens your argument.
They were desperately trying to get him to not defend Weinstein. Probably trying to avoid him lighting the fuse on his own October surprise
This is a narcissistic and delusional old man who has never really participated in society as a normal human being. When he says “they”, he literally thinks there is a shadow group of people doing this. The fact that someone rich got caught committing crimes and was found guilty by “normies” is all just a part of the shadow group’s plan to allow such things to happen. He literally believes “they” could have stopped that from happening IF they wanted to, but decided not to.
I’m shocked you didn’t clip the quote where he claimed Weinstein got “schlonged.”
lol what the fuck. I’m on set and we’re rolling sound and I almost burst out laughing when I read that line
Thats how i took it too
maybe he had to take a shit
He doesn’t get up to do that.
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.
It was a couple minutes in. His handlers are pulling him out of events when he starts talking nonsense. The shit they accused the Democrats of doing with Biden that never actually happened.
He sits in that interview for like 30 minutes, and nothing about it seemed off to me. Just as scattered as he’s always been.
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.
Where does the word travelers come from? I have it as an ear worm from a book or something
Fellow travelers is a phrase used to denote someone who pushes or encourages an ideology or opinion without officially being part of the organization pushing it. It was originally applied to communist sympathizers but is used for other things commonly. A race science believer might be a fellow traveler with nazis but doesn’t have to be a member of the nationalist socialist workers party.
thanks !
It was also the title of a show and can be found on Netflix.
Canterbury tales maybe?
According to The Free Dictionary, the term fellow travelers “originally applied to people in the early days of the Soviet Union who supported the Russian revolution and the Communist Party but were not members.”
Additional fun fact: the name given to the early Russian satellites, “Sputnik,” has a meaning of “fellow traveler." It was mentioned on that dictionary page, but I ran it through Google Translate just to be sure. (See the third option under “More translations.”)
he just had to go lol
his ass was probably burning from sitting in his shitfilled diaper that long
I have never wanted a month to go by as much as I do right now
Americans are really starting to annoy me at this point
We are slowly destroying ourselves with global warming but all we’re centring our attention on is on how 400 million people can’t decide between a sane young politician or an elderly sociopath with fascist leanings to lead their country.
We’re screwed as a species
Happening all over the planet, unfortunately.
Like it or not, the US presidential election has potentially dire worldwide consequences for global warming. If you think our attention is best spent on global warming – and I would agree – then paying attention to the election is that.
Yeah don’t blame this shit on all of us, it’s like 1/3rd of the population being morons.
I get that … but that third is a pretty loud obnoxious bunch and the other 2/3rds are either too quiet, don’t speak up, don’t vote or are just completely apathetic to everything happening around them.
The problem is not the remaining 2/3rds saying or supporting one thing or another
The problem is the 2/3rds just not participating and instead just stand around and watch the world burn.
Your numbers indicate 0 Americans standing up to this bullshit, which is just false. I get you’re frustrated. So are we.
What exactly are we supposed to do except vote? Yell at them more? Look everywhere, we’re doing it
Oh, do fuck off. If you can’t look away from the spectacle, that’s a personal problem. Our problems get magnified by the media but they’re the same problems everywhere.
Don’t you think he looks tired
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.
Raw Story may be on the same side as us but they are still complete trash. Headline is often a straight-up lie.
that’s less than a job interview though
Sure. It’s also less than a train ride between Zürich and Bern.
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?
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.
And what I’m saying is that in the context of an interview, 35 minutes is only a few minutes.
There’s no context where 35 = “a few”.
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.
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.
I would disagree with that, but I’m not a native speaker, so I’m on shaky ground here.
This entire article is sensationalized. Bongino doesn’t even really seem phased when trump says he’s gotta go.