Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/429522-house-dems-will-not-strip-omar-of-her-committee-assignments

House Democrats reportedly will not strip Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) of her committee assignments after she apologized for tweets suggesting that American lawmakers were motivated to defend Israel by money.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told Roll Call that "of course" Democrats would not strip Omar of committee assignments like Republicans did to Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) after he questioned how terms like "white supremacy" became offensive.

“I don’t think she’s anti-Semitic,” Hoyer reportedly said. “She did apologize. The key will be that when we make a mistake like that, conscious or unconscious, that we don’t repeat it. That will be the proof of the pudding.

==

her apology and good behavior earned a pass out of jail. Suppose she was steadfast and kept repeating the line that Jews are buying off Congress, would she be allowed to be on committees?  Read between the lines, she got scared and softened her line. Her Op-ed in Wapo was the clincher, made it completely obvious to me.   *btw, i made a mistake, Shumer is a senator, the real power is with the HoR leadership. 

 

Edited by NowThis

  • Replies 23.3k
  • Views 1.4m
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Huckleberry
    Huckleberry

    No it doesn't, this is absurd selfishness on a grand scale. Nobody is getting punished. My wife and I paid off our student loans, and you know what I think about younger people or even those in our ge

  • henrygandorf
    henrygandorf

    i’ve really enjoyed the 900 posts from bt explaining how bernie people aren’t aggressive, obsessive, and very-online.  truly a learning experience. 

  • Bill Clinton
    Bill Clinton

    3rd or 4th thread but whos counting.  Name recognition and ability to collect money is most important to the Democratic Party. They aren't trying to win 2020, they are trying to rebuild and colle

Posted Images

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

Yep, from what I've seen, this episode has now allowed people to be critical of Israeli policy where they kept quiet before for fear of being shouted down as anti-semitic.

So now most everyone is beginning to understand that: 

-The word Israel is not synonymous with the word Jewish.  Israel is a nation state.

-American Jews have differing opinions about Israeli policy.

-Some American Jews even support the Palestinian side in the conflict.

-Americans can choose to support the Palestinian side without being against Jewish people.

-American people should not have to swear loyalty to a foreign country and that country's segregationist policy decisions (something required by Texas state law).

 

While it may come as a shock to right wing apartheid supporters, the left wants basic human rights to be available to both Jews and Arabs in Greater Israel.

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Yep, from what I've seen, this episode has now allowed people to be critical of Israeli policy where they kept quiet before for fear of being shouted down as anti-semitic.

So now most everyone is beginning to understand that: 

-The word Israel is not synonymous with the word Jewish.  Israel is a nation state.

-American Jews have differing opinions about Israeli policy.

-Some American Jews even support the Palestinian side in the conflict.

-Americans can choose to support the Palestinian side without being against Jewish people.

-American people should not have to swear loyalty to a foreign country and that country's segregationist policy decisions (something required by Texas state law).

 

While it may come as a shock to right wing apartheid supporters, the left wants basic human rights to be available to both Jews and Arabs in Greater Israel.

I agree with all this. I would add that Israel has been our ally for a long time and that we should expect a dem nominee and future president to work with Israel to shift their policies and hopefully place the US back into the peace process as a near-neutral arbiter. Part of that will likely require walking back many of Trump’s actions

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Not Sure 2020! Definitely has my vote.

I'm so ashamed of myself for missing the obvious "Not Sure" Idiocracy joke.

Luke Wilson will be our next president.

 

22 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I agree with all this. I would add that Israel has been our ally for a long time and that we should expect a dem nominee and future president to work with Israel to shift their policies and hopefully place the US back into the peace process as a near-neutral arbiter. Part of that will likely require walking back many of Trump’s actions

I agree, and it isn't like Israel will always be ruled by a Likud PM.  There will be and have been PMs and ruling coalitions that are interested in peace.  And we should work with them towards that peace when they have power.  We should not concede to the desires of ethnonationalist hardliners like Netanyahu.

And the same thing is applying to European and Asian countries with us right now.  They are wading through and pushing back against Trump's bullshit while not being anti-American.  They will work with the next US administration that is actually worth a shit.

3 hours ago, Michael Knight said:

 

Dead 

Not signing that but hell yeah lets get the whole fucking thing unredacted.

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

Is that like a lot of gheys?

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Of course, it was at Texas Southern.  Lots of blecks.

I was supposed to go, but I'm stuck in the office catching up on work and a deadline.  Read 2,400 turned out.  Not too shabby for 11am on a Saturday morning in Beto's state. 

And the blecks comment was not about Kamala's support but why the conservitards showed up with guns.

If the last 20 hours hasn’t shown people why those of us who aren’t complete Trumpkin Trash MUST come together and support whoever wins this nomination, then we are well and truly fucked.

It’s looking like a Bernie Beto Biden Kamala race. Warren and the others aren’t gonna make it. 

I like Mayor Pete but I don’t think this is the election for him. The country just isn’t ready for him yet. Would love to be wrong but trump is too big a risk. 

8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s looking like a Bernie Beto Biden Kamala race. Warren and the others aren’t gonna make it. 

I like Mayor Pete but I don’t think this is the election for him. The country just isn’t ready for him yet. Would love to be wrong but trump is too big a risk. 

No one reachable cares that he's gay, if that's your concern.

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol

He's just one bandolier away from unlocking achievement: Frito Bandito.

I don’t remember which thread it was in but someone asked about Biden and PAC money earlier - timely question! Politico just tweeted an article about that.



Like the majority of other Democrats, Biden has also indicated he would not rely on the help of a single-candidate super PAC to boost his name in the 2020 race, saying in February that he would “not be part of a super PAC” if he were to run for president.

And I don’t know if that qualifier of “single candidate” is a dodge to get around the fact that he’ll accept help from “issue” PACs.

I’ve not seen another candidate qualify what type of PACs they’re shunning. All the others say “No PAC money, period”.

4 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

He's just one bandolier away from unlocking achievement: Frito Bandito.

Or one jog across that parking away from a coronary.

It's March 23, 2019.

The first primary/caucus is February 3, 2020. 

This is gonna be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG year for 'ole Beto.

 

He usually sounds pretty authentic, but that one reeks of a political consultant.  He really should just say, I'm from Texas, lots of good regular folks work in that industry in my home state. 

Sure seems like Warren is facing a hell of a climb to get in with that top group. No idea if either party would be open to the idea, but Beto could alleviate many of the concerns surrounding him by picking her as his VP.

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's March 23, 2019.

The first primary/caucus is February 3, 2020. 

This is gonna be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG year for 'ole Beto.

 

Is this a fair attack? This stuff is so dishonest, no matter who it is and what the line is. Are engineers at Halliburton not allowed to make political contributions? Do you think ones donating to Beto are climate change deniers? Can they not hold views on a multitude of subjects many of which they probably share with you? This line of attack needs to be eliminated from the public discourse, and I actually like Beto's answer here. 

21 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol

 

Why is Kamala doing a rally at Bass Pro Shop in Katy?  And why is that pasty white guy wearing a Kaffiyeh? Lots going on there. 

4 hours ago, horncyclist said:

Is this a fair attack?

What attack? I saw a potential voter ask a pretty simple question.

If you're interested in details, look here. (2020 candidates)

Taking the pledge means that a politician and their campaign will adopt a policy to not knowingly accept any contributions over $200 from the PACs, executives, or front groups of fossil fuel companies — companies whose primary business is the extraction, processing, distribution, or sale of oil, gas, or coal.

Candidates can either sign or not sign. It would be really easy to say, "I have signed the No Fossil Fuel pledge." or "I will not sign the No Fossil Fuel pledge."

It doesn't, you'll notice, say anything about the engineers or secretaries.

But there's a history here. Beto signed it for his 2018 campaign against Cruz but was removed from it because he didn't adhere to the pledge. Despite signing it, he still accepted $200 or more "from dozens of oil and gas executives" with no evidence of refunding them.

So if you want to whine about dishonesty, look at the politician who signed a pledge and broke it.

 

Quote

This line of attack needs to be eliminated from the public discourse, and I actually like Beto's answer here. 

LEAVE MY BEAUTIFUL, DIM-WITTED SON ALONE! HE WAS BORN TO HAVE THIS! I DEMAND TO SPEAK TO THE MANAGER OF DEMOCRACY!

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

And why is that pasty white guy wearing a Kaffiyeh?

Tactical Suburban Operator reporting for duty, sir!

(He's trying to hide his extra chins.)

Edited by bad_teammate

"I've got my ACOG ready, sir, in case the enemy Kamala Harris takes a covered firing position a few hundred yards away! Also, my tactical side pouch of Nestle water bottles in case you get thirsty, sir!"

At the end he speaks about how if we don't address the real reason we ended up with trump, we are destined to get another trump type in the future.

 

Pete is so fucking right. If we make no effort at all to actually understand why this happened then we can't fix it. If your takeaway as a liberal is the profound self-righteousness of "Well I guess those racists are just not as woke as me" then there is no coming back; there's no redirection.

46 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete is so fucking right. If we make no effort at all to actually understand why this happened then we can't fix it. If your takeaway as a liberal is the profound self-righteousness of "Well I guess those racists are just not as woke as me" then there is no coming back; there's no redirection.

Part of why this happened is precisely because those people are racists.

But that's not polite to talk about.

Do they have a definition of executive?

And you know what I meant by "attack." You see this all the time. Against Hillary about "wall street" money. She was Senator from New York. Who lives in New York? Finance people. It makes it sound like the industry heads are just cutting them fat checks for $100,000s, buying influence and that couldn't be farther from the truth. It's empty rhetoric designed to mislead people. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Part of why this happened is precisely because those people are racists.

But that's not polite to talk about.

Sure, of course. Feel free to talk about racism, it's great to talk about racism. We need to confront racism anywhere and everywhere. However, that's not what a certain contingent of shitlib thought actually does. The woke blue states/cities are full of racists, too. Austin and NYC and SF are full of racist libs who just-so-happen to constantly shove minority populations away further and further. But they're outwardly woke, so their practical racism is either outright-OK or at least not shameful, unlike the ugly and gross-looking expressed racism of the slovenly rural white. The shitlib criticizes the rural white and then, when looking at his own lily-white situation, takes the They Live sunglasses off and puts them back in the box.

This is why we ran up the score in the urban areas and lost basically everything else to Trump, even though the poorest areas who went to Trump are not all-white enclaves.

No one gives a shit about polite. Fuck polite. I want an accurate accounting of why we have Donald Trump as the president. If you're going to tell me that people who voted for "Hussein" the black man twice but refused to vote for a horrible dynastic vampire white woman are just irredeemably racist then I'd ask you to look at this harridan touring East Harlem and tell me what's so black about her that triggered the racists.

Hillary-Clinton-stunned.jpg

All irredeemable racists voted Trump.
But not all those who voted for Trump are irredeemable racists.

THAT is what is not "polite" to say among shitlibs. They simply cannot accept that their Queen of their neoliberal economic and state agenda just represented a worldview that the people reject.

As Mayor Pete said, they voted to burn the house down. And they weren't wrong to want to burn the house down, they just chose the wrong construction company. Because their choices were between a crook who acknowledged their pain and a corporate ghoul who told them America was already great.

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

Beto is a likable person and a Texan, so I'm sad to see him not up there. Is the poll correct?  Seems he's dropped. 

Yang at 0% (maybe they are rounding UP) .... lmao, 4chan must be dying.  

Edited by NowThis

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

PETE! PETE! PETE! PETE!

Let's get a gay guy under 40 in the White House! And not just as a personal trainer or decorator!

Compared to their last Iowa poll in January...

Biden down 4%
Kamala down 8% (she had just announced)
Sanders up 9% (he had not yet announced)
Pete up 11% (he had announced (exploratory))

the number is nice, but who/how many he jumped over is interesting part.  gotta like the trajectory right now.

These polls aren't super reliable, but they're all we have. I wouldn't put too much stock in them.

The polls in November for Iowa will probably look a lot different.

so his husband will be First Man, First Gentleman, First Partner? 

Ladies and gentlemen, First Gentleman of the United States of America, Chasten Buttigieg!

styles_large_public_images_blog_posts_De

If Buttigieg were to become President and the United States would have it's first First Gentlemen but.... the first First Gentlemen would be the husband of Mr. President and not Madam President. The dick and balls club would continue to rule the roost. This is not how some feminists saw things playing out concerning a First Gentlemen.

 

2 minutes ago, F250 said:

If Buttigieg were to become President and the United States would have it's first First Gentlemen but.... the first First Gentlemen would be the husband of Mr. President and not Madam President. The dick and balls club would continue to rule the roost. This is not how some feminists saw things playing out concerning a First Gentlemen.

 

As  Bernie Bro, I approve of this outcome

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.