Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

That's insane.  I mean, when the SCOTUS voids the 13th amendment next year, you'll surely be able to pick up a Cherokee for half that price, just like back in the old days.

cherokke_orig.jpeg

 

You really wrote that? WTF?!

Posted
22 hours ago, Pasken said:

I blame the regular program in Texas public schools. I took a few non-honors classes for shit I really wasn't good at and you don't learn anything. It's like busywork babysitting. 

image.jpeg.2873261f686d1dd98f912e65bd7a823a.jpeg

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
On 8/8/2025 at 8:03 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

No. They don’t. That’s what separates them from Democrats. Texas GOP voters care more about winning races than anything else. That’s why they were able to break the Democrats hold on the state. GOP voters in Texas haven’t gotten lazy yet. 

They know Paxton is the favorite and can win. They aren’t sure he will and they know if will be expensive to get him there.
Hunt, on the other hand, assures them of taking the natural statewide 56-44 break, making the race much cheaper to win, and presents an opportunity to take some black voters from Democrats as well, which then means the GOP could be competitive in local races in urban districts where they otherwise would not be. 
 

 

 

 

 

To be fair I would put the state of the GOP in Texas clearly in the hands of well orchestrated moves by Rove and others. I recommend reading this -https://www.texasobserver.org/john-cornyn-profile-mitch-mcconnell-trump-2020/ which talks about the moves made during the 80s and 90s that put us squarely where we are today.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On 7/31/2025 at 10:10 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Wait. You’ve consistently supported a consideration of party support in creating congressional districts.
My opinion is and has always been that partisan gerrymandering is bad, period, at all times and in all places and that party outcomes should *never* be considered in the districting process.

Have you changed your mind? California and Illinois just do what you’ve always advocated for. 
The difference is that you and I don’t live in those places. And for the record. I really don’t care about them. I do care that northern Hays county, where I served in an official capacity for about a decade, will be deprived of congressional representation by sharing a rep with places that it has nothing in common with.

My consideration of party support had to do with how a state voted.

CA voted Harris 58.47% Trump 38.33%.  Their legislature should be close to representing that ratio.

However, it's currently 83%-17%

A state that votes 55-65%-45-35% for X party should have a state legislature and US House representation somewhere around those values.

Unfortunately, you will NEVER be able to do a NON gerrymandered map.  Look at every single state - the rural areas are bright red.  WHY?  Because they have "conservative values" (however you want to define those)...

But, then you get to the urban areas and that's why you have the "salamanders" crawling all over them.  And you want, I forgot what you called it, but I think "communities of interest" or something like that to be linked.  I don't think I ever argued against that.  People in urban or even suburban areas don't live where they live to fit some type of good "district map"...

My whole point has been that the legislature makeup should match the voting makeup.

How do you propose that districts be drawn up that ONLY reflect "communities of interest" and yet allow the majority in the state to have their voting "power" be reflected in a way that actually works?

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
On 8/1/2025 at 12:39 AM, Eskimohorn said:


Dems will gladly accept nonpartisan redistricting commissions across the country.

They have one...

 

And their "nonpartisan" redistricting commission gerrymandered the state to 83%-17% when the state votes 59%-39%...

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
On 7/31/2025 at 10:22 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Btw, @Ag with kids, are you OK?
Is that the best you can do? After defending such an unconcionable position for so many years it’s pretty sad that “the Dems in California do it too!!1!1!!” is where you landed, like I give a fuck about what Democrats do, or California. Whom are you even addressing?
It makes me think your media diet must be pretty low calorie. 

How about this:  if you can’t defend this gerrymander, at least you know your party is going to get to the bottom of this Epstein scandal, amirite.

I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

 

HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

 

Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

 

Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

 

BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
On 8/1/2025 at 5:22 AM, Bojack said:

You stupid motherfucker, you make a political statement every time you post on this website because your avatar is a dumbass political joke. You do it everywhere except the place that's designated for politics. 

Meh...

 

I changed it from my avatar that was on shaggy/hornfans that was kind of a joke on my school...

 

I'll change it so that the sand will get out of your vag...

  • Fuck You 2
Posted
On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 AM, hookemATL said:

Lot of words and numbers to say “I love nazis and pedophilia”.  

Go fuck, you un-American cunt. 

And you're one of the reasons why this site is nothing but a burnt orange democratunderground echo chamber.

 

Congrats, I guess???

  • Fuck You 2
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

 

HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

 

Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

 

Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

 

BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

So redistricting has to be done right now? A little over a year before the midterms? Seems strange, right? Almost like the party in power knows their policies are unpopular and will likely lose the House. So they’re panicking and scrambling to do the bidding of the president who wants to continue his power grab. You support that?

Edited by SubliminalHorn
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.

Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

And that's not including the general presumption that we SHOULD be trying to steer this democratic experiment back towards majority rule, and the most simple method of doing so would be to have districts drawn in a manner that invites the most general election competition.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

This is more for @Ag with kids, but one reason Bozo keeps picking on you is that you're a good representative of the kind of thinking that's confused the present, dysfunctional system as working for you.   Millions of Texas Republican voters would be, for example, shocked to find out that their business friendly, low tax, low service state is taxing their household more than they would pay in blue or purple states.    

Yep, the actual tax burden in California is lower for most people than in Texas.

And then when you start figuring in things like cost of health insurance that are directly impacted by a state's political policies, the non-real-estate cost-of-living in Cali is even or cheaper than Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

And it’s fucking beautiful. One of the healthiest states with the lowest level of obesity. I love Colorado. Maybe it’s time to start planning the escape 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

  • Haha 2
Posted
Just now, speed817 said:

I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

...and then make it illegal to sue football players and the university.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

Choir preaching.   I’ve lived in Denver, Seattle, most Texas cities, DC and now in SoCal.  Guess which one was the cheapest?  Guess which place I would never move back to?

Posted
10 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

 

HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

 

Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

 

Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

 

BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

This is a joke right?

Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

QFT because this is really, really, really important.  As we've seen the Karl Rove strategy borne out over the last few decades, this is what we've gotten.  It's not just that we've ended up with Republican congresscritters, it's also that we've ended up with truly shitty, embarrassing, terrible Republican congresscritters.  MTG.  Boebert.  Come on.  Any self-respecting American should be fucking mortified that people like that have offices in our Capitol.  Shit, even when it's not a gerrymander, and you have long-time one-party rule, you end up with awful fucking leaders.  Senator Tuberville?  Attorney General Paxton?  These are pieces of shit who should never have had ANY sort of successful career, much less occupied high office....and today, they are the tip of the spear of Republican leadership and thought.

It's not just that ag with kids wants to elect Republicans.  It's that he favors a system that will elect the Temu version of Republicans.

9c6nuu.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

Posted
2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

George Strait summarized Amarillo perfectly. He has to get there by morning because no one wants to the dipshit who has to wake up there every morning.

  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

Yep but that’s nine future GOP voters

My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

A shitload of this.

When you tell your kids that the moon is made of green cheese, and do everything you can to prevent them from accessing alternate information....shit changes when they go to a university with an actual astronomy department, and a real moon rock on display.  Then they come home and say "so, the moon is really made of rock and such," you get all pissed off because the lies/incomplete information you gave them went poof.

That's not to say that young people are the best digesters of new ideas and information.  They also hear certain ideas for the first time, and are enamored by them at a surface level, and their youthful energy and passion get out in front.  That's how you also often have students taking absurd/extreme political positions at a campus protest or whatnot.  But when you understand that an overly enthusiastic embrace of new/controversial ideas and theories is PART OF THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING YOUR BRAIN, it's not that big a deal.  We've had to roll our eyes plenty at some of the "absolutist" positions our kids have taken/stated from time to time.  We know that time and experience will sand he edges off of those extremes.  And we also know it's not the school or any "indoctrination" that gave them those thoughts.  It's just the ordinary process of your worldview expanding.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

Yes, I have been pondering this, as well, and have reached the same conclusion.

True conservatism is maintenance of the status quo, or really more accurately, measured change and acknowledgement of unintended consequences.

Other than history, or studying that principal in action in some other context, there really isn't much to be gained academically or educationally by "teaching conservatism" except actual political indoctrination.  In a lot of ways, conservatism is antithetical to education.  Actual conservatism is "that's a great idea, but  . . . ."  And that means you actually need exposure to great ideas, even if they're ultimately flawed in execution or some other way.

I mean hell, most of the people in this forum are former conservatives or hewed to a fair amount of conservative notions and we all attended that commanis, hommasekshul librul UT.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

Yep. First time o loved outside of Texas was eye opening. Met liberals that actually worked hard and weren’t on the government cheese. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, speed817 said:

Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

repped for the Bomani Jones reference

Far too few people have heard Bomani torch Will Cain on his own show in the aftermath of that Bubba Wallace Nascar controversy. Absolute fire from Bomani.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...