Jump to content

The Original Greaser Bob

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by The Original Greaser Bob

  1. 21 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

    Gavin Newsom is breaking from the party on trans in sports. Yes it's a fringe issue, but matters to our voter base which is largely comprised of mouth breathing trogolodytes.

     

    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-breaks-with-democrats-on-trans-athletes-in-sports-00215436

    This goes to the heart of what wildcat is arguing about accepting the framing of the GOP message.

    "Breaking from the party"? 

    I think if a recipient of federal funds or an entity engaged in interstate commerce can show that a trans athlete has an unfair biological advantage in an athletic event then they can ban the trans athlete form competing against non-trans athletes.  I'd even give them the relatively low "rational basis" test for their biological proof.  

    Is that "breaking from the party"?

     

  2. 13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Name one Democrat running for a statewide or national office who has ever made identity or social issues a cornerstone of their platform. 

    I'll take my lumps for injecting the term. 

  3. 2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    I think they communicated to voters as well as they possibly could have that they wanted to stop immigration and had negotiated a very "strong" immigration bill and that Trump killed it. So the question is how did their communication fail?

    The strong bill was obviously too late in the game.  And they didn't have someone who was doing the photo ops at the border that would have shown some vigor and reminded people that it was a priority.   

  4. 2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Biden ramped up deportations to record levels and he and Kamala (and all other Dems running in 2024) ran as fast as they could from trans issues.

    Do you think Biden and Kamala did a good job of communicating any successes on the border?  Agree on the running from trans issues - they could have been more supportive while still providing a more directed message on the idiocy of the anti-trans morons. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  5. 10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Of course I'm not fucking happy with the results. I'm saying that the shitty results are the results of your proposed solution because the campaign strategists that run political campaigns for Democrats have been doing what you propose since fucking 1992.

    I'm not really sure what he's proposing.  To me the lesson learned is that a very progressive approach to economic and welfare issues is a politically winnable strategy as long as you don't lead with certain identity issues that may not be as politically expedient.  (Bernie instead of Hillary).  If you're going to propose a new New Deal, you need to decide whether it makes sense to adda trans rights rider or couple it with affirmative action policies.  

    You can remain radically progressive on identity and social issues, but perhaps the best approach is to support legal protections while not making them a cornerstone of the platform. 

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
  6. 13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    Yes, dumbfucks like Brett Stevens want to hold Democrats accountable while Trump burns everything to the ground with zero pushback. 

    I think we should hold Dems accountable for strategy and marketing.  You can do that while still supporting Dem policies.

    I was in DC this weekend, and we were driving into a parking garage and there was a sign about going to a "Trans Visibility March".  (The pasta station in Union Market at NoMa was pretty good.)  

    Politically, sometimes it's good for the march, sometimes not.  Politically, sometimes it is the hot issue of the day, and sometimes it's not.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. 16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    "The Democrats need to stop doing what the Republicans disingenuously accuse them of doing."

    Just because there is a double standard doesn't mean that Dems haven't made big miscalculations on the timing and method of embracing "identity" issues.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Just a point of order.  Originalists, or textualists, or strict constructionists, any of the constitutional interpretation methods "in opposition" to a "living Constitution," do not hold the original document as perfect.

    Counterpoint of order.  We hate "ists" just as much as we hate "isms".

    3d95af2e-efad-4f84-877e-8a24c0c3b690_tex

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. A decade ago universities were vigorously expelling students from campus who sexually assaulted women on campus.  In the book Missoula, Jon Krakauer chronicles how UM (in my opinion) erred on the side of victims on campus and kicked off assaulters with less due process and burden of proof than a criminal court would require.   Which was fine by me. They eventually lost that battle.

    I think the underlying issue is similar in that schools could have taken an approach where they punished/expelled anyone who created a legitimately hostile environment towards other students.  That's not to say that any of the recent protesters did that.  But these schools would have been better served had they decided that they were going to go absolutely overboard in terms of time and place restrictions and if they made examples of any students who created  hostile environment directed at specific students rather than at towards non-student entities. 

    Caveat:  Do I know whether there were any such directed hostile actions?  No.  But hard to imagine that there weren't any that went either way.  

    The schools weren't afraid to err on the side of the victims in the sexual assault cases - they should have marketed the same attitude in regard to potential student victims.

    Republicans won the perception battle in that regard, and now they are attacking free speech.  The schools were sloppy and didn't accurately forsee the danger.

  10. 45 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

    A friend just paid 25% for Japanese goods.

    I want that deal.

    I'd buy every bag of Hi-Chews I could find if I were getting 75% off.

     

    • Like 1
    • Drool 1
  11. 3 hours ago, Satchel said:

    They’re re-engineering the meaning of words to facilitate their long game. It is now a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to consider discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 

    I'm not sure what you are talking about.  They clearly have made "diversity" and "equity" code words for discrimination, so you want those words out of your policies. The burdens on a discrimination claim remain the same.  The EEOC is just going to be focusing on cases brought by white bitchy males in the next few years.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  12. 3 hours ago, tx ind said:

    Ossoff should get some more mention of bigger things in the future. He’s white, young, straight, serious, fucking smart and not an asshole.  Also from a Southern state.  

     

     

    I'd like to think if I was caught with my pants down, and my hair getting mussed, I'd go full Gen. Buck Turgidson - chew gum hard, scowl.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...