Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
32 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

Omfg... Stop blaming Democrats. 

It's not their fault that 77 million people voted for the dumbest worst candidate to ever run for any office ever. Those people wanted to hate and look down on others, they wanted revenge and retribution, they wanted to be childish and selfish and immature. They were obviously lied to over and over again and they know it but chose to believe it any way so they could watch him hurt the ones they want hurt.

Dems weren't out-messaged or out campaigned for fucks sake. They were out-lied. His people are incompetent. His policies stupid. So unless you want Dems to blatantly lie or promise to hurt people, then I have no idea what you are trying to convey other than - Dems have lost touch hurrrr durrrr!!!!

And the fact this same pattern is happening everywhere around the globe tells me it's not a Dem messaging problem. Look at the places where it isn't working and you will find that media outlets like Fox News are banned or simply don't exist.

They were both out-messaged and out-lied. In swing states Republicans hammered home the message that Kamala Harris supports taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners and detained migrants. She also supported cutting funding for ICE. These are really easy points to communicate and like it or not these ideas are very unpopular with most Americans.

Too many people in this thread are unable to come to terms with the fact that this should have been a landslide victory for democrats, but they shot themselves in the foot by continuing to vocally support unpopular fringe causes.

I had a political science professor who always hammered home the idea that if you want to win an election you have to win over "Johnny Six-Pack". Johnny Six-Pack isn't going to research the Republicans lies, but he absolutely knows he doesn't want his taxes going towards transgender surgery for prisoners.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/kfile-harris-pledged-support-in-2019-to-cut-ice-funding-and-provide-transgender-surgery-to-detained-migrants/index.html

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

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.

It is for the specific thing you were talking about.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Baconboy said:

Too many people in this thread are unable to come to terms with the fact that this should have been a landslide victory for democrats, but they shot themselves in the foot by continuing to vocally support unpopular fringe causes.

Not really. The polls had been bleak for years. That is not to say that Kamala shouldn't have done better but even if she had done well it still would have been a narrow victory. It was going to take a miracle to hold on to the Senate.

I don't see any evidence a landsllide victory was in the cards for either side.

I also did not see the Democrats vocally supporting cutting ICE or saying they supported government funded trans surgeries. If they had, that at least would have been them boldly proclaiming a set of policies which would have been nice. I think we had a clip of Kamala waffling through a question from a few years back about trans care in prisons. But whatever her fringe unpopular causes she vocally supported (links to this vocal support?) the polls were looking bleak before she even got the nomination.

I was here trying to cope with the likely defeat for that reason. 

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

I love Stephen King. This thread, without the derails, in a nut shell.

 

 

I think this is why people love the copium in this thread. We are well aware that unless a certain number of people are people personally hurt, they will happily sit by and watch horrible things happen to everybody around them. So we hope that Trump's policies will be disastrous enough to enough people that people wake up and save the day in time.

But I think that is unlikely.

Though, as we saw with Biden, inflation and general economic problems can sink any President. So if that happens again that might finally break the MAGA spell. Or not. What do I know?

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

think we had a clip of Kamala waffling through a question from a few years back about trans care in prisons. But whatever her fringe unpopular causes she vocally supported (links to this vocal support?)

I may not be remembering correctly but I feel like the gist of her answer, while fumbling, was that she was for whatever the law said. And as either an AG candidate or as AG running for senate, isn’t that the right answer?  In either of those situations she is talking to Californians, not all Americans, so adding anything about looking into having those laws changed would probably have been bad for her campaign back then. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

I may not be remembering correctly but I feel like the gist of her answer, while fumbling, was that she was for legatees the law said. And as either an AG candidate or as AG running for senate, isn’t that the right answer?  In either of those situations she is talking to Californians, not all Americans, so adding anything about looking into having those laws changed would probably have been bad for her campaign back then. 

Yeah. It was years ago. And it was waffling and pretty tame, not exactly a bold and full throated demand. Hardly anything she vocally supported in her campaign, or something all the Democrats lined up behind.

But that was enough.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I may not be remembering correctly but I feel like the gist of her answer, while fumbling, was that she was for whatever the law said. And as either an AG candidate or as AG running for senate, isn’t that the right answer?  In either of those situations she is talking to Californians, not all Americans, so adding anything about looking into having those laws changed would probably have been bad for her campaign back then. 

Republican voters no longer care about laws so a candidate or elected official that says they will follow the law of the land is weak. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

 

Though, as we saw with Biden, inflation and general economic problems can sink any President. So if that happens again that might finally break the MAGA spell. Or not. What do I know?


You assume that we'll have free and fair elections next time around. 

Re: Republicans liking spending cuts, just not in their states, if you think about it, it makes sense. California and New York are donor states. They put in more money in taxes than they get out. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska ... these are parasite states. They get more money from the federal government than they put in.  So when spending cuts come around, guess who gets hurt the most? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I am a conservationist. I believe we need more leopard sancutaries.

Of all the feeding troughs the SEC has to be the best for Leopards right? With that one small animal sanctuary in Dearborn of course. And a few hobby farms in the Dakotas right?

Any Urban leopard spottings lately? Northern Virginia is not really urban. It is horrible suburbia. So a cross over territory where leopards migrate but do not live.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


You assume that we'll have free and fair elections next time around. 

Re: Republicans liking spending cuts, just not in their states, if you think about it, it makes sense. California and New York are donor states. They put in more money in taxes than they get out. Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska ... these are parasite states. They get more money from the federal government than they put in.  So when spending cuts come around, guess who gets hurt the most? 

But guess what the people in those red states believe to be true because of 30 years of screaming about socialism and waste spending in California and New York.

they had full faith that all of the spending cuts would be from those places. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Previous trump DOE Secretary of Energy weighs in

IMG_2392.gif.816d517f6aed313ebfad3040a473e7ea.gif

I just want to point out that Rick Perry ran for President on a platform that included getting rid of the Department of Energy while admitting later when he became Energy Secretary that he had no idea what the DOE even did. That is some impressive statesmanship right there.

People get upset Gen Alpha can't read, but those boomer politicians don't seem to have spent much time doing that either.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, GenXer said:

Leopards attempt to regurgitate eaten faces. Having difficulty finding said faces’ contact info.

IMG_2389.thumb.jpeg.7423dd99ca79c149e98fdaf1aad161a0.jpeg

 

IMG_2390.thumb.jpeg.f916903f37fe599438f12ff97038a450.jpeg

IMG_2391.thumb.jpeg.0032c471d723f9f6c8514298fa92040e.jpeg
 

Previous trump DOE Secretary of Energy weighs in

IMG_2392.gif.816d517f6aed313ebfad3040a473e7ea.gif

DuckCig.gif.ec2c803175d7e3dfcebf86c0a4c9a1b7.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

I just want to point out that Rick Perry ran for President on a platform that included getting rid of the Department of Energy while admitting later when he became Energy Secretary that he had no idea what the DOE even did. That is some impressive statesmanship right there.

People get upset Gen Alpha can't read, but those boomer politicians don't seem to have spent much time doing that either.

Also couldn’t remember the names of all three departments he wanted to shutter.

Republicans: only the best.

 

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

It is for the specific thing you were talking about.

Also nonsense. Good local candidates live off the land. This is one area where politics is distinct from product marketing. Contesting every race with good candidates is 100% accretive. And if it isn’t accretive, they aren’t good candidates.

Posted
1 minute ago, GenXer said:

Also couldn’t remember the names of all three departments he wanted to shutter.

Republicans: only the best.

 

And I think, based on this latest episode, that despite Rick Perry eventually finding out what the Department of Energy does, the Republicans STILL don't know what it does.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, miguelito said:

What's the real story of Fox's 1.9 trillion or whatever that Biden misplaced?  I need to know what to tell my parents when they bring it up.

Tell them you heard a cough when they were eating and now you need to blend their food.  Kisses, bye.  

  • Haha 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

And I think, based on this latest episode, that despite Rick Perry eventually finding out what the Department of Energy does, the Republicans STILL don't know what it does.

Judging from the last few days maybe that is a good thing.

Posted
1 hour ago, Baconboy said:

They were both out-messaged and out-lied. In swing states Republicans hammered home the message that Kamala Harris... Is a woman.

 this should have been a landslide victory for democrats, but they shot themselves in the foot by... Nominating a woman.

I had a political science professor who always hammered home the idea that if you want to win an election you have to win over "Johnny Six-Pack". Johnny Six-Pack isn't going to research the Republicans lies, but he absolutely knows he doesn't want.... A woman

 

Let's cut the bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Baconboy said:

They were both out-messaged and out-lied. In swing states Republicans hammered home the message that Kamala Harris supports taxpayer funded transgender surgery for prisoners and detained migrants. She also supported cutting funding for ICE. These are really easy points to communicate and like it or not these ideas are very unpopular with most Americans.

Too many people in this thread are unable to come to terms with the fact that this should have been a landslide victory for democrats, but they shot themselves in the foot by continuing to vocally support unpopular fringe causes.

I had a political science professor who always hammered home the idea that if you want to win an election you have to win over "Johnny Six-Pack". Johnny Six-Pack isn't going to research the Republicans lies, but he absolutely knows he doesn't want his taxes going towards transgender surgery for prisoners.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/politics/kfile-harris-pledged-support-in-2019-to-cut-ice-fundingd-provide-transgender-surgery-to-detained-migrants/index.html

Well, Kamala didn't campaign on trans rights, for sure.  But it was something she said, years ago, during the Trump administration no less.  She couldn't very well renounce that position when questioned about it.

But I think if the Biden administration had created the appearance of a tougher stance on immigration and done a better job of touting the economy relative to the rest of the world, that would have been less of an issue.

Posted
3 hours ago, 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

Thank you for not posting a cheetah. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

First, stop sucking up to corporate America and billionaires.

Second, stop sucking up to Hollywood and celebrities.

 

Need to run people that pledge to deport Musk and nationalize all his companies.  Or pardon Luigi. 

Take your pick.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, Kamala didn't campaign on trans rights, for sure.  But it was something she said, years ago, during the Trump administration no less.  She couldn't very well renounce that position when questioned about it.

But I think if the Biden administration had created the appearance of a tougher stance on immigration and done a better job of touting the economy relative to the rest of the world, that would have been less of an issue.

What Biden lacked some charismatic surrogates to put forth his message and he was really terrible at doing it himself.

But Obama was good at this the Democrats still suffered bad defeats when he was in charge so...

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Also nonsense. Good local candidates live off the land. This is one area where politics is distinct from product marketing. Contesting every race with good candidates is 100% accretive. And if it isn’t accretive, they aren’t good candidates.

You're simply being obtuse at this point. They aren't going to run without some support. You know better, but your framing of this holds out the Demcratic Party as a corporation with agents in every county and district. They're simply choosing not to run people in Montgomery County, for example. It isn't that there are plenty Dems there who would think about running for something, but understand the futility of it. Instead its DemCo simply choosing to sit it out. 

"Contest every race." Requires candidates, right? Where there is local support they do run. Where there isn't, they'll need outside money if you're going to run the touchdown play.

Contest every race either requires money that isn't there or a shift in ideology that shifts the entire landscape. It requires an entirely different big tent. Running better national and statewide candidates out there, ones who seem genuine, but are simply warmed over centrists, will also do nothing in giving it a run in 3144 counties.

Your point that the party as constructed is spinning its wheels is sound. The bullet point "contest every race" is not. A better party might get there organically.

Posted
58 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Latest victim of having his face eaten: Mitch McConnell. After blocking Obama's supreme court nominees, the vultures are circling, preparing to feed on his carcass.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/15/politics/mcconnell-trump-party/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc


 

Fuck him. Very few people have done more to damage the Republic. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

mitch is old news

the only thing that matters now are statewide races and the us senate

all the money and effort should go to the contestable statewide races and any us senate seat in play in every election

there are 30-40 senate seats contested every 2 years

in states where a us senate seat is up, every dime should go to that race

in states where no senate seats are up, only spend to contest statewide races

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

You assume that we'll have free and fair elections next time around. 

This is one area where the left sounds as bat shit crazy as the right.

Edited by David Dennison
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Speaking of Mitch McConnell, the face that’s about to get eaten  in Texas is John Cornyn’s because Ken Paxton is going to primary him and I’m going to laugh and laugh.

Speaking as a Texan who will have to have one of them as a Senator, I'd much rather have Cornyn up there than Ken Paxton.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Speaking as a Texan who will have to have one of them as a Senator, I'd much rather have Cornyn up there than Ken Paxton.

I think he means anoint and fund a candidate to oppose him rather than run against him.  But you can be sure said candidate will be made in Paxton's image.

Posted
I think he means anoint and fund a candidate to oppose him rather than run against him.  But you can be sure said candidate will be made in Paxton's image.

No, he means Paxton himself will run against him. He is doing exactly that, it’s no secret. He’ll smoke Cornyn, and easily defeat whoever the Dems run. Because this state would vote 55-45 for Beelzebub Babyrapist ®.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


No, he means Paxton himself will run against him. He is doing exactly that, it’s no secret. He’ll smoke Cornyn, and easily defeat whoever the Dems run. Because this state would vote 55-45 for Beelzebub Babyrapist ®.

For about a split second I thought "Great, he can do less harm in the senate than he can controlling the AGs office", then I remembered Brisket's Razor..."It only gets worse". 

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

IMG_2395.thumb.jpeg.d770f63ae3788c2b7f1225e12906a9d5.jpeg
 

IMG_2396.thumb.jpeg.45b79820934b9438772c36b4fe77155f.jpeg

Red farmers can bank on trump.

Thoughts. Prayers.

Wait, wait! You're trying to tell me that the most well-known convicted, recidivist fraudster in the world has ordered a "blatant breach of contract".

Just outta no where.

Huh.

These things are kinda hard to predict ya know.

Here a womp. There a womp. Everywhere a womp womp. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


No, he means Paxton himself will run against him. He is doing exactly that, it’s no secret. He’ll smoke Cornyn, and easily defeat whoever the Dems run. Because this state would vote 55-45 for Beelzebub Babyrapist ®.

Yep, and that’s assuming Cornyn even stays in the race once Paxton announces. I have heard that Cornyn tells people privately he has no intention of retiring if Paxton challenges him, which tells me he has every intention of retiring if Paxton challenges him. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, GenXer said:

Leopards attempt to regurgitate eaten faces. Having difficulty finding said faces’ contact info.

IMG_2389.thumb.jpeg.7423dd99ca79c149e98fdaf1aad161a0.jpeg

 

IMG_2390.thumb.jpeg.f916903f37fe599438f12ff97038a450.jpeg

IMG_2391.thumb.jpeg.0032c471d723f9f6c8514298fa92040e.jpeg
 

Previous trump DOE Secretary of Energy weighs in

IMG_2392.gif.816d517f6aed313ebfad3040a473e7ea.gif

 

Pay Me GIF by Hulu Friends

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...