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 3
  • 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 2
  • 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 2
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
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
Posted
39 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.

Tribal camps are forming. I don’t think it’s a good thing but I’m not sure, given the political climate, it can be avoided.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

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. 

Hey man I will vote for them. And I have. Because ultimately they are better than the alternative. But I know ultimately they will destroy any legislation we try to pass should we ever get a majority again. Which is frustrating. We have people in our party who are ultimately opposed to our policies, and they will make sure our policies are not put into effect. They will make sure Trump's changes become the norm and become permanent...because they did that with all the things George W Bush did. They ensure that, at the end of the day, the Republicans always win and shape our government.

But we can get a few things passed. And have government function. Better than having a Republican in those seats.

So in that context, I challenge the notion there are these big purity tests. I do wish we at least had a little party discipline, at least on the big issues. 

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

So in that context, I challenge the notion there are these big purity tests. I do wish we at least had a little party discipline, at least on the big issues. 

Fair enough- I don’t think purity tests for candidates and politicians are the problem so much as purity tests in candidate recruitment- right now, in 2025, in Texas, white men who are competent and have deep roots in their communities are being discouraged from running for open seats and Republican controlled seats on the basis of their demographics.
And then you have the local machines and favored vendors that are coin operated and come with their hands out looking for a piece of the action.
 Furthermore, all candidates are subjected to questionnaires and other required positions from The Groups, which I suppose is reasonable on its face but leads to bullshit like “Kamala Harris supports taxpayer funded sex changes for illegal aliens in prison.” 
I’d like to see the party rally around an extraordinarily narrow set of things that focus more on who Democrats care about than placating the loudest organizations and most  avaricious local bosses under the umbrella.

So all that is to say: winning must come first. It’s not the most important thing. It is, however, the first requirement. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
1 hour 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. 

the-hangover-thanks-a-lot-bin-laden.gif

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Fair enough- I don’t think purity tests for candidates and politicians are the problem so much as purity tests in candidate recruitment- right now, in 2025, in Texas, white men who are competent and have deep roots in their communities are being discouraged from running for open seats and Republican controlled seats on the basis of their demographics.
And then you have the local machines and favored vendors that are coin operated and come with their hands out looking for a piece of the action.
 Furthermore, all candidates are subjected to questionnaires and other required positions from The Groups, which I suppose is reasonable on its face but leads to bullshit like “Kamala Harris supports taxpayer funded sex changes for illegal aliens in prison.” 
I’d like to see the party rally around an extraordinarily narrow set of things that focus more on who Democrats care about than placating the loudest organizations and most  avaricious local bosses under the umbrella.

So all that is to say: winning must come first. It’s not the most important thing. It is, however, the first requirement. 

The Democratic party should rally around fucking hating Republicans and wanting to destroy their party. 

9 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The funnest part is that the most famous people got last billing.

Do we get to yell at David Shor for not ratting on his buddies from the Andreessen group chats?

Posted
13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

So all that is to say: winning must come first. It’s not the most important thing. It is, however, the first requirement. 

This.

To defeat Nazis the first time, we sent fucking boatloads of weapons to this guy:

-%20-%20-%20Portrait%20of%20Joseph%20Sta

I'm fine aligning with less-than-ideal-and-pure allies to defeat Nazis this second time.

Posted

The corporatists are desperately trying to hold on to power. This is a shitty move:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-subcommittee-recommends-redoing-vice-chair-elections-putting/story?id=121751231

The Democratic National Committee's Credentials subcommittee has recommended that the party should once again hold vice-chair elections over complaints that there were issues with how the balloting was conducted -- a move that places its vice chairs David Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The recommendation, made after the committee's vote on Monday, comes after the party-wide officer races in February. The subcommittee's deliberations were based on a challenge filed by vice chair candidate Kalyn Free on how the election was conducted.

Free's counsel argued that the way some of the voting was conducted allowed Hogg and Kenyatta to unfairly receive more votes than Free, who also sought a vice-chair role.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The corporatists are desperately trying to hold on to power. This is a shitty move:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-subcommittee-recommends-redoing-vice-chair-elections-putting/story?id=121751231

 

The Democratic National Committee's Credentials subcommittee has recommended that the party should once again hold vice-chair elections over complaints that there were issues with how the balloting was conducted -- a move that places its vice chairs David Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The recommendation, made after the committee's vote on Monday, comes after the party-wide officer races in February. The subcommittee's deliberations were based on a challenge filed by vice chair candidate Kalyn Free on how the election was conducted.

Free's counsel argued that the way some of the voting was conducted allowed Hogg and Kenyatta to unfairly receive more votes than Free, who also sought a vice-chair role.

If you think that the MAGA GQP is the greatest threat the Republic has faced since the Civil War (and you'd be right about that), what is your most-likely-to-succeed path at derailing it?

1)  Contribute your time and money to the Democratic party, counting on it to get its shit together and mount an effective opposition?

2) Join the Republican party, hoping and working to establish/build a counter-movement within the party to overtake the MAGA movement?

 

At this point, I'm thinking the smart money is on option 2).  I mean, neither will work, but 2) has a much higher chance (think 5% chance vs. 1% chance).  

Posted
2 hours 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.

Merely calling Republicans "weird" gave the Democrats more momentum than they'd had since Obama.  Imagine what could happen if they go all-in with that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Merely calling Republicans "weird" gave the Democrats more momentum than they'd had since Obama.  Imagine what could happen if they go all-in with that.

it was like splashing holy water on a demon, which was honestly surprising.



×
×
  • Create New...