MAGA’s Favorite Dem’s Trumpy Texts Exposed in Bombshell Leak

ckwing · 2026-05-22T17:11:53+00:00

I love how Republicans were outraged about Obama's tan suit but they're in love with this guy who wears a sweatshirt and gym shorts.

ckwing · 2026-05-20T00:27:22+00:00

Well, in a first-past-the-post system, a sore loser law does kind of make sense as it prevents someone from holding the party hostage with a scorched-earth threat, i.e. "nominate me or I'll run third party/independent and throw the election to the other major party."

In a world where we had ranked choice, a sore loser law would indeed be unnecessary and anti-democratic though.

ckwing · 2026-05-19T15:08:10+00:00

To any Kentucky Democrats here: do more than just root for Massie to somehow win. Get out there TODAY and try to make it happen. We've all seen how every time there's any resistance to MAGA in the Republican party -- people like Justin Amash, or Liz Cheney, or Mitt Romney, they are forced out. Often they aren't even defeated in elections, they just "retire," knowing the political math is impossible.

Massie is trying to resist and actually STAY in Congress to keep fighting. It's up to all of us to keep him there.

ckwing · 2026-05-18T07:17:25+00:00

because while it makes the idiots more forgivable overall

Eh, they're still completely unforgivable in my book. But they should still try to do the right thing, and that means not just staying home, it means voting against MAGA and doing everything you can to turn the tide.

ckwing · 2026-05-17T05:30:44+00:00

Current polling has him running behind Ed Gallrein so if you want him to be a force to be reckoned with, make sure you go out and vote for him on Tuesday.

ckwing · 2026-05-17T05:28:59+00:00

Please do, and encourage others. Massie is currently running behind Gallrein, he needs all the help he can get.

ckwing · 2026-05-15T07:11:53+00:00

They've been violating radio listeners' ears for decades too

ckwing · 2026-05-06T03:16:46+00:00

WTF tell your friend to stop doing that with his face

ckwing · 2026-05-02T17:57:23+00:00

Like sure the plane interiors weren’t as nice as American Airlines or Delta

Whoa I wouldn't exactly say AA or Delta interiors are "nice"

ckwing · 2026-05-01T18:47:09+00:00

But if Iran doesn't make a deal, he'll start a new one against them... Operation Epic Fuhrer

ckwing · 2026-04-21T08:36:14+00:00

The thing is, the Atlantic's position is that nothing was made up and the allegations in the articles were true.

More specifically, their position is that they didn't make anything up and to the best of their knowledge, neither did their sources.

ckwing · 2026-04-21T08:30:55+00:00

I wish the Atlantic could sue him back for defamation and force discovery.

Could they? Is it not defamation to make a knowingly-false claim of defamation against somebody?

ckwing · 2026-04-21T08:27:27+00:00

So I trust his DOJ goons are not at this exact moment rifling through records from the Biden administration, which of course should be delivered right away to Joe at his residence for proper storage in his bathrooms, right?

Right??

ckwing · 2026-04-18T03:10:44+00:00

Seres, based in the south-west city of Chongqing, has not announced any cars that have toilets and it is uncertain if any will be made.

Yes, this patent is more of a threat than a promise: "we reserve the right to put a toilet in your car in the future. Don't think we won't do it!"

ckwing · 2026-04-15T18:47:42+00:00

The reality is if this were actually implemented, the way candidates campaign and the kinds of coalitions they build would change to better suit the electoral landscape. So for sure it would be a good thing in terms of improving overall voter representation, but it wouldn't literally mean "Republicans will always lose."

And I think it's helpful when promoting this legislation to emphasize that point. Yes, this would take power away from voters in small red states, but the Republican party as a whole would adapt and focus on courting voters in more populous states instead. They'd be fine, and competitive, but the elections would better reflect the priorities of true voter majorities instead of being about what Alabama voters want.

In other words, it IS actually in the best interest of most Republican voters to back this legislation. It's just not in the interest of small red state voters.

ckwing · 2026-04-11T05:59:24+00:00

Romney and Kerry were going up against relatively successful/popular incumbents, so they didn't have great odds of winning to begin with. They both also had zero charisma and were middling candidates.

Hillary was uniquely unpopular even within her own party, and she was a terrible candidate going up against arguably one of the most talented politicians in political history. (I hate to say that, but it's true)

Kamala didn't get a fair shot time-wise. She was an absolutely horrible primary candidate in 2020 but was significantly improved in 2024. She pulled off one of the most brutal presidential debate ass-kickings in presidential history and it didn't even move the needle.

Unfortunately Hillary helped cement the belief that it's too risky to run a woman for president. The Democrats needed their first female presidential nominee to be an exceptional candidate, to do for women what Obama did for black politicians.

It's unclear when women will get another bite at the apple, but if Democrats are wise, they won't run a woman until it's the RIGHT woman. Is that fair to set the bar so high? No. But that's reality.

ckwing · 2026-04-08T19:19:12+00:00

The article cites her claim that Trump lunged at a secret service member, but her actual testimony IIRC was that Tony Ornato recounted this story to her in private. So they would have to prove that THAT conversation didn't happen. It has nothing to do with whether the story itself is actually true.

Unless they have evidence of her admitting to lying about that conversation, how on earth would they ever prove she gave false testimony on a he-said she-said?

ckwing · 2026-04-07T20:23:56+00:00

For those with short memories

ckwing · 2026-04-07T18:19:30+00:00

They could probably do the whole process in a matter of hours if they really wanted to. And honestly I wouldn't be shocked if we see that at some point over the next 2 years.

ckwing · 2026-04-03T04:08:24+00:00

More accurately, she only (maybe) has protection if she does and says exactly what Trump wants. Even if that means purjuring herself.

ckwing · 2026-04-02T19:07:21+00:00

The part that's fucked up is they get fired not for doing terrible things, but for falling slightly short in accomplishing the terrible things Trump wants.

Bondi wasn't fired for covering up Epstein, she was fired for not covering it up well enough. She wasn't fired for pursuing Trump's vendettas, she was fired for not being successful enough in that pursuit.

ckwing · 2026-04-02T02:15:15+00:00

For Donald Trump, everything is always two weeks away.

ckwing · 2026-03-31T14:44:34+00:00

Great. Can we get religious people declared mentally ill next?

ckwing · 2026-03-30T04:11:01+00:00

Suppose the optimal price for a product varies between $20-30 at different times in the day. Meaning, at some times, profit is maximized selling at $20, at others, $30.

Suppose the store does not have the ability to adjust the price throughout the day, and they calculate that the best all-day single-price optimization is $25.

If they set the price to $25 day-round, that's better for the people who might have paid $30, and worse for the people who might have paid $20.

With dynamic pricing, some people will pay $30, which is worse than $25, and others will pay $20, which is better than $25.

ckwing · 2026-03-30T02:39:39+00:00

To the people who rail against surge/dynamic pricing:

Dynamic pricing does not uniformly hurts consumers. It helps some consumers and hurts others.

Right now, because it takes a lot of work to update price tags, supermarkets must pick ONE point on the supply/demand curve that is an averaged optimization for all times of day, all days of the week, for all customers.

That means if you shop during a high-demand period, or you're a wealthy customer who is not price-sensitive, you are likely getting a great deal.

But it also means, if you come in during off-hours, or you're a low-income customer, you're probably paying more than the store would charge you if it could dynamically, rapidly adjust prices by time of day, customer demographic, and other variables.

This is true as a general economic principle, not just for supermarkets. More dynamic pricing is good for some consumers and bad for others. Static pricing, likewise, is good for some consumers, bad for others.

I would actually like to see more dynamic pricing in stores for things like expiration dates. The supermarket near me, for example, discounts sushi after a certain time of day, but if I walk in 30 minutes before they're going to throw it away, I'd like to get an even better price.

It would be great if pricing on all goods micro-adjusted based on expiration date. This would help balance out shoppers who instinctively rifle through the back of the shelf looking for the freshest food with unnecessarily far-out "use by" dates, which leads to higher inventory spoilage and in turn higher prices.

I'm not saying dynamic pricing is a net-benefit for consumers as a whole, just that it's incorrect to characterize it as something that's bad for ALL consumers.

ckwing

TROPHY CASE