FishFace

I think the evidence against it being intended seriously is that Trump is an apparently straight man. Now, there’s a lot of reasons an apparently straight man would suck off a dude, so it’s far from impossible, but: the vast majority of apparently straight men are actually straight, and the vast majority of straight men would prefer not to have oral sex with a man, so I think this does count as evidence against it being literally true.

There’s a particular online discourse that sees Trump and MAGA as not merely being a bit hypocritical, but as being extremely hypocritical - a strand which believes that every Republican expressing homophobia as being closeted. So I think while people understand on one level that it’s not reasonable to think that some random guy who professed to be straight actually sucked off another guy on the basis of an email from someone shady, when the guy is not random but the leader of MAGA, those people instead leap on it because it fits with that hypocrisy narrative.

You’re absolutely right that we don’t know which of the possibilities is true, but I said what I did because it seems like a lot of people are just taking it at face value, which doesn’t seem smart.

Welp, it’s not worth seeing your “contributions” around here, is it.

Nothing useful to say, then. It’s not surprising that you’re not really able to think critically about what I’ve said given your inability to think critically about an email.

Hmm yeah I knew that other commenter who insisted everyone was taking it as a joke but pretending it was literal was full of shit… Anyway.

How are you to assess their delivery? You’re not (presumably) their friend. The fact that it doesn’t come of as humorous to an external reader shouldn’t be a surprise - or shall we analyse some of your texts without context :P

Someone else put forward the completely plausible scenario of a photo of Trump in a position where it kind of looks like he’s sucking off Clinton, which became an in-joke. Is that so unbelievable to you?

This is a case of those opposed to trump being completely credulous because it suits their beliefs, and noone would be taking it seriously if it were someone more aligned with them - which in that case would be very reasonable.

Neither of which I will be receiving from you, evidently

Very much unconvinced that all of you are in on that joke!

Your joke but worse

There is a line in an email that refers to “trump blowing bubba”.

It’s not clear who “bubba” is, but it’s one of Clinton’s nicknames.

More importantly though, it’s not clear that the line is intended to be taken seriously. Obviously a lot of people want it to be true though.

Do you know about how much it cut out?

Which polls?

You take that back!

I never knew about the recut, but presumably it gets rid of a lot of the monster-of-the-week content?

I don’t think any of that was actually bad. It didn’t move the overarching plot along all the time, but that wasn’t the point.

Why did you burn it

Do you still love me?

🤢

I didn’t think Putin was on Epstein’s island? And please don’t refer to it as “juicy” ew

Meh, I like high fidelity graphics. Most “artfully stylised” games are not to my taste either - pixel graphics do nothing for me and nor do a lot of flat 2D graphics. Stuff like GRIS is beautiful, but it seems to be an outlier. So for visually engaging stuff I find it’s AAA mostly realistic graphics - if not “photorealistic” - for me.

Any bubble is just as rational as any other. It’s irrational in that it’s not based on fundamentals, and rational in that it’s based on reasonable belief that the value will go up.

Capitalising the “I” in “is” is completely insane

Kant touch this

Everywhere with an Atlantic climate doesn’t have the equipment to deal with this. I tried riding my bike in the snow, and besides being slippy in places my gears got clogged and wouldn’t shift properly, and my glasses got covered in snow so I couldn’t see well.

Not worth it.