DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus 2020 candidates part 2

You guys trying to say Bernie forced himself on a woman and got stitches? Sounds like a Trump move to me, are you projecting?

Beto O'Rourke





'Psychedelic Warlord': Teenaged Beto's misogynistic online posts


Hunter Walker White House Correspondent


Yahoo News•


March 15, 2019

WASHINGTON — Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke’s colorful past helped fuel the presidential campaign he launched this week. His résumé includes time spent in a punk band and, as revealed in a piece in Reuters on Friday, membership in an early hacker collective called the Cult of the Dead Cow.

According to Reuters reporter Joseph Menn, there is no indication that the teenage O’Rourke engaged in the “edgiest sorts of hacking activity” like breaking into computers while part of the group. But his participation did include creating short pieces of writing known as “text files” under a nom de plume. Archived versions of writings attributed to O’Rourke’s alias “Psychedelic Warlord” include one that criticized some women as “sluts,” mocked them for having “violent boyfriends,” and suggested a way to deal with these women was to call them “completely ugly,” or inform “Nazi Skins in your area” that they had “AIDS.”


Rob Friedlander, a spokesperson for O’Rourke — who would have been in his late teens at the time the piece was published — declined to comment on this story beyond pointing to comments the candidate made on the campaign trail in Iowa on Friday. The El Paso Times reported O’Rourke acknowledged his membership in the Cult of the Dead Cow at one event in Iowa. However, the newspaper also pointed out that he “did not say whether he regrets his involvement.”

“It was something that I was a part of when I was a teenager in El Paso a long, long time ago,” O’Rourke said of the group.

O’Rourke later said he regretted the writings during an interview with a podcast in Iowa.

“I’m mortified to read it now, incredibly embarrassed. But I have to take ownership of my words. … I have to look long and hard at my actions … and I have to constantly try to do better,” O’Rourke said, according to the Texas Tribune’s Patrick Svitek.

The various pieces of text attributed to O’Rourke’s alias were all dated between 1987 and 1989, a period when he was under 18. They included a mix of fiction and commentary. And while one of the files had derogatory remarks about some women, the Reuters article credited O’Rourke with having “tried to do something about sexism in the male-dominated world of hacking” by pushing for the Cult of the Dead Cow to admit a female member. The text file with the misogynistic language was not referenced in the Reuters article.

Even before he kicked off his presidential bid on Wednesday night, O’Rourke was the subject of intense speculation and media coverage stemming from his unexpected close finish in an ultimately unsuccessful Senate bid against Republican Ted Cruz last year. Much of the avalanche of attention that has been heaped on O’Rourke has focused on his punk past and penchant for skateboarding.

Menn reported that one of the Cult of the Dead Cow’s main activities was operating bulletin boards where members of the group wrote and distributed their text files. According to Menn, O’Rourke contributed these essays as a teenager using the “Psychedelic Warlord” handle. O’Rourke discussed his role in the group with Menn. Some of these Cult of the Dead Cow writings that are attributed to O’Rourke’s alias are still archived online.

In one text file that was dated to 1989, when O’Rourke was 16 or 17, “Psychedelic Warlord” described a “new creature: THE ULTRA TRENDY.” In an over-the-top sarcastic tone, Psychedelic Warlord declared these “ultra trendies” to be “a cancer that might cause the death of each and every scene across the nation.” Psychedelic Warlord went on to say that many of these “ultra trendies” are female “sluts.”

“ULTRA TRENDIES are usually the ‘scene sluts’ that many of the menfolk admire so. They show up, get drunk with the band, and tell the lead singer, ‘I really like your music. I think it’s a lot like the Sex Pistols. Sooo… you wanna bleep’” Psychedelic Warlord wrote.

The writer went on to accuse these women of “only” liking the Sex Pistols and the group’s frontman, Sid Vicious, and suggested this affinity led them to enter into abusive relationships.

“ULTRA TRENDY females hook-up with violent boyfriends because, (yeah… you guessed it) ‘He’s so much like Sid Vicious!’” Psychedelic Warlord wrote.

After describing the characteristics of these “ultra trendies,” Psychedelic Warlord offered suggestions for how to handle these people. The ideas included encouraging interactions between the “ultra trendies” and neo-Nazis as well as mocking their appearance.

“Tell the Nazi Skins in your area that this certain ULTRA TRENDY has AIDS. … To kill an ULTRA TRENDY female, show her a picture of what she’d look like without make-up. … Tell him or her that they’re completely ugly,” Psychedelic Warlord wrote.

While the Reuters report did not discuss the text file about “ultra trendies,” it did quote from other things O’Rourke wrote for the collective as “Psychedelic Warlord” that can be found in the same archive.


In one of these other pieces, Psychedelic Warlord writes from the perspective of a narrator who confronts a feeling of boredom and aimlessness by going on a killing spree, including hitting children with a car. The piece, which was dated 1988, continues with the narrator describing the murder as an “act of love” and saying the feeling it provoked was “simply ecstasy.”

“I had killed nearly 38 people by the time of my twenty-third birthday, and each one was more fulfilling than the last,” Psychedelic Warlord wrote.

Another archived Psychedelic Warlord piece for the Cult of the Dead Cow was a 1988 interview with a neo-Nazi street preacher. In that piece, Psychedelic Warlord described the person’s beliefs as “horrible” and said they shared Nazi’s perspective because they “do not support Neo-Nazism in any way” but “also do not believe in censorship.” Psychedelic Warlord also wrote about their own ideology in one 1987 file where they envisioned a society without money.

“Think, a free society with no high, middle, or low classification of it’s [sic] people. Think, no more money related murders, suicides, divorces, or theft,” Psychedelic Warlord wrote, adding, “Think, no more families living below a set poverty line or children starving to death because of a lack of money. You’re probably telling yourself, ‘sure, this sounds great, but how would we ever accomplish this?’”

Psychedelic Warlord went on to note this would likely be impossible to achieve without bringing down the government.

“I fear we will always have a system of government, one way or another, so we would have to use other means other than totally toppling the government (I don’t think the masses would support such a radical move at this time). We (as a people) would have to do it more or less non-violently, for if we use violence, we would never have the support of the masses of people that make up our society,” Psychedelic Warlord wrote.

The writings also included some youthful attempts at profane humor such as a 1988 poem Psychedelic Warlord crafted for the Cult of the Dead Cow.

You guys supported a man in his 60's saying he went around grabbing women by the pu$$y and now you want to bring up what a teenager wrote? That's rich.

It is a wonder anyone runs for office, since your entire past is subject to be dredged up.

Next we're going to have reports of some candidate finger painting purple elephants in kindergarden and question if they are mentally stable.

The 2016 election proved that your past doesn't matter regardless of how bad it is.

aaaanndd... You missed my point.

I'm not so sure that I did.

Previously a politicians past had dire consequences on election results. That could be something that impacts elections in the future.

But the 2016 presidential election certainly proved the point that if people want their party in power badly enough, the past certainly isn't an obstacle to being elected.

Let's face it, before Trump who could have been elected by attacking a war hero, a gold star family and mocking a disabled person all while campaigning? Much less the things that were brought up from his past.

So while I get your point, it seems that in 2016 it certainly wasn't the obstacle that it was in the past.

I would suggest it wasn't the past they were ignoring, it was the lesser of two evils and hillary that filled their hearts with fear. That was an election won by the vote against, not the vote for.

I think that's true to some extent. But I think it was much more a case of pure hatred towards Hillary than fear.

And I think thast's becoming the more overriding factor here. The sides are so divided in our nation now that hatred of the opposite side is a far bigger motivator in voting than the character, or lack of character of the candidate itself.

Where a candidates past and their character used to be an overriding theme in casting a vote, I think now it all comes down to whether they have an R or a D in front on the ballot. I think most voters will sell their values and morals down the river to get which ever party they want in power elected.

My point had nothing to do with getting elected. But more to do with running in general.

I would guess there are a lot of qualified good people who would really be great for this country, but would never run, because they don't want every tiny little mistake they made in their life dragged through public scrutiny for all to see.

So in the end, we are left with all the a-holes, who are more about the power trip than the position.

I certainly see your point but I would think if one actually believes they would be good for this country and had the ability to put their nation ahead of themselves, they would run for office.

But the evidence indicates you are right about it.

They're scared because they're advocates for that collectivism stuff, especially CHS and OCD. Championing ultimate right to the individual scares the hell out of them.

The actual problem is there is no balance from either side. One side doesn't even believe everyone should have healthcare. The other side thinks everything should be free.

A person who works 40 hours should be able to pay their rent and eat. Every American should be able to go to the doctor. Those are just common sense and a right anyone with an ounce of compassion and decency should want for all Americans. That's not some communist or socialist idea. It's much closer to Christian values if anything. But people put negative labels on it to make it sound evil.

First individuals have to have some right to be treated as human beings before you can champion those ideas.

I agree, and our leaders need to quit using issues like these to further their own projects/agendas. This issue should stand on it's own with no riders, no qualifiers, no pay-offs, no lobbying.

Elizabeth Warren pitches policies totaling $100 trillion at town hall: estimates

Elizabeth Warren promoted some of her signature proposals at a town hall event Monday night -- which, all told, could cost a combined $100 trillion, according to recent estimates.

Sen. Warren, D-Mass., discussed the policies -- the Green New Deal, universal child care and slavery reparations -- at a CNN town hall event in Jackson, Miss. The 2020 Democratic hopeful told the crowd that the Green New Deal represents a way forward for the country.

“That’s how we build a future. And I’ll add one little piece to it and say when you take a look at the Green New Deal, understand this is about building the infrastructure for the 21st century, for a sustainable world,” Warren said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-policies-100-trillion-town-hall

And here I thought the Green New Deal had to do with the environment, not cash.

Oh baby, its Green alright! Start the printing presses!

cool, investments into our own americans instead of investments into the military industrial complex and the super elite.

i like it.

You sound like a crackhead. Do you ever read what you write? Saying somebody like me doesn't like individualism is absurd. But I draw the line when the individual is deprived of basic needs over money. Money is nothing more than a tool. A tool that can be used for good or OTHER purposes. I prefer it's used first for good, then other purposes. How is that wrong in any way?

Advocating a level playing field is in no way wanting to build everybody a mansion and a fat bank account on the OTHERS dime. Being compassionate is not a weakness. I don't know how people like you look in the mirror.

When you fail to mention how many millions of great paying jobs a deal like that would create and the tax money it would generate, you make a strong argument.

When you're ready to show both sides together to actually make a point get back to me.

You see, if you ignore well over 90% of scientists and think we can just keep polluting our planet without consequences, almost any price seem too high. If you believe over 90% of scientists that climate change will kill of the planet in a short time, no cost is too high.

How about you spend your money and I'll spend mine.

It's doesn't matter what he believes, facts are facts. Alternative facts are lies.

So you're cool with letting people die because they don't have insurance, a home, or food and clothing? You're cool with economic collapse because you don't want an educated workforce? Your're cool with leaving the next generation a dying planet? You can keep your money, you deserve each other.

Don't you recognize Christian thinking when you see it?

You know, screw everyone else as long as I can keep everything!

Wasn't that the message of Jesus?

Part of what led me to being Atheist.

Thanks, I would like to spend more of my own money instead of giving it to crooked politicians. They just use it for vote r grabs like reperations, 16 yo voting stopping electorial college. Free everything for everybody. You Libs should just double what you send to the taxman and leave me alone

I could never be an atheist. Although I'm not one who believes in Jesus that thinks atheists are somehow my enemy or evil. To each their own.

However, I do believe that organized religion has done more to bastardize the word of God and Jesus than most anyone realizes. Another huge fallacy is how people think that you can promote a 100% capitalistic society without protections for your citizens and workers.

For those who actually believe this they need to look into what the Babylonian system is and how that worked out for those people. We live in what is almost a mirror image of modern day Babylon and many support so much of it and then turn around and say they stand for the teachings of Christ.

It's astounding.

Could you pm me more of your thoughts on this?

I agree.

I'm pretty hardcore Atheist in my beliefs but I don't tell other what to believe or not to believe. My ex-catholic newly evangelical christian wife could attest to that. I lived our entire marriage over 20 years now with a cross on the wall in most of the rooms of our house.

She reads the bible an hour or two a day. Yet she, and a few other religious members of my family regularly use me as a sounding board for their religious thoughts because I know more about religion than they do. smh

She has recently been surprised by some of the things her very conservative yet big church does in it's outreach programs. Last night she told me about female hygiene kits an outreach group is building this week for prostitutes (mostly junkies) in the Columbus area. She was shocked that it seemed like they were supporting prostitution. I had to remind her that some believe Mary Magdalene was an ex-prostitute or sinful woman, yet there is no direct verse in the bible to support it. Forgiving sins and protecting the least of us is christlike, so I can absolutely understand the outreach. She agreed, but declined to participate in building the kits. I just lol'd to my inner Atheist and went about my business. Coming from a strict Catholic church upbringing in northeast ohio it was more than she could wrap around at first. smh

Warren, Harris, Gillibrand back efforts to add justices to Supreme Court

Three Democratic presidential candidates are saying they’re willing to consider adding justices to the Supreme Court as a response to the Senate GOP’s refusal to consider former President Obama’s last pick for the court.

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) all told Politico that they were willing to at least consider packing the courts, something liberal groups are increasingly suggesting.

“We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Harris told Politico. “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/administrat...ices-to-supreme

Typical Libs finding themselves headed for another loss.
Move the Goalposts when you don't get your way.

And people on here cried that the Dems would not declare National Emergencies if Trump didn't.

No intelligent person is fooled at how low they will go.

You supported perversion of the system with Garland's nomination and rejoiced. So if an election changes that in 2020 or the future, it's completely justified.

Dems want to abolish the electoral college too, if that happens you will need real votes to get elected and the right struggles with those these days. You might have to be a more moderate party again.

j\c

They want to stack the SCOTUS
Stack the vote by removing the electoral college vote.
Next thing they will want indoctrinated 15 and 16 year olds and illegals to vote ... Oh wait

Well didn't you guys want to stack the SCOTUS? You know, to get what you want. Isn't that why the constitution was circumvented when the senate refused to have hearings on Merrick Garland?

And if the electoral college is overturned it will be done by the same legal process that all laws undergo.

Quit playing the victim.

Overturning the electoral college would be the same as telling NYC, LA, and a couple of other cities "You people decide the president."

Nope. Every vote will count. Politicians might not come to court the rural areas in person, but we live in the digital age. You can communicate in real time live anywhere in the world.

What it will do is make a liberal vote in a red state count as much as the vote on the right and vice versa.

I have to admit Arch, that is a solid pro EC video. It's also right winger produced.

But I still disagree and think it is no longer necessary and causes the wrong results too often to be a 'protection' mechanism. Again, if we didn't live in the digital age and we depended on the pony express to carry our messages, then it could be a strong argument.

But we live in an age where our voices can be heard no matter where we live. Period. So that makes that argument moot.

As a counter, once again I'll put forward the idea of conservatives living in say California or NYC. Shouldn't their votes count? Same for libs in the deep south. Your argument for the EC also uses an antiquated idea that people living in certain areas think alike and have the same basic needs from there representatives in DC. But that doesn't hold true as much today as it did 100 or 200 years ago. IMHO everyone should be able to express their ideas with their vote and those votes should all count. The EC just doesn't accomplish that.

Overturning the electoral college requires a Constitutional amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Good luck with that.
Tell me how it all went in a couple of years when its done.

Well as of now a persons vote in a state like Montana is worth almost three times the power of a voter in California. So to pretend like there's only one side to an issue isn't correct.

Exactly. And as you point out it's a very difficult thing to do.

How do you know that? You are not an attorney.

Because unlike you I read both sides of things and can understand how they work. A little bit of information can be helpful to you. Try it some time.