Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
45 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Would be cool if Pete went to one of those straight camps and came out with a nice looking beard by his side. Otherwise he has zero chance at winning a national election despite being extraordinarily competent and probably the best person for the job in todays climate.

Disagree. A gay white male who isn't too zesty is not as career limiting as being BIPOC or a woman. Tim Cook, Peter Theil, etc. I think it's widely thought or accepted that being gay doesn't chnage the privilege of being a white male.

Posted
50 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

A gay white male who isn't too zesty is not as career limiting as being BIPOC or a woman.

I’ve been down on Mayor Pete’s chances in ‘28, but I’m coming around to the idea that he’ll just be so familiar to much of the electorate that his homosexuality won’t have the same challenges it might to another candidate.  Also, the voters most concerned about that weren’t ever going to vote Dem anyway.  

It also stands to reason that ‘28 is going to be about the economy and coalition building around ethnicity will be less emphasized.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

We just can't have another 2020 primary where everyone was at each other's throats. Looking back, that was an embarrassing moment for Dem/lib/left wing voters too. Stupid fucking purity tests that split everyone apart. 

The candidates and voters needs to lay off the personal attacks and minutiae and keep the coalition together. 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, LCHorn said:

I’ve been down on Mayor Pete’s chances in ‘28, but I’m coming around to the idea that he’ll just be so familiar to much of the electorate that his homosexuality won’t have the same challenges it might to another candidate.  Also, the voters most concerned about that weren’t ever going to vote Dem anyway.  

It also stands to reason that ‘28 is going to be about the economy and coalition building around ethnicity will be less emphasized.  

 

I think Pete and his team are actually taking the issue "head on" without being overt about it. The more he can do the conservative podcast circuit and land laughs, jokes and not seem like a stiff like he did on the recent one where he didn't shy away from being gay it could be something that turns into a "non issue". 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, immamac said:

The more he can do the conservative podcast circuit

They haven’t been the problem for him, it’s his lack of appeal to African Americans, and who tend to be survey very conservative on LGBTQ issues.  
 

What might be different now is that Trump has appeared to fracture the presumed loyalty the younger members of that group has to voting D and more closely resemble their economic counterparts among other ethnic groups.  If you have to earn that vote based on economics and not civil rights, anyway, then you might as well not run from losing a few elderly AA votes.  

Posted
On 5/9/2025 at 11:20 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

We just can't have another 2020 primary where everyone was at each other's throats. Looking back, that was an embarrassing moment for Dem/lib/left wing voters too. Stupid fucking purity tests that split everyone apart. 

The candidates and voters needs to lay off the personal attacks and minutiae and keep the coalition together. 

 

Dude, the Dems ended up winning the presidency the last time they had a free-for-all primary in 2020. Please God, no more coronations.

I think the notion that competitive primaries end up hurting the party, either party, in the general election is true only if campaign funds are limited, which will never ever again be an issue for the Presidency. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, berlinerbaer said:

Dude, the Dems ended up winning the presidency the last time they had a free-for-all primary in 2020. Please God, no more coronations.

I think the notion that competitive primaries end up hurting the party, either party, in the general election is true only if campaign funds are limited, which will never ever again be an issue for the Presidency. 

I have no issue with a competitive primary. But the purity test bullshit that splits the coalition has to stop. 

And using 2020 is not a great example of how to win another presidency. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/dnc-panel-recommends-redo-vote-david-hogg-malcolm-kenyatta-rcna206337

This is some Bernie Sanders ass shit. 

I swear these fuckers cannot get out of their own way, because they care more about their roles than they do actually governing or winning elections. 

The Republican Party was having a civil war and a complete bloodbath and the dems are the ones who shot themselves in the head. It's insane. 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

So I was talking the Kendall Scudder, the new state chair for Texas Dems.  You might have seen some vids of him sprinkled about the CR.  I asked him if he would be willing to sit for a Zoom type meeting for the Surlyites who would be interested in attending.  He's on board.   

Great idea

Posted

BTW- in the event  a zoom meeting happens,  this group should be reminded to turn off their microphones and cameras in the event they wish to participate while naked, need to use the toilet, or/and masturbate. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

BTW- in the event  a zoom meeting happens,  this group should be reminded to turn off their microphones and cameras in the event they wish to participate while naked, need to use the toilet, or/and masturbate. 

what if we want to do all three simultaneously?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have no issue with a competitive primary. But the purity test bullshit that splits the coalition has to stop. 

And using 2020 is not a great example of how to win another presidency. 

 

Purity test for what? Seems we have tons of right wing nuts in our party right now. We have Fetterman doing Fetterman things and that Senator from Michigan out there talking about how great Ronald Reagan is and supporting most of Trump's appointments.

I mean is it too much to ask that Democrats not be extreme right wing? Or at least oppose the Republican Party? Maybe be in favor of at least a few of the things Democrats are supposed to support? One or two at least?

I mean every time we come close to passing some piece of Dem legislation it always seems like we suddenly have these traitors who emerge to tank it. Even from people who actively campaigned in favor of those bills. It drives me nuts.

So in that context the idea we have "purity tests" is laughable. We don't even have "don't be a complete sell out traitor" test.

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I personally think it is time for Democrats to get nasty.

This pussy footing around bullshit, worrying about what people think they have been doing ain’t working.

The time to get nasty was about 8 years ago. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

Purity test for what? Seems we have tons of right wing nuts in our party right now. We have Fetterman doing Fetterman things and that Senator from Michigan out there talking about how great Ronald Reagan is and supporting most of Trump's appointments

Those people aren’t “right wing nuts.” They are co-belligerents that you need to save the Republic. Only then can you earn the privilege of fighting about policy with them. Until then, they are teammates, not adversaries. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova


×
×
  • Create New...