Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
51 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Never understood how any woman or person of color could ever vote for Trump. The writing on the wall has been there since jump. Even now when smacked in the face the impact of voting for this madman, many still don't want to admit they were lied to and say they regret the vote.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Or maybe...

$521 Billion Annually
 
Fraud Risk Management: 2018-2022 Data Show Federal Government Loses an Estimated $233 Billion to $521 Billion Annually to Fraud, Based on Various Risk Environments. GAO-24-105833 Published: Apr 16, 2024. Publicly Released: Apr 16, 2024.
 

Think Elmo's gonna find any of that?  If he does, it will be a complete accident coming from governmental default on legitimate obligations.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure this counts as leopards eating faces.  She voted for Trump "hoping for change" and change she got.  Change in employment status that is.

Kind of is worth noting that she points out Bozo's refrain that Dems have taken minority votes for granted.  Still, as bad as Dems have been R's have been worse, and Trump's brand of R, worse still.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Not sure this counts as leopards eating faces.  She voted for Trump "hoping for change" and change she got.  Change in employment status that is.

She gonna be Jocelyn her schedule around looking for a jobby job

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Think Elmo's gonna find any of that?  If he does, it will be a complete accident coming from governmental default on legitimate obligations.

That fraud is not in the park service or social security. It is in big contracts for big business and in the military-industrial complex. So fat chance any of that goes away.

But, as I have said, even if Elon Musk and DOGE did a great job and massively increased government efficiency while reducing waste and fraud at an almost platonic level...it will all be for nothing because it would be swallowed up in the tax cuts. The debt will continue to grow.

But of course they are actually currently making government very much less able to do its job and don't seem to be cutting much actual waste and fraud. 

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

Or poor person, or anyone that got fucked over in the other burroughs, or a southerner, or someone that's worked a day in thier life.  Or a mother or a father. Or someone who has nieces or friends or family  that are female,  gay, trans, black, brown, native, poor, weak, marginalized or anything other than a 1%white male piece of shit?

Of course, I was just thinking specifically about her being a black woman.

Posted
21 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

That fraud is not in the park service or social security. It is in big contracts for big business and in the military-industrial complex. So fat chance any of that goes away.

But, as I have said, even if Elon Musk and DOGE did a great job and massively increased government efficiency while reducing waste and fraud at an almost platonic level...it will all be for nothing because it would be swallowed up in the tax cuts. The debt will continue to grow.

But of course they are actually currently making government very much less able to do its job and don't seem to be cutting much actual waste and fraud. 

There's also value to finding the exact "fraud" in question in preventing it in the future, none of which is happening now.   

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
26 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

That fraud is not in the park service or social security. It is in big contracts for big business and in the military-industrial complex. So fat chance any of that goes away.

But, as I have said, even if Elon Musk and DOGE did a great job and massively increased government efficiency while reducing waste and fraud at an almost platonic level...it will all be for nothing because it would be swallowed up in the tax cuts. The debt will continue to grow.

But of course they are actually currently making government very much less able to do its job and don't seem to be cutting much actual waste and fraud. 

That's the entire ethos. Break shit to prove shit is broken.

I for one find it heartening that  W still probably has thousands of dead Veterans left to paint in his feeble attempt to assuage his guilt.

Then maybe he can start painting all the children he had murdered next. Pretty large rock to push bubba.

And Barry can chill knowing he "inherited" the problem.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
On 2/24/2025 at 4:22 PM, Sawbonz said:

You know, Paul was being sarcastic when he said to suffer fools gladly

Suffer them gladly, BUT always keep a shovel handy if they just won’t shut up.

  • Like 1
Posted
On 2/25/2025 at 9:08 AM, Gatorubet said:

if you follow that logic, then Reagan‘s sweep of 47 states would result in a 94% Republican Congress.     Or - maybe that event was just one election with a candidate weakened by massive inflation, the Iran hostage crisis, and a bunch of other issues that decided the presidency that year. 

IMG_4193.thumb.png.4ed7d7fe00e5e607b862919d6ac3cfff.png

Enough of the voting population in the various states liked Democrats that 47 senators were democrats the year of Reagan’s election.

Saying that because of a single presidential election 98% of the Congress should be GOP as a result of that election is mind numbingly stupid.   that goes for his display of Trump votes in two states to justify a claim that those states are gerrymandered.

It is just more false facts to support why the GOP does not want actual democracy.  Which is why they gerrymand, why they interfere in elections by making it hard for Democrats in Democratic voting areas to find a polling booth, why they want to introduce onerous restrictions on voting in general, because they know poor people have more difficulty proving the things they want, thereby diminishing democratic vote - and why they do things like pass bills that say you can’t give water to people standing in line in the hot sun to vote - because the GOP placed a reduced number of voting machines in that Democratic area to limit votes and make the weight in line so onerous that people give up. 

that is his team, and he won’t show up to admit any of that. 

 

Quote

if you follow that logic, then Reagan‘s sweep of 47 states would result in a 94% Republican Congress.    

That's not my position in any way.

If Maine votes 75-25 Democrat, then the people of Maine should get somewhere near 75-25 Democratic representation in Congress (and even their state legislation).

That election meant that most people in most states wanted Reagan to be POTUS.  Not that 94% of people in the US wanted him to be POTUS.  OR that 94% of the representation in Congress should be Republican.

Quote

Which is why they gerrymand,

As I've posted, the gerrymandering in New York and California is much worse than in any red state....

Posted
3 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

If Maine votes 75-25 Democrat, then the people of Maine should get somewhere near 75-25 Democratic representation in Congress (and even their state legislation).

You’ve been begging the same question for 20 years: since local interests often (or usually, really) transcend national party alignment, WHY “should” the people of Maine’s congressional delegation be anything like their statewide vote in Federal elections?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Lol, we're still doing the Blue states gerrymander just as bad? When I was in Georgia in 2020 when it flipped the GOP still controlled the House and Senate by like 10% more than Democrats. There aren't that many split ticket voters.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
20 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

As I've posted, the gerrymandering in New York and California is much worse than in any red state....

You posted it, but you decided to ignore evidence contrary to your claim.   As long as you never look at the scoreboard you win every game!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
On 2/24/2025 at 9:30 PM, hornmpa96 said:

I hate speaking for Ag with Kids but generally speaking most people view the effectiveness of a gerrymander as the delta between who wins House elections as compared to how a state votes on a statewide basis. That’s why he is pointing to the discrepancy between statewide totals and representation in the house.

Clearly individual candidates matter as well.

Interestingly, I learned tonight that California has a somewhat independent commission drawing house districts. New York has something similar.

The comparison to Texas is poor because the Texas Rs have effectively reached the limits of their ability to further gerrymander house seats. After the 2020 census, they had to give numerous safe seats to the Democratic Party to keep the majority of R incumbents safe.

Both California and New York have several competitive seats.

Correct.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 2/25/2025 at 10:46 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, it's fitting apportionment to a predetermined outcome when the outcome doesn't necessarily correlate to the actual preferences of the electorate.

It's less common these days, because of gerrymandering among other things, but there are or have been states with governors and legislatures of different party than the state's voting for President.

Further, should it be how they vote for Pres?  Governor?  Senator?

Apportionment needs to be pretty much purely geographic/demographic.  End of story.

I didn't say anything about electoral votes fwiw.

On 2/25/2025 at 10:38 AM, Ghost of NMAS said:

I didn't suggest anything other than that you were misrepresenting @Ag with kids's position, but feel free to continue to rant

You were correct in your assessment.

Thank you.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

As I've posted, the gerrymandering in New York and California is much worse than in any red state....

So? Gerrymandering is still bad. And just worse today since you can use computers to gerrymander with shocking precision. I have heard that some states do things a bit better, like maybe Pennsylvania. Supposedly, but I don't live in Pennsylvania and don't know if that is true. Just what I heard. 

And frankly I don't even know the value of single member districts anyway. My representative is a do-nothing waste of space who just votes with his party. There is nothing specific you get from him you wouldn't get from another member of his party from Florida or Oregon or wherever. Nothing he does that specifically represents my part of Texas. We might as well just assign the representatives proportionally. But I don't know. Maybe some reps actually do pretend to care about the specific needs of their district and are not just party hacks.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You’ve been begging the same question for 20 years: since local interests often (or usually, really) transcend national party alignment, WHY “should” the people of Maine’s congressional delegation be anything like their statewide vote in Federal elections?

I'm not begging a question no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

The federal house delegation should match the state electorate.  The state house delegation should match the state electorate.  The local political delegation should match the local electorate.

I've said multiple times that the gerrymandered districts are stupid.  I don't like them.

But people living in majority Democratic areas should have political representation that is majority Democratic.  And people living in majority Republican areas should have political representation that is majority Republican.

This should not be this difficult to understand.

 

So for YOU, WHY would the Maine congressional delegation be significantly different than how the state citizens voted?

Posted
15 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

So? Gerrymandering is still bad. And just worse today since you can use computers to gerrymander with shocking precision. I have heard that some states do things a bit better, like maybe Pennsylvania. Supposedly, but I don't live in Pennsylvania and don't know if that is true. Just what I heard. 

And frankly I don't even know the value of single member districts anyway. My representative is a do-nothing waste of space who just votes with his party. There is nothing specific you get from him you wouldn't get from another member of his party from Florida or Oregon or wherever. Nothing he does that specifically represents my part of Texas. We might as well just assign the representatives proportionally. But I don't know. Maybe some reps actually do pretend to care about the specific needs of their district and are not just party hacks.

Yes.  I've said that multiple times on this thread.

But, don't try to pretend that it's Republicans that are only doing it.  Both parties have.

Of course, some gerrymandering is actually being required by law.  Some states have to have majority minority (Yes, that sounds stupid when you read it) districts.  The only way to accomplish that is to gerrymander.  I disagree with this.

Posted
13 minutes ago, GenXer said:

So much finding out in Dearborn.

What say you, Faye? Are the leopards feasting on your face? Why yes. Yes they are.
 

trumpgaza.thumb.gif.de68281fcf37cd1430e7386797d08b20.gif

 

 

IMG_2598.thumb.jpeg.d3935fd32ebeffb70dea4ced4588b0ce.jpeg

 

You want a reconciliatory statement?

Best I can do is:

Eat shit, Faye.

Reconciliatory statement.  Bahahaha.

Faye really had no fucking clue who she was voting for.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

But, don't try to pretend that it's Republicans that are only doing it.

NOBODY IS DOING THAT, FUCK

Edited by safe sex
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Yes.  I've said that multiple times on this thread.

But, don't try to pretend that it's Republicans that are only doing it.  Both parties have.

Of course, some gerrymandering is actually being required by law.  Some states have to have majority minority (Yes, that sounds stupid when you read it) districts.  The only way to accomplish that is to gerrymander.  I disagree with this.

What's interesting, if you look at "majority minority" districts, they generally aren't very contorted, the way a lot of Texas districts are.  None of em look like this:

texas_-35th-photo-u1?auto=format&q=60&fi

Such districts tend to pose a limitation on other gerrymandering, rather than being an end unto themselves.

Because, this America, man, we keep the minorities in their place, so it's real easy to draw a "majority minority" district.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

that leopard better bring a couple of friends 

Q: How do you eat a herd of hefty arab americans for trump?

A: One bite at a time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

If Maine votes 75-25 Democrat, then the people of Maine should get somewhere near 75-25 Democratic representation in Congress (and even their state

The whole problem with your premise is, we do not vote for parties in this country. We vote for candidates. When you are hopelessly gerrymandered, you get de facto voting for parties.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, Parliament said:

*Begun the font wars have.

And come on.  Posting as plain text is not hard.  Do better.

And clicking the little lightbulb icon up top is even easier. Come on, do better. 

Posted (edited)

I’ve been busy with work, so catching up, but has anyone addressed the bearded belly dancers in the Trump golden Gaza video? 

Edited by Covri
Posted
I’ve been busy with work, so catching up, but has anyone addressed the bearded belly dancers in the Trump golden Gaza video? 

The Golden Trump statue bothered me more…

—You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them

And I’m not even in the American (anti)Christian cult…
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

The Golden Trump statue bothered me more…

—You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them

And I’m not even in the American (anti)Christian cult…

This, I want to see the evangelicals explain this one. I used to be part of all that shit. Very curious to see how people I know still in that shit react.
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, 1978horn said:


This, I want to see the evangelicals explain this one. I used to be part of all that shit. Very curious to see how people I know still in that shit react.

No need, really. Many American Christians  don't even give that verse a second thought. The Oscar may have provoked comment because of the ebil Hollywood controlled by godless libs or of late, the heresy that is the NFL Super Bowl trophy, but a golden Trump blinds any and all to hypocrisy as they are the true believers.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, 1978horn said:


This, I want to see the evangelicals explain this one. I used to be part of all that shit. Very curious to see how people I know still in that shit react.

Same i’ll never go back. But to be able to listen in on their convos would be gold Jerry!



×
×
  • Create New...