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

Howard Schultz announces on 60 Minutes he is strongly considering running as Independent. 

(Posted above seconds earlier) 

Edited by Don Johnson

  • 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

The boycott of Starbucks will be glorious.

Im thinking of opening an overpriced coffee chain called NOT-Starbucks

21 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

 

Great. Let’s split votes away from the democrat. Good strategy. 

Exactly who is gonna vote for the former CEO of Starbucks for president? 

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Exactly who is gonna vote for the former CEO of Starbucks for president? 

Really sleepy voters.

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The boycott of Starbucks will be glorious.

Im thinking of opening an overpriced coffee chain called NOT-Starbucks

Heard that forecast from one of this am's shows.  If he runs, sell your sbux stock because the dems will boycott.  And that is about 80% of their client base.  One would think a financial alpha like Schulz would give that some thought.  Shareholder lawsuit, holla?  Considerable potential misery for him.

Anyone dumb enough to vote for Schultz is also dumb enough to vote for trump. So I think his candidacy hurts trump more than the dems. Guess we shall see. 

 

 

Schultz running on the "I just want to confirm that it is probably a great idea to both kill and eat all billionaires" platform.

Nate has never met Anastasis and that stupid asshole UT professor whose username I forget.

Edited by bad_teammate

3 hours ago, F250 said:

Other than enthusiasm, what does Trump bring to the table as a candidate? His experience as a mediocre-at-best businessman doesn't really make for a good Presidential candidate.

While Clinton has only been a SOS for two years, I think being Senator for the state of California gives her a pretty big edge, regarding experience, over Trump.

 

It is pretty obvious that doesn't matter these days.

2 minutes ago, Hot Chick said:

The boycott of Starbucks starts now.

Cofvefe Bean 4ever!

Neggin before it gets out of control 

8 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I’d vote for him.

You’re an idiot. Everything you say is stupid. 

1 hour ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Great. Let’s split votes away from the democrat. Good strategy. 

I watched that interview and I can't figure out why anyone thinks a Democrat would vote for him. 

30 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Don't think I agree with these takes, but food for thought.  IMO, Schultz is a problem for Dems.

 

I see why one would think Schulz could find votes, but as I think it through I am with the second tweet. I don't think Schulz is going to take some big chunk of voters either way. Partisan lines have hardened a lot since Perot. See 2016 - the most vocal and enduring support for third party candidates in 20 years, both major parties putting up candidates that a significant portion of their bases openly dislike and turn off independents. All that, and the third parties got five percent of the vote. Since then, we've seen the paradigm shift and the lines redrawn in American politics, largely driven by opinion on the incumbent President. Very few people are neutral on him. If they want him gone, they will vote D. Trump is too polarizing for a third party to have success this time around.

 

If he runs on deficit reduction and has a decent platform, I'll vote for him if he's better than the Dem and it won't give Trump a layup.

Not sure why that is remotely problematic for any voter who is not tied to blindly supporting the Dems.

9 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

If he runs on deficit reduction and has a decent platform, I'll vote for him if he's better than the Dem and it won't give Trump a layup.

Not sure why that is remotely problematic for any voter who is not tied to blindly supporting the Dems.

Remember that time when the Democratic candidate was thought to have a layup?

Edited by ndawg

14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

If he runs on deficit reduction and has a decent platform, I'll vote for him if he's better than the Dem and it won't give Trump a layup.

Not sure why that is remotely problematic for any voter who is not tied to blindly supporting the Dems.

lol Trump is going to win again

14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

If he runs on deficit reduction and has a decent platform, I'll vote for him if he's better than the Dem and it won't give Trump a layup.

Not sure why that is remotely problematic for any voter who is not tied to blindly supporting the Dems.

Because trump has to lose. Period. The third party vote is adorable, but don’t waste your vote. Not in 2020. 

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol Trump is going to win again

All the “Trump has to lose!” Ex Republicans will find one tiny thing they hate about the Democrat and either vote third party or stay home. Then blame the democrats again in 2020

What is the ratio in regards to twitter?


When a tweet has a lot of negative replies in ratio to likes/retweets.
All the “Trump has to lose!” Ex Republicans will find one tiny thing they hate about the Democrat and either vote third party or stay home. Then blame the democrats again in 2020

100% predictably this. And here’s the real reason why: they know that decent society requires that they disavow the naked xenophobia, asininity, and purposeful cruelty of Trump. But inside....they love those things.

I still think it’s wishful thinking that Trump runs.  

This is his last chance to really grift the suckers for campaign donations.

26 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Because trump has to lose. Period. The third party vote is adorable, but don’t waste your vote. Not in 2020. 

I live in Texas. I'm not certain my vote for President is going to do a damn thing.  I'm almost certain that the choice will be to vote Dem to stop Trump.  But I frankly think its more likely that Trump won't be running than it would be for me to have to make a hard choice as to voting Dem or a better 3rd party candidate.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


100% predictably this. And here’s the real reason why: they know that decent society requires that they disavow the naked xenophobia, asininity, and purposeful cruelty of Trump. But inside....they love those things.

Aren't you a "Trump has to lose!" ex-Republican?

 

 

9 hours ago, gmr548 said:

I see why one would think Schulz could find votes, but as I think it through I am with the second tweet. I don't think Schulz is going to take some big chunk of voters either way. Partisan lines have hardened a lot since Perot. See 2016 - the most vocal and enduring support for third party candidates in 20 years, both major parties putting up candidates that a significant portion of their bases openly dislike and turn off independents. All that, and the third parties got five percent of the vote. Since then, we've seen the paradigm shift and the lines redrawn in American politics, largely driven by opinion on the incumbent President. Very few people are neutral on him. If they want him gone, they will vote D. Trump is too polarizing for a third party to have success this time around.

 

Schultz doesn’t have to take a huge chunk of votes to swing an election.

how many votes did Gore lose Florida by and how votes did Nader get?

How many votes did Trump win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by?

Quote

Howard Schultz doesn’t have the “guts” to run for President!

Wait, didn't he just announce he's running?

So how does he not have the guts?

1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

Schultz doesn’t have to take a huge chunk of votes to swing an election.

how many votes did Gore lose Florida by and how votes did Nader get?

 How many votes did Trump win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by?

I'm just trying to figure out why Democrats are worried about Schultz.  I feel like moderates who held their nose and voted for Trump in 2016 and regret it, but just aren't able to pull the lever for a Democrat, are the primary group from where his (not many) votes will come from.

Anyone who voted for Hillary in 2016 will do so again with a stronger candidate and even worse Trump.  New voters seem to be enthusiastically Democrat, but regardless nobody is registering to vote just for Howard Schultz.  

Unless people think the Bernie Bros will vote for him out of spite, even though his platform is pretty much the complete opposite of Bernie's?

He should be an absolute non-starter for Democrats because:

Quote

“But what the Democrats are proposing is something that is as false as the wall ― and that is free health care for all, which the country cannot afford.”

Okay, bye.  You clearly don't get it.

30 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Wait, didn't he just announce he's running?

So how does he not have the guts?

“I am seriously thinking of running for president,” Schultz, a self-described Democrat, said on CBS’s 

1 minute ago, Don Johnson said:

“I am seriously thinking of running for president,” Schultz, a self-described Democrat, said on CBS’s 

Okay, my bad.  I just assumed if you are on 60 Minutes to talk about it, you're running.

There's talking (Schultz; Bernie/Biden), there's exploring (Gillibrand/Warren) and there's I'm 100% in and running (Castro/Harris/Pete Buttgag)

11 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


100% predictably this. And here’s the real reason why: they know that decent society requires that they disavow the naked xenophobia, asininity, and purposeful cruelty of Trump. But inside....they love those things.

If Trump runs I'll vote for a D, regardless of who it is and I haven't voted for a Rep or Dem for POTUS since 2000.  

I'd love to feel good about my D vote but not holding my breath. 

31 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I feel like moderates who held their nose and voted for Trump in 2016 and regret it, but just aren't able to pull the lever for a Democrat, are the primary group from where his (not many) votes will come from.

I realize there is probably room for debate on this but anyone who voted for someone like Trump really needs to be viewed by the Dems as incorrigible and they shouldn't spend to much time on them.  I'm not saying they are incorrigible -- I'm just saying  they are more likely to be incorrigible than not, and Dems would be much better off by ignoring them and figuring out a platform and approach that will be appealing to 1) those folks who voted against Trump and 2) those folks who didn't vote.

 

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I realize there is probably room for debate on this but anyone who voted for someone like Trump really needs to be viewed by the Dems as incorrigible and they shouldn't spend to much time on them.  I'm not saying they are incorrigible -- I'm just saying  they are more likely to be incorrigible than not, and Dems would be much better off by ignoring them and figuring out a platform and approach that will be appealing to 1) those folks who voted against Trump and 2) those folks who didn't vote.

 

Yep.  And that's what Democrats did to win in 2018 - motivated the Hillary voters and got non-voters to show up/first-time voters to show up again.

Because let me tell you, and Brisket keeps saying it, those people who "held their noses and voted for Trump" have many of the same views, they're just not as vocal.  But they're loving this.  They agree with that idiot woman - "he's hurting the people he's supposed to hurt." 

37 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Okay, my bad.  I just assumed if you are on 60 Minutes to talk about it, you're running.

There's talking (Schultz; Bernie/Biden), there's exploring (Gillibrand/Warren) and there's I'm 100% in and running (Castro/Harris/Pete Buttgag)

Gillibrand is running.  She was on Pod Save America last week and laid out her platforms.  She talks A LOT.  I liked her ideas, but it seems some people will never forgive her for helping to force out Al Franken.

Aren't you a "Trump has to lose!" ex-Republican?
 
 

My ex-republicanism both predates Trump and is much broader than Trump (eg, issues with Dan Patrick, Ken Paxton, Sid Miller - frankly, modern know-nothing, fundagelical Republicanism, of which Trump is just a manifestation - perhaps the inevitable, nihilist manifestation).
31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Gillibrand is running.  She was on Pod Save America last week and laid out her platforms.  She talks A LOT.  I liked her ideas, but it seems some people will never forgive her for helping to force out Al Franken.

The Democratic establishment hates her for pushing Franken out.

The left won't like Gillibrand because she's a huge fan of Wall Street and loves the billionaire class.

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

DyAd2zwXcAEVdSt?format=jpg&name=large

 

Huh, then they will LOVE Kamala Harris.

Because she relishes in how she went after the banks.   She loves to tell that story.

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Huh, then they will LOVE Kamala Harris.

Because she relishes in how she went after the banks.   She loves to tell that story.

When she brought it up in her announcement speech it certainly created a stirring in my loins. I am ready for this beautiful cop to punish me.

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When she brought it up in her announcement speech it certainly created a stirring in my loins. I am ready for this beautiful cop to punish me.

You are the left's Icono, weirdo.

You are the left's Icono, weirdo.

That is a truly awful thing to say to someone. I think you owe him an apology.
  • Popular Post
32 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You are the left's Icono, weirdo.

SHUT UP! YOU DON'T KNOW ME!

*hastily stuffs handfuls of perfectly tailored Chinese knock-off NFL jerseys into a suitcase*

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.