Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, LCHorn said:

I have something different in mind, which is they need to resolve to fix the problems faced by loser young dudes that aren’t of their own making.  

Run on policy?  You’re god damn fucking adorable.

  • Haha 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Which is why the Republicans have so many minority and women candidates - and the Democrats don’t?

Snark aside, and with due respect, I think you also fall into the trap of thinking that GOP fans give a shit about Democrats who “relate” to them - if the Democrats keep on insisting on diversity, inclusion, gay rights, women’s rights, vaccine use, and all of those things that voters in those deep red rural districts do not….relate….to.  

It’s hard to keep the peasants with pitchforks from attacking your democratic balloon - unless you tell them the balloon is an anti-woke weapon that lets you drop bombs on the criminal illegals.   They would relate to that better than saying “science has allowed mankind to fly like the birds God created.”

TL;DR 

How do you get them to relate to you when the things that they do relate to are things antithetical to the Democratic vision of governance?

No offense intended, but I think you missed that the point is about class and privilege. And since you aren’t grounded in their class, you don’t relate either. 
Or at least I don’t think you do, because that is the only way I can explain starting with a rhetorical question about demographic avatars and finishing with a rhetorical question about “them.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Dipshit wants to pave over the Rose Garden.  Because of course he does.  

That guy ain’t leaving. 

Posted
On 2/4/2025 at 6:29 PM, Sbbruin said:

This is just insanity.  He is so far in over his head it's comical.  Except that it's not..

He'd be in way over his head running a 7-11.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

By the way, @Gatorubet- I’m happy for you that you don’t. It tells me that you hit escape velocity and earned your place in the world and don’t wake up every day with the frustration and shame and my god, the resentment. So you can’t relate to it. You should be glad for that. 

 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No offense intended, but I think you missed that the point is about class and privilege. And since you aren’t grounded in their class, you don’t relate either. 
Or at least I don’t think you do, because that is the only way I can explain starting with a rhetorical question about demographic avatars and finishing with a rhetorical question about “them.”

Shouldn't you be posting in the "US out of Greenland" thread?

I get that you're an Esteemed Poster and all but sometimes your schtick is pretty tired.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Shouldn't you be posting in the "US out of Greenland" thread?

I get that you're an Esteemed Poster and all but sometimes your schtick is pretty tired.

I stand corrected. Democrats relate to working class people and marginalized communities really well, which is why they communicate and campaign so effectively. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I like AOC and I know she was young,  but joining the DSA was a colossally stupid thing to do. I don’t blame Democrats for shitting on them, because the DSA are often the most out of touch and counterproductive faction in a very out of touch and counterproductive party.

 

14 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

So who is the most in touch and productive part then?

 

14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

There is one?

 

14 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

confused-john-travolta.gif

Lest we forget the last bastion of hope

9db19079-e55d-459e-94ee-693c38ab3877-lar

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I stand corrected. Democrats relate to working class people and marginalized communities really well, which is why they communicate and campaign so effectively. 

What should they say?

The obvious problem is that Americans now are doing OK, but they know and feel things should be better for them.  They haven't felt any serious pain socially or economically in a while (OK,15 years) so they focus on eggs.  The Democrats have built and repaired the government infrastructure as best as can be expected, but don't control corporate policies and prices. Meanwhile our fellow Mericans have become stupider and stupider and our national elections are effectively rigged by the electoral college.

Seriously, what do you offer as a solution?  I'll start you off with with some options:

  1. Run only old or handsome white men for president.  Someone voters expect or have been programmed to trust.  Biden or Newsome.
  2. Dial up the fear.  Welp, apparently Dems were the only people to read Project 2025.  
  3. Make outlandish promises, then forget about them after the election.  Two chickens in every pot.

What say you?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

What should they say?

Cracking Up Lol GIF by HULU
 

“What should they say” is not the right question a better question is “who are they” and “what do they care about?”
 

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The obvious problem is that Americans now are doing OK, but they know and feel things should be better for them.

Somehow the majority of Americans missed that they were doing OK. Perhaps that’s begging the question. 
 

 

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

They haven't felt any serious pain socially or economically in a while (OK,15 years) so they focus on eggs. 

That’s incorrect. They never recovered from a transformed economy and society. the people a few rungs up did, and pulled the ladder up behind them. And of course, those who were just about to enter the working world at that time had their ability to build any kind of real ownership equity in anything or own a home traded away before they had a chance. And they are all rightly pretty furious. The structure of the economy is much more rigid and there is far less economic mobility than there was 20 years ago. And that was far less than it was 20 years before that. Gen X is the last generation that had much of a chance to do the American dream in the traditional way. 
Incidentally, you can’t really understand the rise of bitcoin and its popularity with millennial and Gen Z men outside that context, but I digress. 
 

 

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The Democrats have built and repaired the government infrastructure as best as can be expected

I’ll give you that they were better than Republicans, but they don’t deserve more credit than that. 
 

 

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Meanwhile our fellow Mericans have become stupider and stupider and our national elections are effectively rigged by the electoral college.

Out national elections aren’t “rigged,” Democrats made explicitly and conscious strategic choices at the leadership level to make tactical retreats from places like Texas, betting that demographic change, supported by Republican policy failure would carry them back into power. Their strategic thesis was wrong. It speaks to their ignorance of the communities they counted on.
They aren’t victims.

30 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

What say you?

1) abandon all issue based litmus tests and racial or gender representation goals in favor of the single objective of winning races, recruit candidates who are the most credible and appealing person who lives in and is a product of the community on the 2-3 most tangible and immediate problems the community has. 

2) Contest every race in every place, with the strategic priority of winning county and state legislative elections. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Out national elections aren’t “rigged,” Democrats made explicitly and conscious strategic choices at the leadership level to make tactical retreats from places like Texas, betting that demographic change, supported by Republican policy failure would carry them back into power. Their strategic thesis was wrong. It speaks to their ignorance of the communities they counted on.
They aren’t victims.

Bro do you even know what gerrymandering is?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Soooo, it's not the messaging?

It is definitely not. Bad messaging is a symptom. It conveys a lack of understanding and empathy (see also O’ Rourke, Beto). 
Democrats keep searching for these magic incantations that will pull the veil away from the eyes of the masses, without realizing that the words reveal the truth regardless. “I’m going to build an opportunity economy” is a great example. The activist class and The Groups hear a tidy use of political shorthand to pull together a long list of policy goodies for various well connected groups. 
What middle class America hears is more bullshit from a political class that doesn’t respect them. 
Both are perceiving accurately. 

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Bro do you even know what gerrymandering is?

Bro how to you think the GOP broke the Texas gerrymander in the 80s? Democrats aren’t victims. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bro how to you think the GOP broke the Texas gerrymander in the 80s? Democrats aren’t victims. 

Love the fallacy of using a single data point to discount a whole trend. Republican control of legislatures across the board from local to state to federal in every state is significantly more broad than their electoral support. They're getting barely more than 50% of the vote but control a supermajority of seats. That's fucked

We need ranked choice voting for starters

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

1) abandon all issue based litmus tests and racial or gender representation goals in favor of the single objective of winning races, recruit candidates who are the most credible and appealing person who lives in and is a product of the community on the 2-3 most tangible and immediate problems the community has. 

2) Contest every race in every place, with the strategic priority of winning county and state legislative elections. 

So you're telling people who want to win Dem primaries to eschew the power brokers and special interest groups and instead do something completely different than everyone who becomes a Dem nominee in every race in the country. Sure. Is the Dem party supposed to only run folks who are fabulously wealthy for county clerk on up?

There is not near enough money to put up sacrificial lambs in 80/20 Pub counties and districts. You would need money to get folks to get their brains bashed in running those races. And that's just to get them to run. Dems don't contest a bunch of races because politically-minded folks in that area either just aren't Dems or don't have time and/or money to waste for absolutely no reason. It isn't a top down executive call to not have candidates.

Let me risk being doxxed for a moment. I've run for office. I'm sure you know, but to win the primary, all that was required was winning over a majority of the 300 or so local party activists. This is true for both parties. Those activists are members of local PACs that put out mailers with recommended candidates. The 10s of 1000s of voters that show up can all be seen with these sheets, and the 1-2% that engage with campaign volunteers and candidates on their way in usually look to their sheet as the conversation unfolds. I had many say I'd won them over, but who knows. In campaigning for 9 months, I personally got the word out to maybe 1-2% of people who voted. Obviously this is not the kind of campaign for which anyone ran TV ads. Street signs, a couple billboards, and some internet ads. Beyond races where TV ads do run, the PACs basically choose the winner of the primary, and in tons or races, the primary winner of one particular party is the winner in the general. 

With a shitload of money, you can overwhelm the local political "machine." That's it. I've said this before, but your proposal requires something like a 10-1 or better ratio of dollars raised and spent by Dems over Pubs.

Your proposal is akin to fans calling for a coach to call the touchdown play.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)

@Bozo_Casanova

“What should they say” is not the right question a better question is “who are they” and “what do they care about?”

This is a non-answer.  Reproductive rights alone should have led to a Democratic landslide.  In the US if you had an election with a binary vote: Healthy Women or More Guns, which do you think would win? That's the answer: Americans are stupid.

Somehow the majority of Americans missed that they were doing OK. Perhaps that’s begging the question. 

I'll put it another way: Americans have forgotten how bad it can get (but they will know soon).  And yet, it was only 5 years ago. Americans are stupid.

That’s incorrect They never recovered from a transformed economy and society, and the people a few rungs up did, and pulled the ladder up behind them. And of course those who were just about to enter the working world at that time had their ability to build any kind of real ownership equity in anything or own a home traded away before they had a chance. Incidentally, you can’t really understand the rise out bitcoin and its popularity with millennial and Gen Z men outside that context, but I digress. 

OK, so your assignment now is to explain that transformed economy and society to a bunch of idiots.  Your bitcoin example is kind of a left-field distractor but I'll summarize it for you: bitcoin is the modern day penny stock.

I’ll give you that they were better than Republicans, but they don’t deserve more credit than that. 

That's cute and it sounds intelligent in an Anastasis kind of way.  I would like more explanation but I have feeling you'll either ignore it or throw a Guadaloopy "if you don't understand it, I don't know what to tell you" on it.  But if you try to run from it, you're just doing more pseudointellectual posturing you complain about.

Out national elections aren’t “rigged,”

You left out the "electoral college" part.  Don't be disingenuous.

Democrats made explicitly and conscious strategic choices at the leadership level to make tactical retreats from places like Texas, betting that demographic change, supported by Republican policy failure would carry them back into power. Their strategic thesis was wrong. It speaks to their ignorance of the communities they counted on. They aren’t victims.

The reasons you cited for your offered reasoning of abandoning Texas or letting macro/external factors do the work would seem to be based on sound reasoning, until it didn't.  If you know why I would love to know more.  

1) abandon all issue based litmus tests and racial or gender representation goals in favor of the single objective of winning races, recruit candidates who are the most credible and appealing person who lives in and is a product of the community on the 2-3 most tangible and immediate problems the community has.  I interpret this as find likeable people ("knock on every door" types) who will win and then vote . . . their conscience?  With what their voters want? Or along party lines?  Isn't that last one the "litmus test" part?  Did this work in the Montana senate race with Tester?  Let me know if this is what you meant, I don't to put words in your mouth.

2) Contest every race in every place, with the strategic priority of winning county and state legislative elections. 

Sure, makes sense.  Does this cost money?  Because it seems like it would cost money.  And after getting relentlessly hustled by Act Blue, I'm out.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

It is definitely not. Bad messaging is a symptom. It conveys a lack of understanding and empathy (see also O’ Rourke, Beto). 
Democrats keep searching for these magic incantations that will pull the veil away from the eyes of the masses, without realizing that the words reveal the truth regardless. “I’m going to build an opportunity economy” is a great example. The activist class and The Groups hear a tidy use of political shorthand to pull together a long list of policy goodies for various well connected groups. What middle class America hears is more bullshit from a political class that doesn’t respect them.  Both are perceiving accurately. 

You are great at diagnosing this stuff.  So, what are the top three issues in your community?  How would you address them?  Like, pretend YOU were running for office.  Show us how.

33 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bro how to you think the GOP broke the Texas gerrymander in the 80s? Democrats aren’t victims. 

You sure like saying that.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

What should they say?

The obvious problem is that Americans now are doing OK, but they know and feel things should be better for them.  They haven't felt any serious pain socially or economically in a while (OK,15 years) so they focus on eggs.  The Democrats have built and repaired the government infrastructure as best as can be expected, but don't control corporate policies and prices. Meanwhile our fellow Mericans have become stupider and stupider and our national elections are effectively rigged by the electoral college.

Seriously, what do you offer as a solution?  I'll start you off with with some options:

  1. Run only old or handsome white men for president.  Someone voters expect or have been programmed to trust.  Biden or Newsome.
  2. Dial up the fear.  Welp, apparently Dems were the only people to read Project 2025.  
  3. Make outlandish promises, then forget about them after the election.  Two chickens in every pot.

What say you?

First, stop sucking up to corporate America and billionaires.

Second, stop sucking up to Hollywood and celebrities.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Your proposal is akin to fans calling for a coach to call the touchdown play.

Oh to be clear- it’s not a proposal I’m stating the nature of the problem which is that the institution is currently constructed is built to lose.

Posted
28 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

This is a non-answer.  Reproductive rights alone should have led to a Democratic landslide.  

What does “should“ mean? You have to win to win. Elections are high stakes popularity contests.

28 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The reasons you cited for your offered reasoning of abandoning Texas or letting macro/external factors do the work would seem to be based on sound reasoning, until it didn't.  If you know why I would love to know more.  

I’m not sure what I would add to that. Waiting to fail up is a bad strategy and they were warned at the time. I don’t think people understand that Democrats in Texas chose to lose, explicitly, at key times, from 96-2016. Hell, in 2000 they publicly “kept their powder dry” and didn’t fully support their own statewide ticket. I was at the state convention. It was … quite a moment. 

 

21 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

So, what are the top three issues in your community?  How would you address them?

The top three issues in my community are the cost of living, homelessness and traffic, but addressing them is much less important in an election than connecting to how people feel about them. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh to be clear- it’s not a proposal I’m stating the nature of the problem which is that the institution is currently constructed is built to lose.

I didn't miss that thesis. But framing the problem the way you have, you're actually stating that it's an intractible one, that's it's one requiring enormous and unavailable resources to overcome. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Allow me to distill your answers:

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Elections are high stakes popularity contests. The top three issues in my community are the cost of living, homelessness and traffic, but addressing them is much less important in an election than connecting to how people feel about them. 

OK, so the Bozo Casanova advice is "be empathetic and say whatever it takes to get elected and then figure things out later."

BTW, I can't really figure out if you're talking exclusively local, state, or national elections or some combination.  Mixing them would be like saying "football" and then discussing high school, college, and the NFL.

7 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Waiting to fail up is a bad strategy and they were warned at the time. I don’t think people understand that Democrats in Texas chose to lose, explicitly, at key times, from 96-2016. Hell, in 2000 they publicly “kept their powder dry” and didn’t fully support their own statewide ticket. I was at the state convention. It was … quite a moment. 

I'm curious: can you name the names in the quote above?  Who picked the bad strategy? Who didn't support the statewide ticket (who was that, BTW)? Who did the warning?

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I didn't miss that thesis. But framing the problem the way you have, you're actually stating that it's an intractible one, that's it's one requiring enormous and unavailable resources to overcome. 

I don’t think so.
I actually see positive signs at the grassroots and donor level. This thing is really close. It’s not as though Republicans have some massive dominance or anything. Democrats have finally lost the luxury of self-deception. I’m open to the idea that they might change the way they do business. I haven’t seen it yet, but at least right now when party apparatchiks discourage a good candidate from entering a race people are outraged about it. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The top three issues in my community are the cost of living, homelessness and traffic, but addressing them is much less important in an election than connecting to how people feel about them. 

I agree that this is the area Dems need to examine and shift. However, questions abound. Coming off as genuine on those 3 will require a dramatic shift in party messaging. A candidate here and there who "feels your pain" won't cut it anymore.

Is the electorate ready for what will be derided as a return to mid-20th c. liberalism or an even further left shit to social democracy? Pubs only need to dust off "tax and spend" and the "nine most terrifying words" pablum. So, do you keep enough of the current base in the fold as you, hopefully, pick up non-voters looking for real expansion of the safety net? Can you peel away folks from the GOP with an economic focus? How do you peel them away when they're disinclined to side with people they see as satanists and n-/gay lovers?

Considering their performance in 2024, we've probably entered "worth a shot" territory. Obama was wrong. It was not he but Trump that ended the Reagan era. That era was marked by 2 major parties much closer in ideology than either would want to admit. I think the usefullness of the Third Way has passed.

The problem remains, though, in getting Dem-aligned special interest groups to see it that way, too.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don’t think so.
I actually see positive signs at the grassroots and donor level. This thing is really close. It’s not as though Republicans have some massive dominance or anything. Democrats have finally lost the luxury of self-deception. I’m open to the idea that they might change the way they do business. I haven’t seen it yet, but at least right now when party apparatchiks discourage a good candidate from entering a race people are outraged about it. 

What you're quoting is focused on your "contest every race" comment. That only happens organically, absent gobs of money. I think it only happens organically with a dramatic idealogical shift in the party. Until then, you're relying on what you abhor - the savior candidate that connects despite the party still only offering something incrementally better, or at least less bad, than the other guys.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

OK, so the Bozo Casanova advice is "be empathetic and say whatever it takes to get elected and then figure things out later."

No, my advice is “recruit and run good candidates.” If they do that, all the empathy and effective messaging takes care of itself. 
 

 

12 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

BTW, I can't really figure out if you're talking exclusively local, state, or national elections or some combination.  Mixing them would be like saying "football" and then discussing high school, college, and the NFL.

I am talking about partisan offices at the statewide and local level, but that’s inclusive of everything from county courthouses to congressional races. Presidential race outcomes get all the attention but tend to be a lagging indicator.

14 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I'm curious: can you name the names in the quote above?  Who picked the bad strategy? Who didn't support the statewide ticket (who was that, BTW)?

Who did the warning?

Well, a lot of these people were behind the scenes figures and the more public ones would disavow that they did, but:

“Dry powder” is most closely associated with the late Kelly Fero and the Molly Beth Malcolm era. The idea was that Bush’s coattails would make 2000 a waste of resources, so they would eke their powder dry in preparation for the notorious Ron Kirk/Tony Sanchez “dream ticket” in 2002, in which Sanchez wondered aloud why he was running and Ron Kirk actually debated John Cornyn about who was closer to George Bush. 

A lot of county level people thought it was asinine and said so, but some of the more well known figures doing the warning at that time were Jim Mattox and (giving credit where it’s due)  Hightower. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, softlynow said:

What you're quoting is focused on your "contest every race" comment. That only happens organically, absent gobs of money.

Nonsense. Money is cheap nowadays. Attention is precious. Having the most money has never been less important in our lives. What’s important now is being interesting.

Just now, InkaUtexas said:

Last page makes me feel like a little kid going to the zoo and my favorite exhibit is closed for renovations.

"But mommy, you promised leopards."

"I WANT LEOPARDS!!!!!:

Untitled.webp.3a488ab43e016ad347df25fa8cc444fa.webp

Agreed, let’s get back to some face eating.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
First, stop sucking up to corporate America and billionaires.
Second, stop sucking up to Hollywood and celebrities.
 

Republicans elected 2 actor for gov, one for president, a conman/felon/reality tv businessman for president.

The left elected one for senate. Who is sucking up to celebrities?
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nivek said:


Republicans elected 2 actor for gov, one for president, a conman/felon/reality tv businessman for president.

The left elected one for senate. Who is sucking up to celebrities?

Jesus Christ, this. While the trotting out of celebs on the campaign trail is cringy, it's what the American people are obsessed with, none more so than the pro wrestling, reality TV watching right.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...