Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 11/19/2025 at 2:44 PM, SydneyCarton said:

So you're drawing this conclusion that Labour "punching down" on trans and immigrants is the cause of the discontent of Britain's voters since they took control of the government in November...of 2025. So basically, you're saying the around 70% of unhappy people in the UK, which is about the same as it was when Labour took office, is unchanged in the last two weeks? Here's an illustration below:
image.png.df6b23864d509a4d36480793f29836e2.png

 

But the level of dissatisfaction (about the same) is definitely because of trans and immigration issues. Is that correct? As Stassney said, how did you come to this conclusion?

Also, do you want to tell us why the level of dissatisfaction with the conservative party was so fucking high for the time leading up to that? Since, you know, it wasn't trans and immigration.

you've got to quote the guy, or he's never going to return to answer your question, Stassney. But I'm happy to assist.

 

What are you talking about? Labour took power on July 5, 2024. 

Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

What are you talking about? Labour took power on July 5, 2024. 

My googling led me to believe the elections are in July and power changed hands on the first of the year. 

Posted
45 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Aus whooped that ass in the first test match of the Ashes this week. 

And it only took them two days!

Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I’m pretty sure at this point that Jeffries is a Republican plant. Or he’s been paid off.

He has been paid off. 

New York and California Democratic politicians are so in bed with Wall Street and Silicon Valley they cannot be trusted. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Firemans4Horn said:

The leader’s of this party suck so fucking much. No wonder there is so much apathy amongst the median voter. 
 

 

giphy.gif

Posted
25 minutes ago, Firemans4Horn said:

The leader’s of this party suck so fucking much. No wonder there is so much apathy amongst the median voter. 
 

 

Eh, I have mixed feelings here.  Would you rather make a pariah of Cuellar and have him join the GOP?  
 

I think I’m willing to overlook a little corruption if it preserves a path to power that helps expose it in the White House.  

Posted (edited)
On 12/11/2025 at 1:55 PM, LCHorn said:

Eh, I have mixed feelings here.  Would you rather make a pariah of Cuellar and have him join the GOP?  
 

I think I’m willing to overlook a little corruption if it preserves a path to power that helps expose it in the White House.  

Everyone in the Ukraine war thread "I think I’m willing to overlook a little corruption if..."

Not a knock, just saying it's pragmatic and practical and I agree with you 100%. Gotta play the game that is on the field, not the one dreamed up in practice.

Edited by Vegas64
Posted (edited)

lol. “We’re only 62% as corrupt and grifty as those guys” is a shit ass message. 
 

Cuellar is a crook that was caught red handed. Being pardoned does not mean you have earned a position in leadership back. 

Edited by Firemans4Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Read this review and it's pretty scathing re: Karine Jean-Pierr'es book:

Quote

 

“Unsurprisingly, Independent is a fascinating book for all the wrong reasons. It was dated before it arrived at the printers, perhaps before it was even written; no doubt it will be studied by the historians and anthropologists of the future. Jean-Pierre is an artifact of an age that looks recent on paper but feels prehistoric in practice—the age of pantsuits, the word ’empowerment,’ the musical Hamilton, the cheap therapeutic entreaties to ‘work on yourself’ and ‘lean in’ to various corporate abysses. Independent is written in the outmoded register of one of those lawn signs proclaiming that ‘in this house, we believe kindness is everything,’ which have been firmly planted, to no tangible electoral effect, since 2016 … at no point in Independent does she articulate a serious critique of Democratic policies. Instead, in an unsubtle attempt to elevate her gripes to the status of more principled objections, she peppers the book with platitudes about the need to ‘tap into out of the box thinking’ and reject ‘an out-of-touch leadership working from an outdated playbook.’ It is hard to take these exhortations seriously when Jean-Pierre’s own thinking remains so decidedly in the box, and when her version of in-touch leadership is an 80-something darling of the establishment who can’t make it through a debate after 9 p.m … She could often be mistaken for a motivational instructor in a Soul Cycle class: ‘I ask you to try, to flex your individuality like a muscle, standing firm in your purpose, holding fast when others push you to just go along.’ It is incredible—and emblematic of the Democrats’ total aesthetic and intellectual driftlessness—that someone who writes in such feel-good, thought-repelling clichés was hired to communicate with the nation from its highest podium.”

–Becca Rothfeld on Karine Jean-Pierre’s Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines(The Washington Post)

 

 

Posted

This is a harsh one too, on Kamala's book"

Quote

 

“Kamala Harris’s 304-page excuse for why she lost … The book is one long cast list for a film with Harris as the star. This is politics as celebrity, not policy. It eerily suggests that Harris thinks the process by which America decides who wields power is little more than a Hollywood performance … The surreal tone, and the unwillingness to ponder what the voters actually wanted —except as monolithic categories such as black women—is so vast that it becomes clear her only aim is to defend her reputation, not reflect on the consequences of her and Biden’s cowardice and solipsism … Harris is in many ways the embodiment of woke capitalism, which one might define as the use of social and ethnic positive discrimination in order to sanitize economic inequality … She is incurious about the populist age in which we live … Having offered this contentless, self-exculpating analysis, she concludes that politics is so broken that she no longer thinks working inside the system can solve anything. That’s probably an affectation. But her refusal to investigate why the system is so broken is the natural outcome of her studied vacuity. The book’s conceit is that the Democratic Party had 107 days to stop Trump, and not a decade or two. Any politician who thinks this is true is probably more interested in excusing themselves from the consequences of the loss. The entire premise of the book is a revealing self-deception: that Washington’s personality politics is what determines elections—never mind the economy or, for that matter, the voters.”

–Freddie Hayward on Kamala Harris’ 107 Days (The New Statesman)

 

 



×
×
  • Create New...