8513 pts ยท June 9, 2015
"I hurt countless people for my own gain, but the gains have stalled, so I would like to reframe what I did to hopefully receive gains again in the future."
Isn't Twitter about 70% bots?
Not pretending I can solve your problem with a witty comparison, but your description makes me think that the best way to interact with you might be how one should generally interact with cats. "You know, cats don't generally like to be touched, but they will come if they feel like it? Treat me like that, please." You could also carry some blades so you can scratch people if they get physical without your consent. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.)
I hope we're not expected to read Old Mad Donald's rant here.
Yeah, that I 100% agree with.
Apparently Trump was the first person to claim that he didn't talk to her during that dinner because she can't speak English. Knowing him, it's possible that he just never approached her in the first place and then made up the story to have something interesting to tell at somebody else's expense. She also has met Trump several times after her husband's death.
I don't know why I didn't think of just searching for the book directly... Thank you.
Not disagreeing, I merely felt it was unneccessary to say that he "can't" honor an agreement. Made it sound to me as if there was an outside factor forcing him. But I guess you could interpret "can't" in the sense of it being compulsory, as in "he can't stop lying", so yeah, I agree with that.
Symptoms are what kills people. It's valid to treat them so your patient lives to be cured. It's not one or the other.
If the home you come back to after work is soft and cozy, it's because someone worked their ass off to make it that way.
Supposedly her husband was also 10 at the time of marriage. Wanted to look up her memoirs, but English Wikipedia has nothing to say about them and the one in Persian isn't much more helpful. And that's basically it, there's a Chinese ersion of the article that's a stub, and no others. TLDR a source would be appreciated.
I really don't think it needs the "can't". He has never honored agreements even as a businessman, to the degree where he just didn't pay people for work he had agreed to pay for.
Tbh I'd rather have stupid jerks leave vulnerable people alone for dumb reasons than appeal to a morality they don't have.
No better sign that somebody is livid than a message with multiple cry laughing emoji.
He already has a presidential library, and it's called the Epstein files.
It feels like all the praise Stalin got after Hitler invaded the USSR.
It's why I honestly kind of like the Illumination movies: They took the aesthetics from the cartoons, the gloomy personality of Wednesday from the movies, and the overall theme of family and acceptance from the TV show. (Even though Wednesday is more "grim", she's still shown to love her family, and it definitely helps that Pugsley shrugs things off as play.) 2/2
There's a bit of a gap between the movies and the classic TV show. The movies were darker and had the Addams do more malicious things, such as spilling hot oil over carolers in the first one, and that scene for instance is directly based on one of the cartoons. The TV show focused on the theme of acceptance instead and virtually never portrayed the family as malicious, occasional unsportsmanlike behaviour by Fester aside. 1/2
Common knowlege, but still remarkable that he'd admit it. He probably thinks it makes him relatable to his followers, and knowing them, I wouldn't be surprised if it does.
What's with this recent surge in "I am atheist don't insult religious feelings" accounts?
There's plenty of words he just uses wrong, and perfect is a memorable one. Remember his "perfect" phone call with Zelensky?
"As a black gay man, I can say..."
Sorry, did you just try to introduce an ideology test for who's allowed to be considered a "true" atheists? I must have missed where atheism has a spiritual authority who can excommunicate me if I don't act the way they like.
I dunno. It gets a little stale after a while.
The thing is that if you do a full ban, savy lawyers always find little holes in the law to still do it a little. If you leave a little, they'll find ways to do it a lot.
Wrong use of POV. The real POV when working with short people is a bird's-eye view.
I mean, a win's a win. It's still odd to me how there's so many posts on Imgur mocking folks who never see any injustice until it affects them personally, yet in this case we somehow decided to idolize a man for it. It's not like he wrote a song about systemic issues. He basically wrote diss tracks about specific people who wronged him specifically. The fact that his experience is relatable doesn't mean he cares about other people.
Look, it's wise that you don't want to jump on every outrage that's shoved in your face, and I agree people sometimes let their experiences guide them without noticing that those don't apply anymore. We're all human. But this wasn't 2016. It was 2024. Trump was NOT in office. What he was is a convicted rapist and somebody who had attempted a coup. You can speculate about motives, fears, ignorance, but in the end, there's a simple point: It's not unjust to judge people by their actions.
He would send people into a running buzz saw if he thought it would make him look good.
POV: no one: TFW
"I hurt countless people for my own gain, but the gains have stalled, so I would like to reframe what I did to hopefully receive gains again in the future."
Isn't Twitter about 70% bots?
Not pretending I can solve your problem with a witty comparison, but your description makes me think that the best way to interact with you might be how one should generally interact with cats. "You know, cats don't generally like to be touched, but they will come if they feel like it? Treat me like that, please." You could also carry some blades so you can scratch people if they get physical without your consent. (For legal reasons, this is a joke.)
I hope we're not expected to read Old Mad Donald's rant here.
Yeah, that I 100% agree with.
Apparently Trump was the first person to claim that he didn't talk to her during that dinner because she can't speak English. Knowing him, it's possible that he just never approached her in the first place and then made up the story to have something interesting to tell at somebody else's expense. She also has met Trump several times after her husband's death.
I don't know why I didn't think of just searching for the book directly... Thank you.
Not disagreeing, I merely felt it was unneccessary to say that he "can't" honor an agreement. Made it sound to me as if there was an outside factor forcing him. But I guess you could interpret "can't" in the sense of it being compulsory, as in "he can't stop lying", so yeah, I agree with that.
Symptoms are what kills people. It's valid to treat them so your patient lives to be cured. It's not one or the other.
If the home you come back to after work is soft and cozy, it's because someone worked their ass off to make it that way.
Supposedly her husband was also 10 at the time of marriage. Wanted to look up her memoirs, but English Wikipedia has nothing to say about them and the one in Persian isn't much more helpful. And that's basically it, there's a Chinese ersion of the article that's a stub, and no others. TLDR a source would be appreciated.
I really don't think it needs the "can't". He has never honored agreements even as a businessman, to the degree where he just didn't pay people for work he had agreed to pay for.
Tbh I'd rather have stupid jerks leave vulnerable people alone for dumb reasons than appeal to a morality they don't have.
No better sign that somebody is livid than a message with multiple cry laughing emoji.
He already has a presidential library, and it's called the Epstein files.
It feels like all the praise Stalin got after Hitler invaded the USSR.
It's why I honestly kind of like the Illumination movies: They took the aesthetics from the cartoons, the gloomy personality of Wednesday from the movies, and the overall theme of family and acceptance from the TV show. (Even though Wednesday is more "grim", she's still shown to love her family, and it definitely helps that Pugsley shrugs things off as play.) 2/2
There's a bit of a gap between the movies and the classic TV show. The movies were darker and had the Addams do more malicious things, such as spilling hot oil over carolers in the first one, and that scene for instance is directly based on one of the cartoons. The TV show focused on the theme of acceptance instead and virtually never portrayed the family as malicious, occasional unsportsmanlike behaviour by Fester aside. 1/2
Common knowlege, but still remarkable that he'd admit it. He probably thinks it makes him relatable to his followers, and knowing them, I wouldn't be surprised if it does.
What's with this recent surge in "I am atheist don't insult religious feelings" accounts?
There's plenty of words he just uses wrong, and perfect is a memorable one. Remember his "perfect" phone call with Zelensky?
"As a black gay man, I can say..."
Sorry, did you just try to introduce an ideology test for who's allowed to be considered a "true" atheists? I must have missed where atheism has a spiritual authority who can excommunicate me if I don't act the way they like.
I dunno. It gets a little stale after a while.
The thing is that if you do a full ban, savy lawyers always find little holes in the law to still do it a little. If you leave a little, they'll find ways to do it a lot.
Wrong use of POV. The real POV when working with short people is a bird's-eye view.
I mean, a win's a win. It's still odd to me how there's so many posts on Imgur mocking folks who never see any injustice until it affects them personally, yet in this case we somehow decided to idolize a man for it. It's not like he wrote a song about systemic issues. He basically wrote diss tracks about specific people who wronged him specifically. The fact that his experience is relatable doesn't mean he cares about other people.
Look, it's wise that you don't want to jump on every outrage that's shoved in your face, and I agree people sometimes let their experiences guide them without noticing that those don't apply anymore. We're all human. But this wasn't 2016. It was 2024. Trump was NOT in office. What he was is a convicted rapist and somebody who had attempted a coup. You can speculate about motives, fears, ignorance, but in the end, there's a simple point: It's not unjust to judge people by their actions.
He would send people into a running buzz saw if he thought it would make him look good.
POV: no one: TFW