Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 2
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
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 2
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 2
  • 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 1
  • Like 1
  • 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 1
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

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
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. 

Posted
8 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 


News flash!
Republicans have given away all their principles for power as nothing about their platform or platitudes is rooted in reality or truth.

Party of free trade, free speech, and lower taxes slaps tariffs on all goods, nationalizes the chip industry, and wants to take over national media.

Party of individual freedom sends in masked police forces and national guard troops against its citizenry and lays waste to Habeas Corpus. 
Party of limited government gives executive branch almost limitless power.

Party of fiscal responsibility adds trillions to the debt for tax cuts for billionaires.

Party of national defense backs away from alliances and cozies up to tyrants and dictators.
Party all about family values, children, and anti-pedophilia led by guy with solid ties to THE pedophile they all point to.

Party run by a President who:

1.) Is a reality star ‘Billionaire’ who didn’t actually get rich until be became president

2.)  Promised to drain the swamp but installed swamp creatures and leveraged all his power to enrich himself

3.) Made inroads in minority groups while disparaging them, whitewashing history, and eliminating decades of civil rights progress.

4.) Is adored by the religious while he can’t recite a bible passage, cheated on his wives and has confirmed ties with pedophile (ok this is in their lane NM)

4.) Has one crowing achievement in Project Warp Speed but is a vaccine skeptic and is dismantling the HHS and the vaccine technology that led to his only successful program as president. 

5.) Says we’re overrun by criminals when he is a felon, pardons convicted felons, appoints those felons, and then breaks the law everyday in his grifting and violations of the constitution/ people’s rights.


We live in the upside down times and it’s only getting worse worse.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 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.

Posted
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

The President may only remove a Fed Member “for cause.” “For cause” in the case of an independent agency member is a high standard. There must be a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the official’s duties and responsibilities as a Fed Member.  
 

The alleged misconduct occurred prior to Cook beginning her 14 year term. The misconduct alleged  in this setting has nothing to do with performance as a Fed member.
 

A personal financial transgression, even an illegal one, prior to holding office does not meet the “for cause” standard. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The President may only remove a Fed Member “for cause.” “For cause” in the case of an independent agency member is a high standard. There must be a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the official’s duties and responsibilities as a Fed Member.  
 

The alleged misconduct occurred prior to Cook beginning her 14 year term. The misconduct alleged  in this setting has nothing to do with performance as a Fed member.
 

A personal financial transgression, even an illegal one, prior to holding office does not meet the “for cause” standard. 

Counterpoint- Trump wants it. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The President may only remove a Fed Member “for cause.” “For cause” in the case of an independent agency member is a high standard. There must be a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the official’s duties and responsibilities as a Fed Member.  
 

The alleged misconduct occurred prior to Cook beginning her 14 year term. The misconduct alleged  in this setting has nothing to do with performance as a Fed member.
 

A personal financial transgression, even an illegal one, prior to holding office does not meet the “for cause” standard. 

Cool.  Who is gonna stop him?

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The President may only remove a Fed Member “for cause.” “For cause” in the case of an independent agency member is a high standard. There must be a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the official’s duties and responsibilities as a Fed Member.  
 

The alleged misconduct occurred prior to Cook beginning her 14 year term. The misconduct alleged  in this setting has nothing to do with performance as a Fed member.
 

A personal financial transgression, even an illegal one, prior to holding office does not meet the “for cause” standard. 

AirBudTweet.jpg

Edited by Prepuce of Doom
Posted
12 hours ago, DaysOff said:

He's not wrong.

But I really want to win every game; it's been 20 years.

Thankfully this is an issue I do not have to contemplate. ASU’s football history is nearly non-existent. Dillingham may change that for the better, but if he doesn’t then whatever. Having a functioning government and country is more important than a college football team winning games. I’ll gladly take ASU going 2-10 every season if that meant maga was permanently done for and that the Republicans party ceased to exist/is banned permanently.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

The President may only remove a Fed Member “for cause.” “For cause” in the case of an independent agency member is a high standard. There must be a clear nexus between the alleged misconduct and the official’s duties and responsibilities as a Fed Member.  
 

The alleged misconduct occurred prior to Cook beginning her 14 year term. The misconduct alleged  in this setting has nothing to do with performance as a Fed member.
 

A personal financial transgression, even an illegal one, prior to holding office does not meet the “for cause” standard. 

IMG_1284.gif.c58f2bab1893762f2235c5a3d62d6cd0.gif

Posted
28 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Cool.  Who is gonna stop him?

No one. Not one single person in that cult will do it. Rules only matter when people agree to follow them. That time has passed for the time being with our fascist government.



×
×
  • Create New...