-
Posts
3376 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by Tuco
-
Dem Strategeries For Mass Cult Reprogramming
Tuco replied to Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand's topic in Cloak Room
Keep in mind people still love the Royal Family. In 2025. I don’t get it. But it’s worth acknowledging that for some fucked up reason a big percentage of people admire the ultra wealthy who didn’t do shit to earn it. I don’t think you’ll find political movement in going after random CEOs. I would love to be proven wrong. -
Dem Strategeries For Mass Cult Reprogramming
Tuco replied to Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand's topic in Cloak Room
Maybe it would be helpful if you said specifically which Dem policies you have an issue with. “Culture War” is a very broad term. -
Dem Strategeries For Mass Cult Reprogramming
Tuco replied to Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand's topic in Cloak Room
The biggest thing that will hurt Trump is an economic downturn. Even with all the Epstein shit lately, Trump's polling is better than when the stock market lost money during his initial tariff push. So, on a personal level, consider pushing off big purchases until there is a change. As far as the Dems go, they need to learn to communicate economic concerns better. The GOP did a great job of making 2024 seem like economic turmoil. Since Trump has been elected, the DJIA has risen less than 2% in six months, which is pretty lackluster. The USD has dropped 10% against the Euro, 7.4% against the Pound, and even 2% against the struggling Yuan. Unemployment has ticked up slightly (4.0% to 4.1%). There is plenty to work with here to communicate that Trump is bad (or at least not particularly good) for the economy. Yet the Democrats need to be pushing this. They need to break this perception that Republicans are better for the economy. As far breaking ties with billionaires, that is easier said than done. Politics is very expensive and keeps getting more expensive. If the Dems are ever in the position to effect policy changes that take money out of politics, they should definitely do so. But until then, they need every resource they can get. Many candidates have sworn off corporate donations, which already puts them at a disadvantage. I think Democrats need to change their messaging around corporations. I think people not in the corporate world underestimate the effect corporate propaganda has on millions of workers/voters. Most people want their corporation to make money. They perceive it as more money and more security for them. Pounding the podium and shouting "...just so corporations can make more money" is not the zinger a lot of politicians think it is, because that is exactly the goal that millions of workers have, because corporations have spent a lot money to drive that goal into their heads. I think less focus on the profits and more focus on the negative aspects (pollution, harm to citizens, whatever) is important. Also, this us vs. corporations is part of the reason why many voters think Republicans are better on the economy, despite all evidence to the contrary. I sound more centrist than I am. I'm trying to be pragmatic here because I am tired of losing to shitstains. But honestly, I think how (what media) Democrats communicate is probably a bigger issue than what they are communicating. The message is not hitting. Not sure how to solve that. -
Never underestimate the subtle beauty of a Cleveland winter. Extremely subtle.
-
It also demonstrates the inability of the Democrats* to either identify an effective softspot or to get into people's social media feeds to exploit it. Admittedly, I didn't think this would be a surprise to anyone, but I am not paid to evaluate that kind of thing. *In this instance, "Democrats" means the consulting firms that the Democratic candidates frequently use.
-
This is spot on. Someone was telling me the other day that Americans "believed in fairness" (while explaining why he thought some support for Trump would erode.) I had to chuckle. Go watch a football game in any sports bar and get back to me on how the fans viewed a controversial call. "Fairness" is quite flexible, depending on whether it helps or hurts your team.
-
I was thinking about this. The same mindset that wouldn't let him admit to a mistake regarding a Hurricane hitting Alabama is probably the same thing that will keep him from releasing an unredacted Epstein file that would mention him, even if that mention isn't incriminating. There are no shades of grey.
-
She and I have a mutual understanding; neither of us give a shit about the other. Although, I do eagerly await her ghost-written tell all book after Donald starts feeding the worms.
-
I'm not sure the State Department is still real.
-
The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread
Tuco replied to Horn Dog's topic in Cloak Room
Rural America can’t die fast enough. I have no interest in continuing to fund their failed culture and delusional politics. Fuck them. They think they’re capitalists? Cool, let the free market sort it out. -
Sure. But at the end of the day, their power is extremely limited. They are basically a lobby, but ultimately the candidates decide to run or not. The Party can help open some doors and make introductions, but Allred already has those. What rules do you think they can bend that significantly impacts a candidate's campaign? Who goes on a slate card? Who gets to speak at a meeting? I appreciate the blood-soaked feuds that go into that kind of shit that ultimately matters very little. One tweet from AOC drives more campaign cash than most state parties. The intraparty squabbling is annoying as shit, full of flawed people who get off on the little modicum of power they've scratched out. But you can get that same dynamic at any college student government. When you step back a couple of steps, it's more funny than sad.
-
I know you think this all controlled by some cabal of the wealthy, but it's not. Candidates make these decisions. Does he have donors lined up? Sure, and better yet, he has call lists. There are candidates who view taking on a established incumbent as a two-cycle commitment, although honestly I am not convinced if second-runs have any better success than virgins.
-
I'd be curious if they are using "assault" to include verbal assaults. I thought "battery" was the legal term for something physical.
-
I think the Dems lose more they gain if they start backing off something like gay marriage. Again, this isn't the Dem leadership deciding how to change the world; the world changed and the Dems are reacting. Unless our culture shifts back enough, supporting gay rights will remain part of any path to winning. It's hard to imagine culture shifting back that much quickly, but, as they say, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
-
The left/right shifts are meaningless unless you are talking specific issues. In general, I think any shift to the left on any policy is attributed to the Dems, even if neither the main party nor a Presidential candidate pushes it. Where the dems have pulled to the right, it reflects a shift in the country or a push by a few dems or liberal groups. So, the Dems aren't setting the agenda in either situation. LBGTQIA+ (etc.) --The dems have definitely shifted left. In 2008, civil unions in lieu of gay marriage was the party line. Trans rights? Not even on the radar. The Dems shifted because it was the right position to have, and frankly America as a whole shifted. There is no shifting back, thankfully. Black Lives Matter (police brutality) - There really isn't a policy here and I think the Dem organization as a whole has ducked the issue. But, individual dems and affiliated groups have definitely signaled a willingness to reign in cops. So, it is frequently seen as a shift with the Democrats. DEI/race issues - Again, it's pretty light on policies. I think the Minority-Owned/Women-owned contractor policies have existed in federal contracting for a while, generally with bipartisan support. (That's a guess, since it doesn't typically get argued about.). The bigger shift left has been in corporate America, not anything driven by the Democratic Party. Gun Control - The dems have definitely shifted to the right. Shit, I remember when there was meaningful debate about controlling hand guns. Now, shooting trophies seems to be a benefit for being a VP nom. The Democrats have crumbled on this issue. Maybe that reflects the direction the country has gone, despite the frequent murder of children. Tax /Trade Policy - Yeah, shifted way right. Support for Israel - unchanged, maybe a bit to the right over the last 30 years. But there are enough individual Dems and associated groups that have pushed back on Israel, so it creates the appearance of a shift in the Dem party. Health Care - on the whole, not really changed since Hillary Clinton in the early 90s. The difference is that Obama actually got something set up. At this point, it seems like Dems are consolidating the support for Obamacare, but no wide-spread push for a better system.
-
I know I consider it a personal failure of the pilots that the bomb didn't completely destroy the infrastructure under a mountain. They should have flown harder.
- 2697 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
-
The biggest surprise about electing a Socialist in NYC is that the rest of the country would have assumed the mayor of NYC was always a socialist. This is irrelevant. Nobody cares. And that Vermont Senator came pretty came damn close to winning the nomination two cycles in a row. That says way more about the Democratic Party as a whole.
-
Dammit, now the Republicans are going to say we elected a Socialist in New York City. We're doomed. Doomed I tell I ya! Next thing you know we'll have a Socialists Senator from Vermont.
-
I smoked a bowl after a Midnight Hammer once; got the munchies so bad I ate an entire Dessert Storm.
-
Did Kruschevchev nuke the US? I would be convinced that Bibi's fear of getting nuked was more genuine if actually did something, anything, to deescalate the conflict with Iran. His one and only response to that fear is to attack them - their uranium operations, ok, but also their leadership, their TV stations, etc. Those actions obviously continue to harden and deepen the conflict. Even Reagan negotiated with the USSR. Bibi pushes hard against any deal between the US and Iran. And despite this terror of a glowing Tel Aviv, they continue to expand their territory with illegal settlements and brutalize the Palestinians living there. These are not the actions of a frightened government. Yeah, no one wants a nuclear Iran, but to me it's pretty clear that Bibi wants to keep that threat always 6 months to two years aways so he always has an excuse.
-
My argument is that "strategy of destroying Israel" does not equate to a commitment to nuke Israel, despite how the rhetoric is generally presented. Edit: ...and Iran's role in 10/7 if far from proven fact.
-
The genocide by American-backed Israel should prove that we hate Muslims.
-
So, that's in response to me saying that Iran (or specifically Ahmadinejad) never said anything to indicate they would nuke Israel, given the chance. I'm still not seeing it in there. The "we have managed to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" isn't on the Wiki page you quoted, but I did find it on the Times of Israel article. It would be nice if the original source "IRGC's Sepah news site" was available to see the original context. But, can we agree that Iran didn't "manage to obtain the capacity to destroy the impostor Zionist regime" in 2019? As far as the typical rhetoric, the TofI article did start out: And, listen, Iran is full of shit, right. As stated originally, they are shitty. But of the types of statements - the "wipe Israel of the map" vs. "we love Jews" - which gets play in the US Press? What percentage of Americans do you think would be surprised about Khamenei's statements above. When I say propaganda, that's what I mean: the version of Iran that Americans sees is filtered, and therefore a half-truth at best.
-
And hopefully you understand that position is part of the propaganda we have been fed. The translations are frequently in the most inflammatory ways possible. Anyone remember Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel of the map"? He wanted to blow them up, right? But it's not a Farsi idiom. Per wikipedia: And that's not some super-radical idea. Many countries do not recognize Israel (the government that is in charge of the land) has the right to exist. That doesn't mean they have expressed a desire to nuke the land and the people. Nuking Israel doesn't free Palestine or Jerusalem, it just destroys them. It serves no purpose. It makes no sense. It is not something Iran is threatening to do. In order to believe that is Iran's plan, you have to have already decided Iran's decisions are completely illogical and suicidal. *Sidenote: Ahmadinejad is probably the worst, total shitstain fucker they've had as President in the last 25 years. He said plenty of dumb, terrible inflammatory shit, including questioning the Holocaust. But he never said anything to indicate he would nuke Israel given the opportunity. It's also worth noting he was elected after we invaded Iraq and were on their doorstep. We always push them to stupid fuckers like him.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... COOKIE MONSTER!