"Bring some Cokes in please." You can't pay for that kind of advertising. A Coke and a smile.
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2023
180 points (100.0% liked)
World News
22059 readers
9 users here now
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Coca-Cola: the official drink of treason.
This is almost as bad as Pearl Harbor: Brought to You by Winston Cigarettes, an advertising campaign that will live in infamy.
This is almost as bad as Pearl Harbor: Brought to You by Winston Cigarettes, an advertising campaign that will live in infamy.
What's this in reference to? I tried googling for relevant keywords but predictably I didn't get jack shit
I dreamt it up, my friend
I'm not that familiar with drugs, but shouldn't it be singular? "Bring some coke in"? Or is it nowadays pre-portioned?
I can't tell if you are joking, so in case you aren't: He is referring to coke aka coca cola, not coke aka cocain
He was referring to the drink not the drug, but yes is the answer to your question. He pluralized it for some reason. Maybe a joke, maybe the other person wanted a coke as well. Maybe he's dumb and doesn't understand how to make words go together well.
You are probably trolling but I'm going to bite anyway, it's cokes as in coca cola.
I'd consider it joking rather than trolling, but other than thar, yeah...
My biggest fear is from the post I read that said that, in cases like these, the Justice Department will frequently offer the defendant a sweetheart plea deal. The information is so classified that it can’t be used as evidence for national security, and he will get little more than a slap on the wrist again.
I've been wrong before, but I can't imagine Trump accepting a plea deal.
Mostly I'd be worried about actually being able to finding a decent jury without one nutjob who refuses to convict under any circumstance.
oh god you're right - it will be the ultimate hung jury and it will be annoying af.
the good thing is, in the current climate I can't see Trump getting reelected.
Can't you? Every time Trump gets caught breaking the law it's spun as a political attack on conservatism. It's sunk-cost fallacy. They have bought into so many of his lies that to cast doubt on him calls into question who they even are.
I figure anything that puts Trump in front of a camera works to his advantage. Will it swing an election in his favor? Who knows? That's over a year away - you can't really say anything for certain.
in the current climate I can’t see Trump getting reelected.
As bad as he is, if he becomes ineligible to run, there are equally bad GOP candidates standing in the wings, except they're more competent and are willing to fuck over the country far worse than Trump was able to.
Yeah it's so stressful to think about. The only good thing to come out of this is a less-apathetic voting demographic between 18-35. Let's hope it's enough to keep the fascists at bay.
Jury trials are possibly something I'm too European to understand. They just seem like such a minefield
The only thing that should get slapped on his wrist is a set of handcuffs. Smol ones for his smol hands.
Please stop giving that man air time.
I’d still really like to know the source. It’s not hard to use AI to fake audio only and I doubt the trumpets will convict on audio only
It was provided by reporter(s) that were with Trump gathering background for Mark Meadows book. He knew they were there, who they were and presumably he was being recorded, or at least being transcribed, and felt it appropriate to share those files. Assuming they and the aides in the room are on the witness list, which apperently will be unsealed unless the Special Council appeals today's ruling.
He's also copped to it being real, but claimed the documents were "news papers." That was a couple obvious lies ago, I'm sure people are forgetting it.
load more comments
(-1 replies)
I'm curious who leaked it. Just as the DOJ started turning over discovery something leaks after months of secrecy.
Someone still believe what mainstream media say?
You only have to believe your own ears. It's a tape with corroborating witnesses who were in the room.
Still more believable than most crackpot theories out there though.
view more: next ›