Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

In a normal world we’d have an articulate, intelligent person with integrity such as Raskin as our President but we’re an embarrassment.

Edited by tx ind
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

washington and capitol hill should be a hunch of hot, sharp, ambitious 40-somethings with degrees from georgetown and harvard, and instead it’s a bunch of hateful retards doing everything they can to own the milquetoast do-nothings while the rest of us get boned. fucking pussy ass democrats. we could use a couple of LBJ’s right about now.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Derka said:

washington and capitol hill should be a hunch of hot, sharp, ambitious 40-somethings with degrees from georgetown and harvard, and instead it’s a bunch of hateful retards doing everything they can to own the milquetoast do-nothings while the rest of us get boned. fucking pussy ass democrats. we could use a couple of LBJ’s right about now.

There is a reason they say Washington D.C. / Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.

Posted
57 minutes ago, Derka said:

washington and capitol hill should be a hunch of hot, sharp, ambitious 40-somethings with degrees from georgetown and harvard, and instead it’s a bunch of hateful retards doing everything they can to own the milquetoast do-nothings while the rest of us get boned. fucking pussy ass democrats. we could use a couple of LBJ’s right about now.

Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin went to Harvard and Georgetown, respectively. 

Just sayin'. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Again with the Harvard.

No shit. What we need is someone from a state school who is sharp as a tack and can speak in the language of the people about what a turd this admin has been. A Coach Walz type. A guy who tells or like it is in a way the town drunk at the end of the bar can understand.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted

I stand by the idea that 1. If the country isn't metaphorically burned to the ground by 2028, Trump or whatever comes after will win or 2. If the country is proper fucked that any Dem ticket will win. 

The only thing I know is that Dems have to stop playing Moneyball and predicting what combo the electorate would "accept". Just get the best damn people with the best ideas at the top. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Again with the Harvard.

Yes, fuck those Harvard elites, right @BrickHorn?

 

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The only thing I know is that Dems have to stop playing Moneyball and predicting what combo the electorate would "accept". Just get the best damn people with the best ideas at the top.

When has this been a problem aside from 2024?  

  • Haha 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

2016 and 2020. They won in 2020 but it was a bandaid and here we are again. 

Oh, totally disagree.  Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley wasn't going to beat Trump and that was peak Bernie in terms of movement energy (and still got beat in every primary state that wasn't 80% anglo aside from Michigan)

 

56 minutes ago, immamac said:

Also, 2000, 2004 

Who did you want to run in either of these elections that you think would have resulted in a different outcome? 

Posted
10 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Oh, totally disagree.  Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley wasn't going to beat Trump and that was peak Bernie in terms of movement energy (and still got beat in every primary state that wasn't 80% anglo aside from Michigan)

 

Who did you want to run in either of these elections that you think would have resulted in a different outcome? 

Uh, anyone with any charisma at all? Not John fucking Kerry? 

I can't tell if you are joking or being serious. Obama is the last good candidate, Biden pre brain melt was fine for the situation, but he failed the assignment massively. 

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

Uh, anyone with any charisma at all? Not John fucking Kerry? 

I can't tell if you are joking or being serious. Obama is the last good candidate, Biden pre brain melt was fine for the situation, but he failed the assignment massively. 

If your standard for candidate excellence is Obama then you're living in fantasy land.  No one is going to measure up. 

John Kerry DESTROYED the field in the primary.  In response to a post making the claim that the Dems are somehow holding back their best candidates because elites within the party are dictating who can win, your recommendation is "find someone else"? 

I guess we can bullshit about whatever on the thread but it's not constructive.  If your complaint is that you wish there were better options, then I agree with you, but I don't see a better option who was ignored. 

Posted
9 hours ago, Derka said:

washington and capitol hill should be a hunch of hot, sharp, ambitious 40-somethings with degrees from georgetown and harvard, and instead it’s a bunch of hateful retards doing everything they can to own the milquetoast do-nothings while the rest of us get boned. fucking pussy ass democrats. we could use a couple of LBJ’s right about now.

You know where LBJ’s degree came from, correct?

Posted
31 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

If your standard for candidate excellence is Obama then you're living in fantasy land.  No one is going to measure up. 

John Kerry DESTROYED the field in the primary.  In response to a post making the claim that the Dems are somehow holding back their best candidates because elites within the party are dictating who can win, your recommendation is "find someone else"? 

I guess we can bullshit about whatever on the thread but it's not constructive.  If your complaint is that you wish there were better options, then I agree with you, but I don't see a better option who was ignored. 

I've got a really shitty track record. I initially supported Bradley over Gore and Dean over Kerry in the primaries because I viewed them as more progressive. By the end of the primaries, I was "okay" with Gore and Kerry as the nominees. Hell, I was on the Governor Moonbeam bandwagon in '92. Obama is the only candidate I've fully supported throughout the primaries who actually ended up getting elected president.

Posted
44 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

If your standard for candidate excellence is Obama then you're living in fantasy land.  No one is going to measure up. 

John Kerry DESTROYED the field in the primary.  In response to a post making the claim that the Dems are somehow holding back their best candidates because elites within the party are dictating who can win, your recommendation is "find someone else"? 

I guess we can bullshit about whatever on the thread but it's not constructive.  If your complaint is that you wish there were better options, then I agree with you, but I don't see a better option who was ignored. 

You think everyone else is only 1 or 2 rungs down from Obama here? They are like 10. Those guys are absolute potatoes and boat anchors compared to Obama. 

There are plenty of charismatic people they could pick. The issue is that they don't care about winning, they care about control if they do win. Kamala was painfully awkward so many times, and I supported her too. As people mentioned they neutered walz and Harris when they were getting the vibes right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, immamac said:

There are plenty of charismatic people they could pick.

I’m presuming you understand that charisma isn’t the only criteria for winning, but I’ll repeat my question-who do you think would have outperformed the candidates that were chosen, in Kerry’s case, a diverse primary against an incumbent with less than 50% approval (for the record, @bolverk, I was an Edward’s guy so my judgment is far from infallible, too).  
 

This whole “run better candidates” and “goddamn Dem elites need to quit picking Clintons” is fine to settle on, but it seems to be omitting the obvious-they were the best at the time and we voted for them.  
 

There’s a piece in The Atlantic I haven’t finished yet but it posits that our current anti-incumbent malaise is driven by the failure of government to deliver solutions fast enough to avoid social media criticism (I.e, information travels so fast now that everything looks like shit if you start picking at it.). I feel like there’s an undercurrent of that in the complaints about the Dem candidates.  
 

Here’s my rebuttal-the Dem VOTERS are at fault and need to quit blaming party elites, Hispanics for failing to marry themselves to the party like African Americans have, and wishing that every candidate looked or spoke like Obama. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I stand by the idea that 1. If the country isn't metaphorically burned to the ground by 2028, Trump or whatever comes after will win or 2. If the country is proper fucked that any Dem ticket will win. 

The only thing I know is that Dems have to stop playing Moneyball and predicting what combo the electorate would "accept". Just get the best damn people with the best ideas at the top. 

 

The GQP has proven over and over again that extremist, crazy-ass stuff wins.  Dems need to lean into the crazy on the other end of the spectrum.  Free health care, wipe out all student debt, ban guns, tax the billionaires at 90% of net wealth, any corporation worth more than $10bln gets busted up, five cents per share tax on any stock held less than 15 minutes, no more loans against stock holdings.  Complete overhaul of corrupt police departments across the nation.  Defense spending limit no higher than the next three highest nations combined.  Declare the GQP a domestic terror organization. Total ban on algo-based social media.  Etc etc etc.

We'd get smoked, but at least we go down trying instead of this touchy-feely bullshit that does no one any good.

Edited by Fudge Nuggets
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So her presidential aspirations are over, right? Not that they were very realistic to begin with 

Not necessarily over, but she and Gavin Newsom are getting some really bad advice.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
23 hours ago, LCHorn said:

I’m presuming you understand that charisma isn’t the only criteria for winning, but I’ll repeat my question-who do you think would have outperformed the candidates that were chosen, in Kerry’s case, a diverse primary against an incumbent with less than 50% approval (for the record, @bolverk, I was an Edward’s guy so my judgment is far from infallible, too).  
 

This whole “run better candidates” and “goddamn Dem elites need to quit picking Clintons” is fine to settle on, but it seems to be omitting the obvious-they were the best at the time and we voted for them.  
 

There’s a piece in The Atlantic I haven’t finished yet but it posits that our current anti-incumbent malaise is driven by the failure of government to deliver solutions fast enough to avoid social media criticism (I.e, information travels so fast now that everything looks like shit if you start picking at it.). I feel like there’s an undercurrent of that in the complaints about the Dem candidates.  
 

Here’s my rebuttal-the Dem VOTERS are at fault and need to quit blaming party elites, Hispanics for failing to marry themselves to the party like African Americans have, and wishing that every candidate looked or spoke like Obama. 

Bernie fucking Sanders for one. 

Howard fucking Dean, his byaaaaa! Speech wasn't enough for him to drop out. 

I mean there's a list, and it's full of people who are extremely qualified but get dicked over for no reason except complete fucking stupidity. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, immamac said:

Bernie fucking Sanders for one. 

Howard fucking Dean, his byaaaaa! Speech wasn't enough for him to drop out. 

I mean there's a list, and it's full of people who are extremely qualified but get dicked over for no reason except complete fucking stupidity. 

 

But also, they lose.

Posted
On 4/11/2025 at 2:11 AM, David Dennison said:

Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin went to Harvard and Georgetown, respectively. 

Just sayin'. 

Yeah 100 years ago

Posted
11 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So her presidential aspirations are over, right? Not that they were very realistic to begin with 

We'll see. Primaries are still years away. She is displaying rather bad political instincts though. A rather bad sign she can lead us to victory. 

Posted (edited)

Was it here that @G650 posted the article about free speech?

It said something that took me aback for a minute, but I think is accurate.  And that was that the First Amendment, a lot like the Second Amendment, was kind of a dead letter until approximately the 20th century, when "liberals" began to use it to protect "minority viewpoints" and civil liberties in constitutional litigation.

I have observed that "conservatives" have turned that constitutional litigation tactic on its ear, so to speak, including with the "activist judges" trope.  Now they employ their own activist judges to curtail the freedoms sought by "liberals" in favor of other freedoms, usually those associated with the historical majority, e.g. white "Christian" heterosexual males.

I can't say that "liberals" were wrong to employ that tactic, or that the courts were wrong to "indulge" it.

But God Almighty has it had some unintended consequences.

We have so maximized freedom that various freedoms are now in direct conflict with each other.  And, as is the nature of court cases, many of the underlying disputes are extreme or fringey that they make good political fodder for the "too liberal."  For example, all the "trans talk" that dominated the 2024 election stemmed from a court case.  https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/trans-gender-affirming-care-prison-inmates-landmark-case-trump-eo-halt/

Anyway, this is something decades in the making that gets identified, rightly or wrongly, with the Democratic Party and is something that must be dealt with somehow.

I don't know what is the solution, or if there even is one.  Just scattershooting/Sherrod.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
On 4/11/2025 at 6:40 AM, Chad Fuck said:


No shit. What we need is someone from a state school who is sharp as a tack and can speak in the language of the people about what a turd this admin has been. A Coach Walz type. A guy who tells or like it is in a way the town drunk at the end of the bar can understand.

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the folks posting in the "My kid got into UT/ other prestigious schools" threads and how many of those parents hope their kids end up in politics.

Posted
On 4/13/2025 at 9:14 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Was it here that @G650 posted the article about free speech?

It said something that took me aback for a minute, but I think is accurate.  And that was that the First Amendment, a lot like the Second Amendment, was kind of a dead letter until approximately the 20th century, when "liberals" began to use it to protect "minority viewpoints" and civil liberties in constitutional litigation.

I have observed that "conservatives" have turned that constitutional litigation tactic on its ear, so to speak, including with the "activist judges" trope.  Now they employ their own activist judges to curtail the freedoms sought by "liberals" in favor of other freedoms, usually those associated with the historical majority, e.g. white "Christian" heterosexual males.

I can't say that "liberals" were wrong to employ that tactic, or that the courts were wrong to "indulge" it.

But God Almighty has it had some unintended consequences.

We have so maximized freedom that various freedoms are now in direct conflict with each other.  And, as is the nature of court cases, many of the underlying disputes are extreme or fringey that they make good political fodder for the "too liberal."  For example, all the "trans talk" that dominated the 2024 election stemmed from a court case.  https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/trans-gender-affirming-care-prison-inmates-landmark-case-trump-eo-halt/

Anyway, this is something decades in the making that gets identified, rightly or wrongly, with the Democratic Party and is something that must be dealt with somehow.

I don't know what is the solution, or if there even is one.  Just scattershooting/Sherrod.

You deal with it by sacking up and doing the opposite of Whitmer. Fuck your feelings has to be the attitude Dems take towards the mythical sensitive swing voter. Stop wringing your hands and ignore that shit. Stand your ground that GQP policies suck  They do  Never waver from that message. “Republicans are stealing from you and giving it to the wealthy,” is the refrain. Sing it until it’s burned in people’s minds like the Kars 4 Kids jingle. 459-2222, the Republicans are fucking you.

Then, build a platform that will actually help people. Build it to attack the new protectionist agenda on the right by showing how much better you can make the lives of regular folks while the Pubs are out there giving more money to the wealthy. Do it without excessively making yourself the party of rapid social change, but if that shit comes up, pivot to pocketbook issues, don’t shrink from the moment, reframe and attack  

You’re never going to get more of the upper middle class. So fuck em. Taxes have to go up on the better off, and down on the poor and middle class. But give them more than tax cuts. They need a bigger safety net, and generally a path to a better life.

Even If it’s never going to be effective, Dems need a rural America economic program. Ignore any warts and sell the shit out of it. When your defense is weak, attack. Attack by selling a dream, even if it’s little better than fantasy. People outside the metros only hear one message they could possibly accept. Give them something.

Dems need to stop being Dems. They need to the fervor and self-assuredness of radical movements of 100 years ago. The era of triangulation is over. The grifting carnival barker out front shoulda told ya. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Iceman said:

I'd like to see a Venn diagram of the folks posting in the "My kid got into UT/ other prestigious schools" threads and how many of those parents hope their kids end up in politics.

Why?  What is your point here?  

 

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

Why?  What is your point here?  

 

Folks up thread were discussing talented people getting into politics and their alma maters. Personally, I hope my kids never do, beyond local stuff. 

Edited by Iceman
Posted
Just now, Iceman said:

Folks up thread were discussing talented people getting into politics

Yes, but I don't understand your point about parents hoping their kids get into politics.  If my kid wants to go into politics, that's on him, right? 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Yes, but I don't understand your point about parents hoping their kids get into politics.  If my kid wants to go into politics, that's on him, right? 

It's all on them, if we are going there.  As a parent, we still have more desirable paths or certain destinations that are hoped for.  I got asked more than once if I thought my oldest son would go into politics because of a combination of factors.  I'd just smile and reply, "Nah, he's an honest person.  He's also got way too much self respect for that."

Edited by Iceman


×
×
  • Create New...