Jump to content
A Merry Christmas from Surly Horns to You. ×

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


bolverk

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Constant said:

IMG_7381.thumb.jpeg.a6f1628438bd87d96d73b56c2fa97fb6.jpeg

This feels accurate. Fox News has melted my grandpa’s brain the last 20 years. 

yup. i have one living grandparent  - first generation born in the US from Czechia - and he has voted democratic his whole life. his seemingly meek and innocent wife sure drums up the "immigrants are coming for ours" rhetoric when we get together. FN has broken her brain and she tries to infect my grandfather. thankfully his mind is gone enough he cannot be swayed at this point and he thinks he's still back in his army days. hopefully he still votes his heart and not his FN-by-proxy brain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

point of order: MN'a new flag is a powerpoint designed abomination

I like it.  And irrespective of what you think of it on its own merits, it's a fuckton better than the previous flag and better than any of the alternative proposals.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

This account digs into stolen valor claims and did a pretty good job of explaining it in a non-partisan way. TLDR: he reached the rank of and served as a Command Sergeant Major. However, he was reduced in rank administratively upon retirement because he did not complete the Sergeant Majors course before retiring. Like everything else the right says, it’s disinformation at best and a flat out lie at worst.

 

 

nevermind that being a Sergeant Major is a pretty serious NCO rank. Those fuckers know EVERYTHING about the unit that they're in and are the interface between command and the men. They're like the COB on a ship.

It's wild to me that someone would step to him on that, SM's do not take bullshit from anyone

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captainant said:

nevermind that being a Sergeant Major is a pretty serious NCO rank. Those fuckers know EVERYTHING about the unit that they're in and are the interface between command and the men. They're like the COB on a ship.

It's wild to me that someone would step to him on that, SM's do not take bullshit from anyone

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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

They're looking to swift boat Walz. 

For those that don't know in 2004, Bush's side attacked John Kerry saying that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam war record. Even though everyone agreed that Kerry served in a war zone in Vietnam while Bush served by flying jets in SE Texas.

The end result was that some believed that Kerry was a draft dodger (spoiler: he enlisted) and Bush was Rambo.

Maybe I'm not remembering as well, but Kerry was a bit of a pushover on this issue, and was not as strong of a personality as Walz appears to be out of the gate.

Walz just needs to keep dunking on Trump and Vance, pointing out that Lieutenant Bonespurs never served a minute in the military and instead has trashed veterans, that his military service was six times that of Vance (24 years v. 4 years), and that he retired at 41 years of age while Vance got out at 23 serving the bare minimum. 

Shit, even Vance has said that he was "lucky to escape any real fighting," and his time in the military consisted of "working in public affairs, writing about Marines and taking photographs of their work, escorting civilian news reporters and speaking about happenings on base."  Link  I'm sure Walz would be careful not to denigrate those in the military taking on non-combat roles, but he should have no hesitation to compare his service record to Corporal Couchfucker, and stuff him in the corner if he or Trump try that Swift Boat bullshit.



 

Edited by South Austin
  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HornPhD said:

They lost that game

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 don’t see the DNC offering sisterly love in a similar manner 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I like it.  And irrespective of what you think of it on its own merits, it's a fuckton better than the previous flag and better than any of the alternative proposals.

Personally I loved this one but blame the MN MAGA for making a stink about it

1125.flag2_.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...