Buttigieg/Secretary of Transportation Thread

[HamsterHookah 112]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re not seriously arguing companies are currently paying a fair share, right?

Fair = Subjective, emotional feelings word.

I'm arguing that NOMINALLY, O&G is feeding Texas in 2022/2023 by not paying "little" in taxes

Edited February 8, 2023 by HamsterHookah

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

3 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

• The Texas oil and natural gas industry paid $24.7 billion in state and local taxes and state royalties in Fiscal Year 2022, shattering the previous record of just more than $16 billion paid in 2019 by 54%.
• That $24.7 billion translates to roughly $67 million every day that funds the state’s public schools, universities, roads, first responders and other services.
• Permian Basin schools and counties benefited significantly from the revenues paid by the state’s oil and gas industry, with counties receiving $320.4 million in property taxes and school districts receiving $867.2 million. Reeves County led the state with $44.9 million, 58.4% of its tax base. Midland County was second with $31.9 million, 30.3% of its tax base. Midland Independent School District led the state with $113.3 million, 32.2% of its tax base, followed by Pecos-Barstow-Toyah with $108.8 million, 65.1% of its tax base. Grady ISD had the highest percentage of its tax base from oil and gas property taxes at 92.4%, receiving $36.7 million.
• Oil and natural gas production taxes exceeded $10 billion for the first time in Texas history, surging by $5.8 billion or 116% while royalties to state funds rose by $2.2 billion or 102%.
• In FY 2022, the oil and gas industry employed 443,000 Texans earning an average of $115,300 each. For every direct oil and gas job, another 2.2 indirect jobs are created per direct employee. In total, 1.4 million Texans’ jobs were ultimately derived from the state’s oil and gas industry.

Yeah. It’s almost like they can’t hide paying their taxes during years of record profits while claiming they can’t do anything about the price of gas. Go figure. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

Y'all musta forgot about my man @bad_teammate. He has more passion and fire and give-a-crap in his pinky than 6.5 pages of "dead-eye horse" posters, as he said. I'm almost sorry I released him from his cage on y'all, but I'mma let him cook:

[HamsterHookah 112]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah. It’s almost like they can’t hide paying their taxes during years of record profits while claiming they can’t do anything about the price of gas. Go figure. 

So which is it? Are they paying little taxes or paying a lot because they can't hide? Are you one of those who probably wanted them to pay a lot of taxes in 2020 when they lost record billions of dollars too?

[softlynow 1,816]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

- Find out what the people want. (it's not gerrymandering reform, it's not identity politics, it's not unemployment stats, it's not smugness, it's not Twitter owns, it's not TV outrage about some ugly broad in a white fur coat)

 

This is the main problem with the post-Clinton Democratic Party. Bill told Hillary she "forgot about Bubba." It wasn't just Hillary. 

Dems should have looked on at the horror of the Trump phenomenon and realized that THEY helped create the conditions for his success. Rural America used to be Dem leaning. Then Dems fell in love with Wall Street and free trade (along with their embrace of civil rights), and their platform gave rural and small town Americans no reason to consider voting for them.

Now, I don't want to completely exonerate Bill Clinton. He set the Dems on the path to where they are with Third Way politics. Was it necessary to win some elections as the Reagan Era reached its Zenith? Sure. But they should not have completely jettisoned the underpinnings of the New Deal coalition.

Y'all shouldn't be so quick to tear down Mayor Pete, though. He seems to have the ability to fight effectively, and, no matter whether the political winds continue to favor an expansion of the progressive wing of the party, the Dems remain the far, far lesser of two evils.

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

So which is it? Are they paying little taxes or paying a lot because they can't hide? Are you one of those who probably wanted them to pay a lot of taxes in 2020 when they lost record billions of dollars too?

It can be both relative to what they earn. The ways companies avoid taxes are out there and legion and you’re being ignorant to argue otherwise. As for what about when they lose billions? Lol. They take the loss on their taxes and carry it forward to another year where they make money and then pay less taxes. It’s almost like it’s a system designed so that, over time, they never lose money, but can only make it. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[softlynow 1,816]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes. They’re forcing it down our throat at a state level, or at the judicial level. And you’re asking why we can’t fix it at the federal level…without a supermajority. So uh, yeah, I todays age that is how voting populations work. 
 

or you can tour all the democratic success Im places like cali, New York, etc. But you don’t have any interest in doing that. Frankly neither do I because that doesn’t help me. But I’m not disingenuous about it. That’s some bait and switch bullshit. 
 

You’re a smart person, but this is dumb or not a good faith argument. Gerrymandering doesn’t get folks out of their seat, but solving it is how democrats win elections with a wildly popular platform. And republicans pushing an agenda without one. Full stop. How the fuck is anyone stacking a court or “doing need procedural shit” without the votes they can’t get because of gerrymandering? Fucking he’ll dude. 

There's a fair amount of y'all talking past each other in this exchange. Just, FYI.

I think there are structural/historical reasons and dumb luck that blunt some of b_t's criticisms. Aaron Burr sticking us with the filibuster, and slavery/Jim Crow/racism entrenching it favors the current GOP greatly. So does the timing of SC vacancies which has allowed Clinton/Obama/Biden to only fill 4 seats in 18 years while Bush/Trump filled 5 seats in 12 years. You can quibble about Dem effectiveness in filling Scalia's seat, but no matter your argument, it's still a 5-4 court overturning Roe, ruling for Citizens United, gutting the VRA, and all the rest of their bullshit.

But he's absolutely right that Dems have simply written off too much of the electorate to be considered good at politics. Many of them did so because of personal greed; the path to riches doesn't lie in passing laws that help poor people financially (see Sinema, but she's only an obvious example of a legion of her type that fly under the radar). But many of them do so because of cowardice or a total inability to understand what wins elections. b_t nailed this. Does the average voter who is persuadable to 1. vote to begin with or 2. vote Dem over other options care about gerrymandering (if they even understand it)? Care who sits on the Supreme Court? Care that trans kids are prone to suicide, that blacks are more likely to suffer from our brutalizing police forces, that women make less than men, etc.? Of course they don't. They want to know if you have any ideas that might improve THEIR lives. Speak to them, or don't be so surprised that the carnival barker who does make them promises wins their votes.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

unless they do things exactly as you would or as you want they're bad people and bad politicians

is this your first time dealing with the far left?

[mchookem 16,346]

44 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

Y'all musta forgot about my man @bad_teammate. He has more passion and fire and give-a-crap in his pinky than 6.5 pages of "dead-eye horse" posters, as he said. I'm almost sorry I released him from his cage on y'all, but I'mma let him cook:

of all your schticks this is the weirdest. intentionally i assume. 🙄

the thing about bt is he's on the right side. these are the types of arguments and discussions that improve the party.

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

17 minutes ago, mchookem said:

of all your schticks this is the weirdest. intentionally i assume. 🙄

the thing about bt is he's on the right side. these are the types of arguments and discussions that improve the party.

 

 

same vibe

[henrygandorf 29,194]

20 minutes ago, mchookem said:

of all your schticks this is the weirdest.

very bizarre indeed.

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

of all your schticks this is the weirdest. intentionally i assume. 🙄

the thing about bt is he's on the right side. these are the types of arguments and discussions that improve the party.

 

 

But I agree with him too; not on everything, but it’s just so nice to have someone with a passionate take instead of just sad, pathetic politics energy like the last three people who replied.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes. They’re forcing it down our throat at a state level, or at the judicial level. And you’re asking why we can’t fix it at the federal level…without a supermajority. So uh, yeah, in todays age that is how voting populations work. 

Why aren't Dems winning local/state elections?

It's not me that thinks it needs to be done at the federal level, IT IS LITERALLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAYBOOK.

Give up the vast majority of America to capture the urban centers. I quoted it for you from the Senate Majority Leader running the 2016 Democratic candidate's campaign. I didn't do this, bud, the party did.

lol

Quote

or you can tout all the democratic success Im places like cali, New York, etc. 

Yes, and that's good enough for the coastal elites, right? The intellectual class living in Manhattan, DC, Brooklyn, and (to a far lesser extent) LA.

Done. That is the sum total of who this fucking party cares about when it comes to their national level leadership.

The rest of these pond scum just aren't smart enough to know what's good for them!

The Dems are losers. The evidence is plain and in our faces.

Roe vs fucking Wade was overturned. Literally nothing will convince some of you.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

Marjorie Taylor Greene crawled out of a swamp and will end up on Mt Rushmore in 2036.

Dems: "What we need is MORE post-graduate degrees."

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why aren't Dems winning local/state elections?

It's not me that thinks it needs to be done at the federal level, IT IS LITERALLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLAYBOOK.

Give up the vast majority of America to capture the urban centers. I quoted it for you from the Senate Majority Leader running the 2016 Democratic candidate's campaign. I didn't do this, bud, the party did.

lol

Yes, and that's good enough for the coastal elites, right? The intellectual class living in Manhattan, DC, Brooklyn, and (to a far lesser extent) LA.

Done. That is the sum total of who this fucking party cares about when it comes to their national level leadership.

The rest of these pond scum just aren't smart enough to know what's good for them!

The Dems are losers. The evidence is plain and in our faces.

Roe vs fucking Wade was overturned. Literally nothing will convince some of you.

I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your feelings, but you’re ranting about something that makes you angry. Fine. I’m talking about practical reality. You want democrats to fix local elections and win new states which gerrymandering has made almost impossible. So yes, we need a federal fix to gerrymandering. If not, please suggest a local solution to how we fix a gerrymandered state like…say, Texas. 
 

seriously, tell me how Texans fix Texas. 
 

so yeah, that’s the democratic playbook, shockingly enough. But you shit on the idea of a federal change as something important because it doesn’t get people to vote, but local elections can’t be won in red states without federal intervention. And federal intervention won’t come unless we win local votes. 
 

I get your frustration. Im upset too. But you’re ranting in a fucking circle and your only offering or suggestion is “give voters bread.” So basically you’re just pissed off and spewing shit at everyone. 
 

 By the way the historic midterm for a party in the white house after roe v. Wade seems indicative that voters did get out in response to something that mattered to them. And I’m not sure what you want to do about the Supreme Court unless you’re advocating assassinating justices. 
 

but we’re all ears for what the democrats should be doing differently, specifically, to effect change. 

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Marjorie Taylor Greene crawled out of a swamp and will end up on Mt Rushmore in 2036.

Dems: "What we need is MORE post-graduate degrees."

So what do we need? Other than better and unified comms. We can all agree with that. Mayor Pete is pretty good at comms…

[bad_teammate 13,221]

Quote

seriously, tell me how Texans fix Texas. 

What do Texans want?

If you believe Texans want slavery, female subjugation, and the murder of trans people, you're not a Texan, you're someone who lives in Texas but is obsessed with the coastal elites and their idiotic caricature of Texans.

- What does this voter want?
- What can I give them?
- Swear publicly to give it to them.
- Fight daily and with furious vigor to give those things to them.

[safe sex 11,739]

As a queer person who has been physically threatened multiple times while traveling through small towns and midsize cities in Texas, yes, a good chunk of the voting population wants us intimidated at best and dead at worst. And the rhetoric is only ramping up. 🤷‍♀️

[mchookem 16,346]

i mean...yeah, there's a whole lot of your fellow Texans that deserve to be screamed at bt...

i mean wtf man...

 

EDITED to remove the first chart, bc even though the title said thru Dec 2022, the x axis apparently only went thru 2018.

EDITED again... found current numbers...and they're even worse...

Edited February 9, 2023 by mchookem

[mchookem 16,346]

6 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

But I agree with him too; not on everything, but it’s just so nice to have someone with a passionate take instead of just sad, pathetic politics energy like the last three people who replied.

i believe you want to fuck him bc he is so strident in his 'democrats are fucking losers!!' rhetoric and you 100% agree with that sentiment.  

i don't believe for a second that you agree with him on any material policy issue. 

but i'm open to hearing otherwise.

[HamsterHookah 112]

5 hours ago, mchookem said:

i believe you want to fuck him bc he is so strident in his 'democrats are fucking losers!!' rhetoric and you 100% agree with that sentiment.  

i don't believe for a second that you agree with him on any material policy issue. 

but i'm open to hearing otherwise.

First off, no need to be vulgar with me. 
Secondly, his stridency and passion is the point. So much so, nobody dares tangle with him and if they do, just look at Sydney— a guy who probably thinks himself decently smart and literate— who got slashed to pieces in the buzzsaw and made to look very small.

Reread this. Anyone capable of this sort of thinking and writing is clearly brilliant and has me thinking, “well hey now…maybe he’s right and I’m wrong, let me revisit some things and hear what he says about them.” That’s how you win hearts and minds from the other side, imho. He’s a great policy salesman.

Ginsburg (fuck this "RBG" gangster iconography bullshit) didn't care about her impact on the abortion question, and neither did the liberal establishment. 

The idea that she would be "haunted" by it is laughable. More liberal myth-making for their dead-eyed heroes.

She was on the court with Alito and Roberts. She knew exactly what was coming. And her plan was to go die of COVID she caught at a public wedding she officiated for the children of insanely wealthy power players. That's how much women's reproductive rights were worth to that psychopath.

[wildcat09 29,362]

12 hours ago, safe sex said:

As a queer person who has been physically threatened multiple times while traveling through small towns and midsize cities in Texas, yes, a good chunk of the voting population wants us intimidated at best and dead at worst. And the rhetoric is only ramping up. 🤷‍♀️

Yeah, this is where BT and I differ. I don’t think addressing people’s material needs will be sufficient. It’ll be a good thing to do, but it won’t be enough. Enough would probably require convincing most of our fascists to go die fighting for Russia in Ukraine or something.

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

12 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What do Texans want?

If you believe Texans want slavery, female subjugation, and the murder of trans people, you're not a Texan, you're someone who lives in Texas but is obsessed with the coastal elites and their idiotic caricature of Texans.

- What does this voter want?
- What can I give them?
- Swear publicly to give it to them.
- Fight daily and with furious vigor to give those things to them.

See, this is a trend. You're speaking in vagaries, not actual possible specific actions.

If Texans don't want slavery, female subjugation, and murder of trans people, then why do they vote in supermajorities that lean that direction? Why did they vote in a supermajority that stated at their political leadership event that part of their code was that Homoesuality is an unnatural lifestyle. Me being "obsessed with coastal elites" didn't do that shit. 

And you're ignoring the fact that you're saying voters dont want these things, but they keep voting in a supermajority of people who tend to vote in favor of those things. 

You can't answer a direct question on what they should do because you know there is no fucking answer. At a national level, Joe Biden is literally giving things to blue collar poor white people, things they have asked for, AND THEY STILL WON'T VOTE FOR HIM!

Personally, this sounds like a communication problem, an education/media problem, and a fucking gerrymandering problem. 

"Give the voters what they want" as a catch-all response to everything is worthless. 

[safe sex 11,739]

Remember when Paxton tried to get a list of everyone who has changed their gender marker on their ID in Texas, and the Texas public collectively yawned?

Edited February 9, 2023 by safe sex

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

First off, no need to be vulgar with me. 
Secondly, his stridency and passion is the point. So much so, nobody dares tangle with him and if they do, just look at Sydney— a guy who probably thinks himself decently smart and literate— who got slashed to pieces in the buzzsaw and made to look very small.

Reread this. Anyone capable of this sort of thinking and writing is clearly brilliant and has me thinking, “well hey now…maybe he’s right and I’m wrong, let me revisit some things and hear what he says about them.” That’s how you win hearts and minds from the other side, imho. He’s a great policy salesman.

 

Ginsburg (fuck this "RBG" gangster iconography bullshit) didn't care about her impact on the abortion question, and neither did the liberal establishment. 

The idea that she would be "haunted" by it is laughable. More liberal myth-making for their dead-eyed heroes.

She was on the court with Alito and Roberts. She knew exactly what was coming. And her plan was to go die of COVID she caught at a public wedding she officiated for the children of insanely wealthy power players. That's how much women's reproductive rights were worth to that psychopath.

If you say so buddy. You've loved to suck on BT's posting for years now, as you repeatedly and repeatedly get banned time and time again under multiple usernames. WorksWithSeed thinks he's pretty smart too. The definition of most Dunning-Kruger folks like yourself is a high opinion of their abilities and intellect, and you're no different as the rest of the world looks at your thoughts and posting with a range from puzzlement to embarrassment for you. 

BT at least has a worldview, one he's passionate about, and he's right about a lot of things. You're just a pathetic fucking troll with nothing better to do than shitpost in a place that repeatedly rejects your presence. It's fucking sad. Fortunately for you, you have no shame. 

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

3 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Remember when Paxton tried to get a list of everyone who has changed their gender marker on their ID in Texas, and the Texas public collectively yawned?

I guess he thought the Gold Star sewn on clothes was a bit on the nose?

I've got to ask, why the handle change? If you don't want to air the reason publicly, shoot me a DM. 

[RomaVicta 29,957]

1 hour ago, HamsterHookah said:

Ginsburg (fuck this "RBG" gangster iconography bullshit) didn't care about her impact on the abortion question, and neither did the liberal establishment. 

The idea that she would be "haunted" by it is laughable. More liberal myth-making for their dead-eyed heroes.

She was on the court with Alito and Roberts. She knew exactly what was coming. And her plan was to go die of COVID she caught at a public wedding she officiated for the children of insanely wealthy power players. That's how much women's reproductive rights were worth to that psychopath.

Negged for LSD-level unsupported bullshit. 

[WhatTheBuck 28,794]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for LSD-level unsupported bullshit. 

Don’t insult LSD like that.

Maybe it was a typo. Maybe you meant LDS.

[Incredulity 11,681]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for LSD-level unsupported bullshit. 

For the record he was quoting BT

[mchookem 16,346]

so the left should be more strident in order to win hearts and minds and sell policy? oh man why didn't they think of that!

 

[Tuco 5,077]

Yeah, this is where BT and I differ. I don’t think addressing people’s material needs will be sufficient. It’ll be a good thing to do, but it won’t be enough. Enough would probably require convincing most of our fascists to go die fighting for Russia in Ukraine or something.

Yeah, Dems have been addressing the material needs of rural Americans and old people for decades, and they continue to lose those groups, and by increasing margins. Most people are too ignorant or lazy to understand how they are affected by financial policies.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

If Texans don't want slavery, female subjugation, and murder of trans people, then why do they vote in supermajorities that lean that direction?

Because those politicians said, "We're going to lower your taxes and keep your costs low for energy, gasoline, and the stuff you buy at the store. The other guy wants to raise your taxes. The other guy thinks you're a dumb piece of shit and I think you're great. He's not one of you, but I am. They think they're better than us, but they're not."

Sure, there's some social fear-mongering, as well. But very few people who are out there walking around actually care about trans/LGBT people in the negative or positive. It's an invisible issue to the mainstream voter even though it seems to dominate online discourse. Similar for issues of race or even gender. The answer here isn't to ignore those issues, but to not put them at the top of your sales pitch if the people you're trying to sell don't really think about it or care about it.

And then do all the good things you need to do once you have the power.

 

Quote

You can't answer a direct question on what they should do because you know there is no fucking answer.

I asked you what Texans want, you don't answer, and instead try to act like I'm avoiding the question? That's a weird one.

Texans what what everyone wants: Money, healthcare, security, praise, attention, love, hope for the future, a bad guy to hate. They want someone who is invested in them.

Tell them they're going to get 100% guaranteed healthcare for themselves and their kids. Go hard after everyone who opposes (friend or foe) and point out all the different ways those corporate jackals want your kid's life to be hanging in the balance of a GoFundMe. Attack. Dems CANNOT attack on that now because they are the ones who want people to have to use GoFundMe, so it's a pretty difficult problem for them.

[bad_teammate 13,221]

11 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so the left should be more strident in order to win hearts and minds and sell policy? oh man why didn't they think of that!

 

People love Democrats who don't act like a pussy. That's the entirety of the "Dark Brandon" allure.

In the 2016 Republican primaries I was very open that Jeb should've shoved Trump's podium over and challenged him to a fight. Democrats can't act like that, but Beto showed glimpses of what someone with some fire might actually look like. And I'm not even a Beto guy.

[Incredulity 11,681]

34 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I was very open that Jeb should've shoved Trump's podium over and challenged him to a fight

Frankly, if there is anyone on earth Trump can actually beat up it is probably Jeb Bush.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Incredulity

[SydneyCarton 48,145]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Because those politicians said, "We're going to lower your taxes and keep your costs low for energy, gasoline, and the stuff you buy at the store. The other guy wants to raise your taxes. The other guy thinks you're a dumb piece of shit and I think you're great. He's not one of you, but I am. They think they're better than us, but they're not."

Sure, there's some social fear-mongering, as well. But very few people who are out there walking around actually care about trans/LGBT people in the negative or positive. It's an invisible issue to the mainstream voter even though it seems to dominate online discourse. Similar for issues of race or even gender. The answer here isn't to ignore those issues, but to not put them at the top of your sales pitch if the people you're trying to sell don't really think about it or care about it.

And then do all the good things you need to do once you have the power.

I don't think those things are at the top of the ticket. They're front of mind because the other side puts them at the top of THEIR fucking ticket and bleats about them ceaselessly. You seem to think Dems are walking around shouting about Trans/LGBTQ rights without prompt, when they're shouting about them in contrast to the R's actively working against them and undermining those rights. This feels like another example of blame the Dems for what the Republicans are doing. And they're doing it and getting elected. Almost like they can't lose thanks to gerrymandering. Dems just campaigned on women's rights, gun restrictions, etc., in Texas. And they lost like they always lose here, in a big way. So again, what do Texans want that Dems aren't offering to give them. To quote the Rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the people say they want. But yeah, this still feels like a Gerrymandering and Communications problem. 

Quote

I asked you what Texans want, you don't answer, and instead try to act like I'm avoiding the question? That's a weird one.

Texans what what everyone wants: Money, healthcare, security, praise, attention, love, hope for the future, a bad guy to hate. They want someone who is invested in them.

Tell them they're going to get 100% guaranteed healthcare for themselves and their kids. Go hard after everyone who opposes (friend or foe) and point out all the different ways those corporate jackals want your kid's life to be hanging in the balance of a GoFundMe. Attack. Dems CANNOT attack on that now because they are the ones who want people to have to use GoFundMe, so it's a pretty difficult problem for them.

I've asked you for several posts what Democrats should be doing or selling that they aren't, currently, and your only response has been some version of SELL BETTER. My answer to what Texans want has consistently been "The shit they continue to vote for and get." They seem to want insane school boards, guns, Christian Theocracy, and treating poor people and "different" people like shit. How do I know? That's who they vote for, the party that said their actual platform is Homosexuality is Unnatural. 

Again, you're speaking in Vagaries. You might as well just say "Texans just want to feel loved!" and leave it at that, dude. You can't name specific things they want, or that should be campaigned on, because the shit they want is the shit they're voting for. And as for the bolded area above, are you suggesting that Democrats dont actually want universal healthcare? Because that's fucking bizarre. 

I agree, Dems suck at attacking and communication. But we've both been saying that this entire time. 

[mchookem 16,346]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

People love Democrats who don't act like a pussy. That's the entirety of the "Dark Brandon" allure.

In the 2016 Republican primaries I was very open that Jeb should've shoved Trump's podium over and challenged him to a fight. Democrats can't act like that, but Beto showed glimpses of what someone with some fire might actually look like. And I'm not even a Beto guy.

i actually agree with you to a point... i mean i coined the line 'if Democrats were bigger assholes we'd all be better off' around here! it's certainly why i am attracted to individual candidates more than party and why i am not a registered Democrat. and yes, every time Beto got really fired up and let his anger fly I liked it and he got another donation from me...and i don't even live in Texas anymore! 😒

but...he also got his ass kicked worse than when he ran against mantoad for senate. 60% of Texans either approve or are generally ambivalent about their current leadership... Abbott's approval is the highest it's been in two years. i'm sorry but Texas being in the shape it's in is not the fault of academic coastal elites.

i think people love when Democrats don't act like pussies if they agree with the argument/issue they are being passionate about. Donkey is being disingenuous at best, acting like your passion might actually cause him (or others with his worldview) to rethink his positions on anything, he just has a hard on for you bc you excel at trashing democrats in general lol (which i know you know that already, i'm just stating the obvious). 

[mchookem 16,346]

35 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't think those things are at the top of the ticket. They're front of mind because the other side puts them at the top of THEIR fucking ticket and bleats about them ceaselessly. You seem to think Dems are walking around shouting about Trans/LGBTQ rights without prompt, when they're shouting about them in contrast to the R's actively working against them and undermining those rights. This feels like another example of blame the Dems for what the Republicans are doing. And they're doing it and getting elected. Almost like they can't lose thanks to gerrymandering. Dems just campaigned on women's rights, gun restrictions, etc., in Texas. And they lost like they always lose here, in a big way. So again, what do Texans want that Dems aren't offering to give them. To quote the Rock, IT DOESN'T MATTER what the people say they want. But yeah, this still feels like a Gerrymandering and Communications problem. 

i mean two nights ago that's literally almost ALL Biden talked about - economic issues, tax issues, job issues, etc. 

the republican response was nothing but culture issues and scare tactics around 'woke insanity' and 'government control'. 

saying there is 'some social fear mongering' on the right is like saying aggy has 'some delusion regarding their prominence'.  

Edited February 9, 2023 by mchookem

[fattyflattie 4,638]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

People love Democrats who don't act like a pussy. 

Democrats can't act like that, but Beto showed glimpses of what someone with some fire might actually look like. And I'm not even a Beto guy.

lol wut.  I cant think of more of a pussy if I tried.  Seriously, I don't follow D candidates for shit and can think of several that didn't have to fake it.   I don't have a weird fetish with your posting, but did enjoy CR more when you were a regular.  Glad to see you still holding that passion. 

[bad_teammate 13,221]

"SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC!"

- "100% guaranteed health care for everyone."

"WHY WILL YOU NOT SAY ANYTHING?"

Is there a specific policy you want me to talk about since that one apparently doesn't count even though I keep mentioning it?

OK, come up with an aggressive and unified policy regarding guns that doesn't rely on terms like "assault weapon". Talk to Texans in realistic terms that demonstrate knowledge and intelligence. Focus on measurable facts and not scary words when discussing gun policy. And yes, the Republicans will be Big Meanieheads and lie, but the messaging will make a lot more sense once we actually have a unified policy.

- Magazine capacities
- Rate of fire restrictions
- Physical interaction chambering vs. automatic chambering

Have answers to the hard questions and be fearless in those answers. Ban the sale, manufacture, and import of all handguns and automatics (semi or full). Whatever it is, have a plan and sell it hard.

What else? Taxes? OK fine, openly vilify the wealth of the top 0.5%. (Can't do that because our party's power elite desperately want that group's approval, security, money, and connections." Call out the monarchic nature of generational wealth and vigorously defend the estate tax; not just defend it but drastically increase it.

[HamsterHookah 112]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

"SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC!"

- "100% guaranteed health care for everyone."

"WHY WILL YOU NOT SAY ANYTHING?"

Is there a specific policy you want me to talk about since that one apparently doesn't count even though I keep mentioning it?

OK, come up with an aggressive and unified policy regarding guns that doesn't rely on terms like "assault weapon". Talk to Texans in realistic terms that demonstrate knowledge and intelligence. Focus on measurable facts and not scary words when discussing gun policy. And yes, the Republicans will be Big Meanieheads and lie, but the messaging will make a lot more sense once we actually have a unified policy.

- Magazine capacities
- Rate of fire restrictions
- Physical interaction chambering vs. automatic chambering

Have answers to the hard questions and be fearless in those answers. Ban the sale, manufacture, and import of all handguns and automatics (semi or full). Whatever it is, have a plan and sell it hard.

What else? Taxes? OK fine, openly vilify the wealth of the top 0.5%. (Can't do that because our party's power elite desperately want that group's approval, security, money, and connections." Call out the monarchic nature of generational wealth and vigorously defend the estate tax; not just defend it but drastically increase it.

"I'll wait..." LOL

[wildcat09 29,362]

 

Another problem with Pete is that he's just not really doing his job. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

Yeah starting out by reinstating the rules repealed by the Trump administration seems like a basic first step for any agency head working for Biden

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

On 2/9/2023 at 3:01 PM, bad_teammate said:

"SAY SOMETHING SPECIFIC!"

- "100% guaranteed health care for everyone."

"WHY WILL YOU NOT SAY ANYTHING?"

Is there a specific policy you want me to talk about since that one apparently doesn't count even though I keep mentioning it?

OK, come up with an aggressive and unified policy regarding guns that doesn't rely on terms like "assault weapon". Talk to Texans in realistic terms that demonstrate knowledge and intelligence. Focus on measurable facts and not scary words when discussing gun policy. And yes, the Republicans will be Big Meanieheads and lie, but the messaging will make a lot more sense once we actually have a unified policy.

- Magazine capacities
- Rate of fire restrictions
- Physical interaction chambering vs. automatic chambering

Have answers to the hard questions and be fearless in those answers. Ban the sale, manufacture, and import of all handguns and automatics (semi or full). Whatever it is, have a plan and sell it hard.

What else? Taxes? OK fine, openly vilify the wealth of the top 0.5%. (Can't do that because our party's power elite desperately want that group's approval, security, money, and connections." Call out the monarchic nature of generational wealth and vigorously defend the estate tax; not just defend it but drastically increase it.

are you in the right thread?

23 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

"I'll wait..." LOL

who the fuck are you quoting?

[safe sex 11,739]

Don't encourage more participation in threads from him, please and thank you

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

Just now, safe sex said:

Don't encourage more participation in threads from him, please and thank you

I want him to post more so I have more posts to neg.

[WhatTheBuck 28,794]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Another problem with Pete is that he's just not really doing his job. 

I know you don’t like Pete. This looks like you’re looking for an excuse to point the finger.

A quote from that article:

”Though the Obama administration did originally enact a rule requiring those better brakes on some trains, its regulators sided with lobbyists and ignored the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) request that the safety rules apply to rail cars carrying the kinds of dangerous, flammable chemicals onboard the Ohio train. Under the rules weakened by both the Obama and Trump administration’s decisions, that train was not being regulated as a ‘high-hazard flammable train.’”

So even the “Obama-era brake rules that experts say would've reduced the severity of the Ohio derailment” described in that tweet were never actually in place for that train even under Obama. You can’t blame Pete for that. Are you suggesting that if someone else had been Transportation Secretary, that train would’ve had better brakes and that derailment would’ve been avoided?

Pete doesn’t set policy. It’s the Biden administration, not the Buttigieg administration. Notice how the article references regulations under the names of Obama and Trump, not under the names of their respective Transportation Secretaries. I’d like to hear what Pete has to say about the crash. The article says he hasn’t commented yet and doesn’t say they asked him for his comments. Maybe he’ll be on one of the Sunday talk shows, I don’t know. There’s also the State of the Union to talk about and the Republicans will probably be out there whining about the “Chinese spy balloon.” I don’t know much the train derailment moves the needle of public opinion right now. But I would be interested in what he has to say. I don’t think you really care because I think it’s apparent that he’s already failed your purity test.

[elfenix 34,331]

garrison making pete extra juicy

 

 

 

[safe sex 11,739]

Does Pete have a peach or something? I can't say I've ever particularly noticed

[Biff Tannen 45,697]

18 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Does Pete have a peach or something? I can't say I've ever particularly noticed

It’s because he has “butt” in his name. It’s really that stupid. 

[mchookem 16,346]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,881]

14 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

It’s because he has “butt” in his name. It’s really that stupid. 

i hate this timeline