Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    37865
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. What it demonstrates is that private industry knows how to take from the government. And Texas' government knows how to give to private industry. The rest of it doesn't matter.
  2. Why does she have a porn star name?
  3. PE is one of those cases of financial shenanigans that seem to have become completely untethered from any legitimate capital market purpose. It's just pure rent-seeking, just like so much of high-finance has become.
  4. Those without any political awareness seem to have been quite influential in the recent election, see, e.g. leopards eating faces. And there seems to be no shortage of one or more marginalized group routinely shitting on even more marginalized groups in the recent body politic. Encouraged by said leopards.
  5. Counterpoint. Although there is a rational basis for objecting to "biological men" competing in "biological women's" sports, that is not why the trans issue is being pushed by certain political groups. The real reason is to demonize and dehumanize trans people and to deflect attention from the fact that trans people have a right to exist unmolested as a fundamental human right. A sort of analog situation was some years ago when steroids seemed to permeate baseball, and doping cycling. No one made a partisan political issue out of that, it was largely left to MLB and the sports regulating bodies. Because that is not an inherently governmental issue. But it's not any "fun" to demonize cheating baseball players or cyclists as a group, and doesn't serve any political purpose. As noted, the right has thoroughly adopted the politics of demonizing and dehumanizing minorities, because it works among a certain segment of the population. When you have ostensible national leaders squawking incessantly about threats posed by "trannies," and others, it enables and emboldens the real pieces of shit, like this bunch, to do shit like this.
  6. And that's anymore than "preaching from the can," whatever that means?
  7. So, let's assume that reducing government employees and associated expenditure is a good thing. What might make it a good thing? Reducing the cost of government? Reducing the ability of government to "interfere" with daily life? Assuming either of those things is actually good, then we might expect a reduction in the deficit or lower taxes. We may see the latter, but probably not further than the already irresponsible 2017 cut, which was mostly ineffectual for the little guy. Does anyone actually think we'll see a deficit reduction? I suppose the level of government "interference" is impossible to assess, but I bet you will see a decline in the quality of government services that is more objective and more subjectively felt outside corporate boardrooms. So, even if you think cutting government employees and expenditures is good in some abstract sense, I don't think we're actually going to see any of the follow-on effects that really test that proposition. He's not transparent at all, that's a misuse of the term. What he does do, and what Biden failed to do, was bloviate excessively about his alleged accomplishments.
  8. https://www.axios.com/2025/02/16/impeachment-judges-republicans-trump The adults are back in charge.
  9. And gave certain folks another set of browns to hate on. But even if it didn't split the Dems, or certain groups of Dems, it presented a fringe-y issue like trans rights,* that make Dems look "out of touch" and "woke." *to be clear, this is not to minimize that issue, but rather to place it in context as one affecting a relatively small portion of the population and being virtually irrelevant to most aspects of American life
  10. I think he means anoint and fund a candidate to oppose him rather than run against him. But you can be sure said candidate will be made in Paxton's image.
  11. BurntEyes is pimphand?
  12. Well, Kamala didn't campaign on trans rights, for sure. But it was something she said, years ago, during the Trump administration no less. She couldn't very well renounce that position when questioned about it. But I think if the Biden administration had created the appearance of a tougher stance on immigration and done a better job of touting the economy relative to the rest of the world, that would have been less of an issue.
  13. Those who insist that lawyers have a duty to democracy or at least to something other than naked partisan ambition.
  14. China, maybe, just because they have a bunch of smaller craft for a conflict in the Phillippine Sea and thereabouts. The Russian navy is a joke.
  15. No, that wasn't my point. But he's smart and well-educated and as a general proposition, pretty articulate. And I think that's why he gets tied in knots doing Maga shit, because he's an invertebrate. But theres enough of a notochord in there that he gets twisted up spewing stuff he knows is performative bullshit. Cruz is much the same way, but a bit more practiced at overcoming his notochord. Those guys can easily give that speech, as could Kamala Harris. I don't think Trump could and Joe could come closer than Trump, his agedness and speech impediment notwithstanding.
  16. She may not be quite as smart as Vance, or maybe even as versed on foreign affairs, such that her ad libbed answers to interview questions aren't super-polished. Then again, Vance pretty regularly inserts his foot in his mouth, deeply, while speaking extemporaneously. Far more than Harris. But that was a prepared speech that most politicians could give.
  17. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the Texas Taliban. Given some of your other expressed political views, you might do well to study up on it, because it's what's coming for most of the rest of you.
  18. No one would contend that JD Vance, or whatever his fucking name is, is whip-smart. The problem is that he's not a vertebrate. His talking points vary with his audience. And I don't just mean "code switching."
  19. Even if that were true, you know Joe endorsed whatever was happening and provided his input. Dotard doesn't have valid coherent governmental thoughts on his best days.
  20. Yeah, the R's were smart about keeping the common-gooders and P2025ers under wraps until it was more or less safe to unleash them. For fuck's sake, at least take the "socialist" out of the name.
  21. This is what seems inevitable. While the number of lawyers willing to trash the system for Trump is alarming, I think on the grand scale, more of even the federalist-y lawyers like Danielle Sassoon and that Hagen guy are going to be mainstream in their legal views and only the nutbars will be left to do their bidding. And the nutbars haven't shown themselves to be very good lawyers so far, even if they once were. I wonder if Blanche is going to be a fucktoady like Bove. Although Bondi is a piece of shit, I imagine she's getting a bit nervous about what's being exposed about her DOJ. And, I think even the insane loyalists he seems to be appointing are going to wind up leaving or getting fired just like the Tillersons, Sessions, and Boltons etc.
  22. For the record, Catholic Charities in Dallas will help anyone, including Muslim immigrants (as an example of a more or less diametrically opposed faith). Most mainstream-church-funded social services outfits are the same. Can't speak for fundagelicals, but there usually isn't some litmus test you must pass to receive services.
  23. True enough, but if you're paying attention, you never can tell which is which. If he says it, there's substantial risk he's gonna do it. The stupider and more outrageous it is, the more likely he'll do it.
  24. Sadly, probably so will abandonment and starvation of bison calves petted and handled by dipshit tourists.
  25. Half the business of any decent lawyer is telling his client he's a damn fool and should just stop. -Elihu Root
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...