1117

Warning: NSFW language

“Jewish men have small cocks because they can’t use them after they get married,” Giuliani said, according to the transcript. “Whereas the Italian use them all their lives so they get bigger.”

Giuliani railed against how Jewish people “want to go through that freaking Passover all the time” and how they should “get over the Passover” because it was 3,000 years ago. “OK, the Red Sea parted,” the transcript reads. “Big deal. Not the first time that happened.”

Giuliani doesn’t elaborate on other instances when the Red Sea was parted.

The transcripts also feature Giuliani discussing which celebrities are Republican. Giuliani is trying to think of someone in particular and Dunphy volunteers that Matt Damon is “very liberal.”

“Matt Damon is a fag,” Giuliani replies. “Matt Damon is also 5’2″, eyes are blue. Coochi-coochie-coochie-coo.”

Various websites list Damon as around 5’10”. It’s unclear why Giuliani invoked the 1920s song “Has Anybody Seen My Girl? (Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue)” or what it has to do with the actor.

Then there are the lewd comments directed toward Dunphy. “Come here, big tits,” Giuliani says on one occasion, according to the transcript. “Come here, big tits. Your tits belong to me. Give them to me [indiscernable]. I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. I want to claim my tits. These are my tits.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 185 points 1 year ago

What a very oddly specific and suspicious thing to have anything at all to say about.

[-] Adeptfuckup@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago

Giuliani micro penis confirmed.

[-] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

Every accusation is a confession

[-] clgoh@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Almost exposed in the Borat moviefilm.

[-] tempest@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 year ago

I'm starting to wonder how many of these aged politicians start to have dementia but manage to continue.

It's really starting to make me pretty ageist when I consider voting.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

We should not be ashamed for being ageist when we are talking about politicians. The system has always been ageist with its limits directed toward young people, so I see no reason why there shouldn’t be an upper limit for old people.

[-] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Young people have more to loose when they are making decisions on climate change etc. Dudes in their 80s don't give a shit if their policy decisions mess stuff up as in the short term their dead soon.

[-] ericisshort@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Even still, I’d be equally against a 90 y/o politician as much as a 9 y/o one.

[-] Restaldt@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Would rather vote for a 9yo

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I mean the 9 year old would probably legislate Fortnite more than transpeople, so.... I kinda would prefer the 9 y/o in congress

[-] zeppo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It's bizarre that in most every other line of work, people are discriminated against and expected to retire when they're over 60... besides low-paying unskilled labor like maintenance, where they're forced to work by economic conditions, or very skilled work like being a lawyer or doctor. I suppose the latter is what people consider politicians. Supposedly we are reaping the benefits of their long, wise lives... which is a joke. It's fucked up that we're looking at an election with two people who are about 80. I don't know anyone who is 80 who should be in a position that has massive responsibility and a busy workload. On the other hand, it's also weird to consider electing some inexperienced twerp like DeSantis, who is younger than I am.

[-] solstice@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

My firm has mandatory retirement at 65 for partners so younger professionals can become partner themselves. It's so weird how normal that is in every industry except government.

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 year ago

There's many professionals that continue to work well beyond 65. Most doctors and lawyers for example. Plus independent business owners and sports coaches... List can go on.

Basically it's none of the governments business if someone doesn't want to stop at 65 and fuck off if you're suggesting the government should be enforcing some age limits on it. It's the opposition that is responsible for building a strong enough case against old politicians that force them to retire. Not the government.

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I turned 48 today. I'm starting to look at what will happen when I get to 65. At this point, I don't think I'll be able to afford to retire. Maybe I'll go to part time and do freelance work or something, but I won't be able to afford to just stop working entirely.

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago

Sorry man, I'm your same age but I'm hopeful that I can retire early.

[-] Xanthrax@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't worry about their age as much as their cognitive abilities.

[-] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I dunno, this stuff sounds like what I hear muttered by the meth-heads at the bus stop opposite my office. These guys in their 60s-70s are popping prescribed amphetamines to keep them going, they’ve gotta come down at some point.

this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2023
1117 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3506 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS