Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
58 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

For those of you on Bluesky, Chris Murphy CT Senator, is a good follow. Does little snippets once a day about all the stuff Trump co are fucking up. 
 

 

It's already gone, dude.

There's one means of protecting yourself and your family now.

Arm yourself.  I don't care if you are an anti-gun liberal -- get over it, and arm yourself.

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It's already gone, dude.

There's one means of protecting yourself and your family now.

Arm yourself.  I don't care if you are an anti-gun liberal -- get over it, and arm yourself.

 

I do have a shot gun just for home defense but I will probably starting training and so forth this summer.

Not that it will do much good unless some kind of local militia forms. I am not going to be able to defend anything all by myself.

Posted
Just now, Valmy77 said:

I do have a shot gun just for home defense but I will probably starting training and so forth this summer.

Not that it will do much good unless some kind of local militia forms. I am not going to be able to defend anything all by myself.

It's not about defending yourself against any large-scale action.  It's about defending yourself and neighbors when a van of shock troops shows up, doesn't identify themselves, and tries to disappear you.

My wife learned in a self-defense class years ago -- when attacked and someone's trying to abduct you, DO NOT GO TO THE SECOND LOCATION.  Do everything you can to avoid that -- wreck your car and injure yourself, whatever you have to do.  Well, a new gestapo that is not bound by any law is not dissimilar to a criminal enterprise.  Don't go to the second location....because it's a foreign gulag, and you'll never come back.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

I think @Derka would say she goes hard in the paint. I know I say it about her. One of the few things Texas has done right is getting Crockett elected to Congress.

Edited by UpperWestside
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin retiring saying “it’s time to pass the torch.”

Man is 80 years old and has been in Congress since 1983. I am glad it is finally time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 4/22/2025 at 10:14 AM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Whatever else, it's tough times like this that I'm glad the Dems had the courage to get rid of that misogynist, Al Franken.

I'm still pissed about this one.

On 4/16/2025 at 3:35 AM, UpperWestside said:

I think @Derka would say she goes hard in the paint. I know I say it about her. One of the few things Texas has done right is getting Crockett elected to Congress.

You're welcome.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Pete did a 3 hour interview with obnoxious dumbfuck Andrew Schulz and his clown friends. 

 

Good to at least provide a counter to the Trump/right wing shit that is typical with Schulz and other "comedians". 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

House Democrats are asking for answers from law firms who made deals with Trump and raising questions about whether they've violated bribery and racketeering laws.

https://min.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/min.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/04.24.25-letters-to-law-firms-on-trump-administration-agreements-all.pdf

Quote

While we do not know all of the particular facts about the circumstances of the Paul Weiss agreement with President Trump, this agreement on the surface appears to have been struck in order to induce President Trump to revoke the March 14, 2025, Executive Order targeting Paul Weiss. If this is the case, Paul Weiss’ settlement raises a number of concerns, including potential violations of federal and state statutes, as well as several Rules of Professional Conduct, including the below:


Potential Federal Law Violations

1. 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1): The Paul Weiss agreement could potentially implicate this
federal anti-bribery statute, which prohibits anyone, under threat of both criminal and
civil liability, from corruptly offering and promising something of value to public
officials with the intent to influence their official acts.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 1951: The Hobbs Act prohibits obstruction, delay, or affecting commerce
by extortion under color of official right. By participating in this arrangement,
performance under the Paul Weiss agreement may be argued to constitute the aiding,
abetting, and/or conspiracy with officials in the commission of these offenses, as
established in precedents such as United States v. Torcasio, 959 F.2d 503, 505-506
(4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Spitler, 800 F.2d 1267, 1276-79 (4th Cir. 1986); and
United States v. Wright, 797 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1986).
3. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341/1343, 1346, 1349: These statutes prohibit schemes to defraud the
public of the honest services of public officials using mail and wire communications.
The Paul Weiss agreement may be argued to constitute such a scheme involving
bribery, as defined by the Supreme Court in Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358
(2010).
4. 18 U.S.C. § 1962: The RICO statute prohibits participation in an enterprise engaged
in a pattern of racketeering activity. It may be argued that the Paul Weiss agreement,
which involves Paul Weiss, its partners, the President, and other executive officials
may constitute an association-in-fact enterprise engaged in predicate offenses
including bribery.


Potential State Law Violations

Paul Weiss’ headquarters are in New York, with other offices in Washington, D.C.,
California, and Delaware, as well as several international offices. Paul Weiss’ performance under
the Paul Weiss agreement may violate New York Penal Law § 200.03, which prohibits offering
or agreeing to confer benefits valued over $5,000 on a public servant with the understanding that
such public servant’s actions will be influenced thereby. There are presumably comparable laws
in the other states in which Paul Weiss has a significant presence.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Is bribery illegal in this corrupt backwards kleptocracy we live in? 

I mean this has to be the most corrupt country in the entire world by a huge margin by this point. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Is bribery illegal in this corrupt backwards kleptocracy we live in? 

I mean this has to be the most corrupt country in the entire world by a huge margin by this point. 

laughing-putin.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

Seeing a lot of “Pete is dead to me” dialogue today, and it just reinforces the belief that many of the most vocal left-wing voices care more about purity tests than winning elections and improving the county.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Seeing a lot of “Pete is dead to me” dialogue today, and it just reinforces the belief that many of the most vocal left-wing voices care more about purity tests than winning elections and improving the county.

What did Pete do?

Posted
32 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

What did Pete do?

Had the audacity to effectively and articulately pitch his Democratic viewpoints on an extremely popular podcast hosted by a guy who voted for Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
23 hours ago, Pancho said:

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin retiring saying “it’s time to pass the torch.”


 

 

35 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Seeing a lot of “Pete is dead to me” dialogue today, and it just reinforces the belief that many of the most vocal left-wing voices care more about purity tests than winning elections and improving the county.

I regret to inform you that the algorithm thinks you are a moron.

 

Posted
38 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Seeing a lot of “Pete is dead to me” dialogue today, and it just reinforces the belief that many of the most vocal left-wing voices care more about purity tests than winning elections and improving the county.

 

For going on that podcast? That exactly what Dems should be doing.

Posted
Just now, Pancho said:

 

For going on that podcast? That exactly what Dems should be doing.

Democrats should listen closely to what progressive maximalists want, and then do the opposite of that. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Had the audacity to effectively and articulately pitch his Democratic viewpoints on an extremely popular podcast hosted by a guy who voted for Trump.

Oh well that's good. It's only bad if you go on their podcast and kiss their ass and be buddy buddy and shit. If you go on there and debate them and state your points you are doing good work.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Democrats should listen closely to what progressive maximalists want, and then do the opposite of that. 

How unreasonable you are really has nothing to do with how progressive you are. Nothing ideological about being unreasonable. Plenty of people lose their shit over stupid crap who are moderates.

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

For going on that podcast? That exactly what Dems should be doing.

Yep. 

Though there is a bad way of doing that. You can't go on there and be like "yeah the wokes in my party sure are nuts, you right wing guys sure are great!" No you go on their to challenge their bullshit. As respectfully as possible under the circumstances of course.

But Pete has been doing this the right way for awhile. I trust he did us proud.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Valmy77 said:

Yep. 

Though there is a bad way of doing that. You can go on their and be like "yeah the wokes in my party sure are nuts, you right wing guys sure are great!" No you go on their to challenge their bullshit. As respectfully as possible under the circumstances of course.

But Pete has been doing this the right way for awhile. I trust he did us proud.

Don't be a Newsome.  Be a Pete. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

How unreasonable you are really has nothing to do with how progressive you are. Nothing ideological about being unreasonable. Plenty of people lose their shit over stupid crap who are moderates.

“Moderates” are also ideologues and are therefore stupid likewise, just less so. 
People got mad a few years ago when I put this on Hornfans, but essentially, people vote Republican because they believe stuff and vote Democrat because they want stuff. Donald Trump was effective carving off Democrat voters by speaking to that impulse at the same time Democrats forgot who their customers are. 

Democrats consistently win when they choose ideas and objectives over ideology. There’s nothing moderate or centrist about it. 
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Democrats consistently win when they choose ideas and objectives over ideology. There’s nothing moderate or centrist about it. 
 

I don't understand the distinction between ideas and objectives versus ideology.

But in any case my point was really that somehow you had to be at the leftwing of the party to be unreasonable about things like this. Not that we all needed to be more or less ideological.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Ideas are ideas. Ideologies are cargo cults. 

Ok. That...doesn't make much sense. Anyway "progressivism" is more a vague vibe than an ideology anyway.

I have to say despite what @Chuckie Finster said everywhere I look on leftwing media is "See Pete OWN Maga fools on their own podcast" so the left, at least, seems happy with his performance.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Ok. That...doesn't make much sense.

No offense meant, but have you considered that you might be an ideologue? Maybe that’s why it doesn’t make sense. 
 

 

16 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Anyway "progressivism" is more a vague vibe than an ideology anyway

No. Progressivism is absolutely a very real and coherent belief system. And there’s nothing inherently wrong or offensive about it, it’s just not useful for winning popularity quadrennial or biennial national popularity contests. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense meant, but have you considered that you might be an ideologue? Maybe that’s why it doesn’t make sense.

Maybe, I couldn't really name what it is beyond just general grab bag of ideas that I think work.

I was just curious what you meant by that distinction.

Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Had the audacity to effectively and articulately pitch his Democratic viewpoints on an extremely popular podcast hosted by a guy who voted for Trump.

How does anyone get mad about this? He was more/less the only Democrat that was on FoxNews giving articulate interviews with answers that shot down all the crazy conspiracies these people were putting forth. Now it's a bad idea for him to give sane views to the same type of audience why again?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

How does anyone get mad about this? He was more/less the only Democrat that was on FoxNews giving articulate interviews with answers that shot down all the crazy conspiracies these people were putting forth. Now it's a bad idea for him to give sane views to the same type of audience why again?

No one has ever accused tankies of being critical thinkers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Maybe, I couldn't really name what it is beyond just general grab bag of ideas that I think work.

I was just curious what you meant by that distinction.

I celebrate a grab bag of good ideas and abhor a grab bag of bad ones. The problem with ideologues is that their ideas are systematic, and they are very concerned with why you have them and what other views you are allowed to have, and what boxes have to be checked along the way and so on. And Ideological maximalists generally don’t like the idea of getting anything they want unless they get everything they want. 
You see this with housing in big cities all the time- everyone agrees we have a shortage but progressive left maxis will actively oppose allowing any because  developers will make money and they don’t want the housing without fixing the systemic inequities of capitalism. 
 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Maybe, I couldn't really name what it is beyond just general grab bag of ideas that I think work.

I was just curious what you meant by that distinction.

I’m reading it as exemplified by the Blue state intra-Democratic party fight over housing, which has gotten quite heated since “Abundance” came out. Basically:

Moderates: We should build more housing, and in America we rely on private development for most housing, so we should facilitate that. Housing production has been stifled largely because of a regulatory framework enacted with progressive intentions but ultimately has resulted in a housing crisis, so we should consider removing these obstacles. We need to support realistic approaches towards housing affordability. 

Progressives: No. Market-rate development enriches developers, and we hate developers. Removing regulations is deregulation, and that’s what Republicans do. Any new development should be public housing dedicated to working class people, and we should pay for by taxing the rich. We believe in unions, so these projects must be 100% union labor. 

The former is objective-oriented and less concerned with getting tied up in ideological labels. The latter is driven by ideological allegiances and axiomatic beliefs - and totally unconcerned with actually delivering results. It’s also the wing of the party that has been steadily losing ground over the past five years 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Moderates: We should build more housing, and in America we rely on private development for most housing, so we should facilitate that. Housing production has been stifled largely because of a regulatory framework enacted with progressive intentions but ultimately has resulted in a housing crisis, so we should consider removing these obstacles. We need to support realistic approaches towards housing affordability.

Close but that’s not moderate. The moderate position is to placate progressive maxis with carveouts and set asides and limitations and covenants until they buy in, which makes the housing less abundant and solves less of the problem, which is a shortage of housing.
What you described as moderate is closer to the liberal position, which is: “we should allow the market to respond to the demand for housing. Fuck tankies and their bullshit. Their daddies pay their rent.”

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I celebrate a grab bag of good ideas and abhor a grab bag of bad ones. The problem with ideologues is that their ideas are systematic, and they are very concerned with why you have them and what other views you are allowed to have, and what boxes have to be checked along the way and so on. And Ideological maximalists generally don’t like the idea of getting anything they want unless they get everything they want. 
You see this with housing in big cities all the time- everyone agrees we have a shortage but progressive left maxis will actively oppose allowing any because  developers will make money and they don’t want the housing without fixing the systemic inequities of capitalism. 
 

Left NIMBYs are some of the most annoying dipshits on the planet. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Close but that’s not moderate. The moderate position is to placate progressive maxis with carveouts and set asides and limitations and covenants until they buy in, which makes the housing less abundant and solves less of the problem, which is a shortage of housing.
What you described as moderate is closer to the liberal position, which is: “we should allow the market to respond to the demand for housing. Fuck tankies and their bullshit. Their daddies pay their rent.”

Fair, but in San Francisco (and I think LA and NYC?), the two wing of the party are literally called “moderates” and “progressives”, and you will see Ezra Klein et al use that terminology from time to time.

Edited by We’reTexas
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Fair, but in San Francisco, the two wing of the party are literally called “moderates” and “progressives”, and you will see Ezra Klein et al use that terminology from time to time.

Yup. I hate that branding, “moderate”. As if what we needed was compromise between competing elite factions instead of smashing them.
It stinks like fear and pee. 
And while I like a lot about that book and what him and Derek Thompson are doing, San Francisco is just a terrible example, because it’s so sui generis. Every other big city with the same problems looks like it has shit together when you compare it to San Francisco- hell Ezra Klein praises Austin on housing, which is utter nonsense until the last 2 years. He’s just looking at MSA data, and what that is really telling him is not that Austin is doing a great job, but that it has sprawling suburbs in places where San Francisco has seawater. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...