Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What the fuck is he babbling on about? The answer to that question is simple. Make her look like a dumb bitch and say there’s absolutely no reason to bring the National Guard into any city in this country because of local crime concerns. It is absurd on its face

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

The patient's clogged aortas and sub-90 blood oxygen levels are just a distraction from his chapped lips. The Groups want us to focus on the remote possibility of the patient's death, but it's the patient's chapped lips that Real Americans have elected us to address and we must remain laser focused on their needs.

Posted
37 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

What the fuck is he babbling on about? The answer to that question is simple. Make her look like a dumb bitch and say there’s absolutely no reason to bring the National Guard into any city in this country because of local crime concerns. It is absurd on its face

But how would that play with a focus group?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Wes Moore is going toe to toe with Fat Boy on socials today, and I didn’t know he had it in him.

Wes posted this:

 

 

 

because Fat Boy posted this:

 

image.png

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
14 hours ago, Pancho said:

Wes Moore is going toe to toe with Fat Boy on socials today, and I didn’t know he had it in him.

Wes posted this:

 

 

 

because Fat Boy posted this:

 

image.png

Once (if?) the Democratic party gets more generally popular again, Moore should be a first ballot presidential candidate.  But don't waste his candidacy until then.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

He's a moron. You attack this idiot by speaking the language the idiot is familiar with. Newsom and his team get it. Congresswoman Crockett gets it with her hat choices and words. You stop with the formality of how you talk and you talk exactly like TFG does. I have zero use for clowns like Jeffries and I am sure I am far from alone on that.

Exactly. You treat a question like “don’t you think the people of DC have legitimate concerns about crime?” With the absolute scorn it deserves. Something like of course you  dumb bitch. Everyone everywhere has concern about crime. You don’t solve it by bringing in masked thugs and deploying the military against your citizens. Next question.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Look, if it’s going to be the Rolling Stone that guides our ship going forward, then full fucking steam ahead

 

 

David Shor is a goddamned Republican.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Give me this over Newsom any day.

Blue states need to start creating their own militaries, and deploying them in opposition to the federal invasion.  No orders to engage.  Just local forces, fulfilling their duty.  Dare the feds to open fire on local forces who just happen to be blockading the road Trump's troops want to go down.  Create the opportunity for the fascists to go too far and lose legitimacy.  Do it over and over.  They can't help themselves, so give them the rope to hang themselves.

Posted
3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Give me this over Newsom any day.

I will gladly take this man as well. Stand up and account for yourself and the people you are entrusted to serve as well as protect from harm. This is quite literally their job whether they will acknowledge that or not. Pritzker is showing he gets it. The cowards who are toeing the party line and saying nothing need to go just like the cult members in government.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Quote

 

Pritzker and Walz might have just failed the Blue Rose message test. On the other hand, they’re actually doing their jobs.

 

The end of the Rolling Stone article. Somebody go and buy every Patriots hat of the Belichick quote of “Do Your Job” and hand them out to the cowardly Democrats to wear. Go and do your freaking job and stand up to a dictator or get the heck out and get someone in there that will.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Let's be honest, we're reaching the point where it doesn't matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is anymore. If we have another election, it simply is a binary choice between wanting Trump or not. Anyone on the fence at this point is worse than MAGA. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Let's be honest, we're reaching the point where it doesn't matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is anymore. If we have another election, it simply is a binary choice between wanting Trump or not. Anyone on the fence at this point is worse than MAGA. 

I disagree, it is important to me that I get each of their opinions on a number of incredibly divisive, controversial topics so I can yell relentlessly at anyone who does not agree with me 100% while completely ignoring the party that I claim to be trying to beat.  I am very smart at politics.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Let's be honest, we're reaching the point where it doesn't matter who the Democratic Presidential nominee is anymore. If we have another election, it simply is a binary choice between wanting Trump or not. Anyone on the fence at this point is worse than MAGA. 

 

Wait. I thought we weren't having meaningful elections anymore.

Posted
23 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not sure "oligarchy" slaps like they think it does, mainly because I don't think most Americans can define it.

Who gives a shit, he's freestyling and he's saying what a lot of us want to hear. Meanwhile, Susan is getting boo'd and shamed at a ribbon cutting, all while smiling like a opossum eating shit.

Maine is getting Donald's full 4 inches with his tariffs and Canada hate. This is a legit possible pickup in Doc Sam Beckett's opinion 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

There's no reason why we can't find a Mamdani or Platner in every house district. People, not hand-picked by consultants and donors, who get it and by "it" I don't mean AARP membership offers.

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

I'm not sure "oligarchy" slaps like they think it does, mainly because I don't think most Americans can define it.

Hasn't stopped them from screaming "SOCIALISM!!!" at every effort to help the common man. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

First of all, I have a sawbuck that says @Bozo_Casanova is directly involved with this campaign... 

Also, we're going to elect this dude and he's going to be what that rube Fetterman was supposed to be before he got his brain scrambled 

 

I donated $20 to his campaign the other day. This is what Democrats should be doing, talking about how the working class is getting screwed and how they'll fix it.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I donated $20 to his campaign the other day. This is what Democrats should be doing, talking about how the working class is getting screwed and how they'll fix it.

And, this is important, not treating any vulnerable communities as expendable.

spacer.png

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I donated $20 to his campaign the other day. This is what Democrats should be doing, talking about how the working class is getting screwed and how they'll fix it.

Doesn’t poll high enough. Should talk about Israel and Gaza instead. 

Posted
6 hours ago, chainsaw said:

And, this is important, not treating any vulnerable communities as expendable.

spacer.png

That’s quite literally what a few of us have been saying they do but for some reason certain democrats here seem to think we’re talking of them as expendable. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Doesn’t poll high enough. Should talk about Israel and Gaza instead. 

Yes because only one issue can be addressed at a time.

It's funny because this is actually what they do except in the pro-Israel direction. AIPAC Shakur out front shoulda told ya.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

This is the way…

https://apple.news/AZE_427yDRaOmP5b8_ZEO-Q
 

“To defeat the Texas gerrymander, Democrats need to go nuclear”

 

Spoiler

At the insistence of President Donald Trump, Texas Republicans took the extraordinary step of advancing legislation to redraw district lines mid-cycle and trying to add five seats to the narrow GOP advantage in the U.S. House. In response, Democrats are finding a new boldness — Texas lawmakers are fleeing the state to deny a quorum, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening a gerrymander of his own, and even some progressive groups supporting nonpartisan redistricting are reconsidering their stances.

Increasingly, Democrats understand that deterrence is not optional. It is the only alternative to collapse. But, if the debate around whether Democrats should play hardball is almost over, the debate about how is just beginning.

To that end, those looking to counter red state power grabs like Texas’s should look to another period of brinkmanship for inspiration: The Cold War.

During the decades-long nuclear standoff between the U.S. and Soviet Union, leaders on both sides relied on a state of mutually assured destruction to keep the two countries from stumbling into an apocalyptic war.

There are two strategic concepts from that era that apply well to Democrats today: counterforce and countervalue.

Counterforce posits that the best way to deter an opponent is to credibly threaten the use of one’s own nuclear capability to strike at the opponent’s nuclear forces. In the context of today’s redistricting wars, that means neutralizing the weapons Republicans are using — directly, surgically and proportionally — within the sandbox of redistricting, like we’re seeing from New York and California. They gerrymander their big red state; we gerrymander our big blue state.

It’s the cleaner option, keeping the battlefield limited to the same weapons — and targets — as the adversary. But it requires speed, coordination and a willingness by blue-state leaders to shed the “good government” constraints that now leave them unilaterally disarmed.

It’s good that Democratic leaders are trying to leverage counterforce deterrence on redistricting. But, if New York, California and other blue states want to deter red state aggression more comprehensively, they also need to consider the grislier logic of countervalue.

Rather than threatening to destroy an adversary’s military capabilities, a countervalue strategy in the context of actual nuclear war is focused on making credible threats against cities with tens of millions of civilians on the theory that those losses would be simply intolerable. While morally reprehensible, countervalue offered an efficient, credible and cost-effective deterrence strategy during the Cold War.

 

In our domestic context, it means using the full weight of blue states’ market power, cultural influence and legal authority to raise the stakes of Republican red state aggression. That means making it harder for corporations to operate in states that obliterate fair elections. It means using their economic might to impose regulatory and economic costs that bite hard enough to make the constituents of even the most insulated legislator feel the pain. In other words, it means countering red state aggression with potential actions that go beyond reciprocity and may impose disproportionate costs.

Red states have already designed their own weapons for the countervalue war plan. In their effort to uproot corporate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “environmental, social, and governance” practices, for example, Republicans leaders used a full gamut of state economic leverage to not only influence in-state company operations but also to put the squeeze on their practices everywhere. For instance, Texas blacklisted BlackRock, the massive New York-headquartered financial asset manager, for promoting ESG investing, pulling more than $8 billion in state funds out of the firm and rallying other red states to do the same. As a result, BlackRock publicly abandoned its ESG focus

As in nuclear war, countervalue responses by blue states to retaliate against red state aggression will ultimately hurt citizens in all states. But Cold War game theory tells us that the best way to avoid the mutual destruction of countervalue retaliation is to make your adversary believe in your determination to leverage it. Only then can you forge a lasting détente.

It may make voters in Illinois, California and New York very uncomfortable to consider economic warfare that could harm working class Texans — people they have no quarrel with. But their willingness to consider and credibly threaten such approaches may be the best, and perhaps only, way to preserve our national democracy for New Yorkers, Texans and all Americans.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

This is the way…

https://apple.news/AZE_427yDRaOmP5b8_ZEO-Q
 

“To defeat the Texas gerrymander, Democrats need to go nuclear”

 

  Reveal hidden contents

At the insistence of President Donald Trump, Texas Republicans took the extraordinary step of advancing legislation to redraw district lines mid-cycle and trying to add five seats to the narrow GOP advantage in the U.S. House. In response, Democrats are finding a new boldness — Texas lawmakers are fleeing the state to deny a quorum, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening a gerrymander of his own, and even some progressive groups supporting nonpartisan redistricting are reconsidering their stances.

Increasingly, Democrats understand that deterrence is not optional. It is the only alternative to collapse. But, if the debate around whether Democrats should play hardball is almost over, the debate about how is just beginning.

To that end, those looking to counter red state power grabs like Texas’s should look to another period of brinkmanship for inspiration: The Cold War.

During the decades-long nuclear standoff between the U.S. and Soviet Union, leaders on both sides relied on a state of mutually assured destruction to keep the two countries from stumbling into an apocalyptic war.

There are two strategic concepts from that era that apply well to Democrats today: counterforce and countervalue.

Counterforce posits that the best way to deter an opponent is to credibly threaten the use of one’s own nuclear capability to strike at the opponent’s nuclear forces. In the context of today’s redistricting wars, that means neutralizing the weapons Republicans are using — directly, surgically and proportionally — within the sandbox of redistricting, like we’re seeing from New York and California. They gerrymander their big red state; we gerrymander our big blue state.

It’s the cleaner option, keeping the battlefield limited to the same weapons — and targets — as the adversary. But it requires speed, coordination and a willingness by blue-state leaders to shed the “good government” constraints that now leave them unilaterally disarmed.

It’s good that Democratic leaders are trying to leverage counterforce deterrence on redistricting. But, if New York, California and other blue states want to deter red state aggression more comprehensively, they also need to consider the grislier logic of countervalue.

Rather than threatening to destroy an adversary’s military capabilities, a countervalue strategy in the context of actual nuclear war is focused on making credible threats against cities with tens of millions of civilians on the theory that those losses would be simply intolerable. While morally reprehensible, countervalue offered an efficient, credible and cost-effective deterrence strategy during the Cold War.

 

In our domestic context, it means using the full weight of blue states’ market power, cultural influence and legal authority to raise the stakes of Republican red state aggression. That means making it harder for corporations to operate in states that obliterate fair elections. It means using their economic might to impose regulatory and economic costs that bite hard enough to make the constituents of even the most insulated legislator feel the pain. In other words, it means countering red state aggression with potential actions that go beyond reciprocity and may impose disproportionate costs.

Red states have already designed their own weapons for the countervalue war plan. In their effort to uproot corporate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and “environmental, social, and governance” practices, for example, Republicans leaders used a full gamut of state economic leverage to not only influence in-state company operations but also to put the squeeze on their practices everywhere. For instance, Texas blacklisted BlackRock, the massive New York-headquartered financial asset manager, for promoting ESG investing, pulling more than $8 billion in state funds out of the firm and rallying other red states to do the same. As a result, BlackRock publicly abandoned its ESG focus

As in nuclear war, countervalue responses by blue states to retaliate against red state aggression will ultimately hurt citizens in all states. But Cold War game theory tells us that the best way to avoid the mutual destruction of countervalue retaliation is to make your adversary believe in your determination to leverage it. Only then can you forge a lasting détente.

It may make voters in Illinois, California and New York very uncomfortable to consider economic warfare that could harm working class Texans — people they have no quarrel with. But their willingness to consider and credibly threaten such approaches may be the best, and perhaps only, way to preserve our national democracy for New Yorkers, Texans and all Americans.

 

Does nobody else see that this is building and manufacturing consent to completely do away with the representative democratic system "since #bothsides are doing it"?

Posted
15 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Kinda waited around to see if anyone was going to post this today. Taylor Lorenz remains one of the few American journalists doing real journalism.

https://www.wired.com/story/dark-money-group-secret-funding-democrat-influencers/

 

This is a good piece of journalism, but I gotta push back on the Tayllor Lorenz.love. She is mentally ill, and this is an example of "the worst person you know made a great point" meme. 



×
×
  • Create New...