Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

So in other words they have to pay trump to get him to stop fucking up the markets

Well, Hitler owned much of Mercedes Benz and Porsche. There are still remnants of Hitler era German owned Schindler Elevator. What we’re seeing is the Nazi history repeating itself.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

something something control the means of production. where are our resident magats here to decry this government takeover of free enterprise? anyone? no one? ffs

We all know that if Obama or Biden were having the government take control over portions of private companies that Fox News and the Republicans would be saying what a great idea itis and how smart it is for the government to do so, right?  Right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

We all know that if Obama or Biden were having the government take control over portions of private companies that Fox News and the Republicans would be saying what a great idea itis and how smart it is for the government to do so, right?  Right?

Deeply principled r/conservatives are shockingly fine with it.

image.thumb.png.577ce96a8dd6e94e0763fd16a22b8efd.png

  • Haha 2
Posted
51 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

something something control the means of production. where are our resident magats here to decry this government takeover of free enterprise? anyone? no one? ffs

Image of Look, you take that commie crap out to the street.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Conservative values of picking business winners and losers left and right just like the invisible hand is supposed to do. 

But my role is that of Greek chorus of orange man bad - it is what I am reduced to as a libtard.  

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/nx-s1-5435364/a-look-at-the-golden-share-agreement-in-the-u-s-steel-nippon-steel-partnership

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/trump-demands-highly-conflicted-intel-ceo-resign-over-china-ties-2025-08-07/

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504096/401k-private-equity-crypto-executive-order

Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Watch this. You're not alone. 

 

Fantastic video thesis. My only critique is that I'm not sure Joe Rogan has the capacity to do any of this intentionally. He simply has a fragile enough ego required to be played like a fiddle by the real puppetmasters, and by happenstance had enough connections to the legitimate stand-up comedy scene that he could be used as a trojan horse to poison that field of endeavor, which once served an important truth-telling purpose in our society. Comparing him to Marshall Applewhite is kind of a stretch, because Applewhite was a mastermind while Rogan is sort of a useful idiot. Heaven's Gate is the vision of a man who'd gone insane, whereas the Comedy Mothership is more what happens when a hack comedian without a coherent worldview is given unlimited money by techbros on the unspoken understanding that they would stop hanging out with him if he ever dared to disagree with them, and that hack comedian is surrounded by desperate, unknown hack comedians willing to debase themselves for a chance to become just a bit more famous. Rogan has no vision of his own.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

something something control the means of production. where are our resident magats here to decry this government takeover of free enterprise? anyone? no one? ffs

The large majority of staunch conservatives whose brains MAGA has broken will see nothing at all wrong with this. 

Oddly though, one of my Facebook friends who falls into that category posted recently that he's not on board with the potential government equity stake in Intel (and possibly other businesses). He's been defending the stupid policies and crazy shit coming out of that fat orange fuck's mouth since Trump 2.0 took over in January, but this one was just a bridge too far for his principled conservative values.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I’m all about accountability, but I don’t take the political opinions of males under 25 seriously for the same reason I don’t look to them for advice.
They’re just trying on costumes at this point in life.

This is true.  Then again, there are a number of full-grown adults trying on costumes at this point, including elected and appointed officials.  They should know better, of course.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, South Austin said:

The large majority of staunch conservatives whose brains MAGA has broken will see nothing at all wrong with this. 

Oddly though, one of my Facebook friends who falls into that category posted recently that he's not on board with the potential government equity stake in Intel (and possibly other businesses). He's been defending the stupid policies and crazy shit coming out of that fat orange fuck's mouth since Trump 2.0 took over in January, but this one was just a bridge too far for his principled conservative values.

The axios article puts it in terms of a sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty different from extorting equity in return for previously awarded grants or other funding.  Presumably, that means buying equity on the open market, but who the fuck knows anymore.

Posted
6 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Walz is on my shitlist for trying to ratfuck the Minneapolis mayoral race, along with the spineless DFL which pulled its endorsement of Fateh because donors got butthurt their anointed candidate lost

Posted
1 hour ago, GreenspointTexas said:

I cant believe its fucking illegal to burn the american flag

Well, it's not, at least until SCOTUS overturns Texas v Johnson (which would happen).

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
The axios article puts it in terms of a sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty different from extorting equity in return for previously awarded grants or other funding.  Presumably, that means buying equity on the open market, but who the fuck knows anymore.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump form an unlikely alliance over billions in chipmaker subsidies

https://fortune.com/2025/08/21/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-intel-chips/
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The axios article puts it in terms of a sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty different from extorting equity in return for previously awarded grants or other funding.  Presumably, that means buying equity on the open market, but who the fuck knows anymore.

Also, I'd bet anything that just like the terms of the "donation" of that fucking plane, once his presidency is over he gets the shares. These are all personal bribes, he's not going to let the taxpayers get anything he extorts from anyone. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Walz is on my shitlist for trying to ratfuck the Minneapolis mayoral race, along with the spineless DFL which pulled its endorsement of Fateh because donors got butthurt their anointed candidate lost

Point of clarification: 

Fateh never had the State DFL endorsement. He won the City DFL endorsement.  Different leaders, different voters.  While the State DFL doesn't have veto power, they do have authority on rules to make the locals are on the up and up. They went through the endorsement vote and found it didn't follow the rules and determined the vote didn't count.  In other words, the State Party was worried what effect the endorsement might have on state-wide races and found an excuse to veto it.  The intrapolitics shit gets pretty chippy.  One of the reasons I don't really get involved with it.  So much infighting over who gets to drive the bus rather than changing the oil. 

And all that is probably a good case for why the party(s) shouldn't endorse before the primary.  That shit should be worked out by the big group, with formal election rules, consistently enforced.   

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The axios article puts it in terms of a sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty different from extorting equity in return for previously awarded grants or other funding.  Presumably, that means buying equity on the open market, but who the fuck knows anymore.

John Candy Reaction GIF

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

I cant believe its fucking illegal to burn the american flag

 

forced patriotism is so fucking fascist

You can still beat a cop with the flag and score a pardon though. I assume. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

I cant believe its fucking illegal to burn the american flag

 

forced patriotism is so fucking fascist

I can't think of anything more American than burning the American flag.

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

I cant believe its fucking illegal to burn the american flag

 

forced patriotism is so fucking fascist

It’s absolutely not illegal to burn the flag. 1st amendment out front shoulda told ya

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, GreenspointTexas said:

I cant believe its fucking illegal to burn the american flag

 

forced patriotism is so fucking fascist

Well, it’s not. We don’t enact laws by decree in this country.  Unless we are willing to admit that Trump is a monarch or dictator.  It’s one or the other. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Well, it’s not. We don’t enact laws by decree in this country.  Unless we are willing to admit that Trump is a monarch or dictator.  It’s one or the other. 

"A lot of people are saying, 'Maybe we like a dictator.'" Trump today. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

So I guess next our dictator is going to occupy cities like St. Louis or New Orleans or Birmingham. 

What's that? He's not? Just LA, DC, Chicago, NY, etc? Well that's really fucking strange man. I just can't for the life of me figure that one out. 

Posted
37 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Point of clarification: 

Fateh never had the State DFL endorsement. He won the City DFL endorsement.  Different leaders, different voters.  While the State DFL doesn't have veto power, they do have authority on rules to make the locals are on the up and up. They went through the endorsement vote and found it didn't follow the rules and determined the vote didn't count.  In other words, the State Party was worried what effect the endorsement might have on state-wide races and found an excuse to veto it.  The intrapolitics shit gets pretty chippy.  One of the reasons I don't really get involved with it.  So much infighting over who gets to drive the bus rather than changing the oil. 

And all that is probably a good case for why the party(s) shouldn't endorse before the primary.  That shit should be worked out by the big group, with formal election rules, consistently enforced.   

Partisan municipal elections are so stupid, but all this shit gets 10X as stupid when a city transitions to a strong mayor system as Minny did in 2021. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Partisan municipal elections are so stupid, but all this shit gets 10X as stupid when a city transitions to a strong mayor system as Minny did in 2021. 

Actually that was my bad. The race is non-partisan, so it makes more sense to have a party endorsement, so it is clear who is pushed on the slate card, prior to the primary. I'd still prefer the party stays out of it and let the candidates list their own endorsements (from actual people), but I can see where a local party would make an endorsement.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Actually that was my bad. The race is non-partisan, so it makes more sense to have a party endorsement, so it is clear who is pushed on the slate card, prior to the primary. I'd still prefer the party stays out of it and let the candidates list their own endorsements (from actual people), but I can see where a local party would make an endorsement.

Yep, understood - they do it in Austin too, but since we aren’t on a strong Mayor system and we don’t have registration in Texas they don’t make much impact. Things get very different when the Mayor becomes the CEO of city departments.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The axios article puts it in terms of a sovereign wealth fund, which is pretty different from extorting equity in return for previously awarded grants or other funding.  Presumably, that means buying equity on the open market, but who the fuck knows anymore.

Pretty sure the Intel guy said no cash investment would be made for the stake

Posted
11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Pretty sure the Intel guy said no cash investment would be made for the stake

Oh, that's beyond dispute at this point.  It's a quid pro quo for the grant.

What's a bit less clear is any voting/management rights the government will have.  Even if it doesn't have voting rights, it owns enough to move the market, which might pose something of a threat.



×
×
  • Create New...