1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

Best one in DC by far. If the Dems would lean into him you would be winning in Nov.

He can't form a sentence

Democrats doing Democrat things.

As of May 2026, Washington State has not enacted a blanket ban on "aimless driving"(cruising). However, the state has recently passed strict laws targeting reckless driving and high-speeding, including the "Beam Act" (HB 1596), which mandates speed-limiting technology for repeat speeders by 2029. [1, 2]

• Reckless Driving Focus: New legislation focuses on curbing dangerous driving, allowing judges to mandate intelligent speed assistance (ISA) devices for those with suspended licenses due to reckless driving or excessive speed. [1, 2]

• Negligent Driving Penalties: Starting January 1, 2025, increased penalties are in place for negligent driving that causes injury or death to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists), with stricter fines and license suspensions. [1]

• Distracted Driving: While driving without a destination isn't inherently illegal, distracted driving (e.g., using hand-held devices) is strictly prohibited. [1]

While cruising in itself is not explicitly illegal statewide, local municipalities in Washington often have their own local ordinances or cruising bans in specific areas, particularly to address street racing or safety concerns.

1 hour ago, The_Omega said:

Democrats doing Democrat things.

Any chance you have a link that shows the true origin of this letter?

49 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

As of May 2026, Washington State has not enacted a blanket ban on "aimless driving"(cruising). However, the state has recently passed strict laws targeting reckless driving and high-speeding, including the "Beam Act" (HB 1596), which mandates speed-limiting technology for repeat speeders by 2029. [1, 2]

• Reckless Driving Focus: New legislation focuses on curbing dangerous driving, allowing judges to mandate intelligent speed assistance (ISA) devices for those with suspended licenses due to reckless driving or excessive speed. [1, 2]

• Negligent Driving Penalties: Starting January 1, 2025, increased penalties are in place for negligent driving that causes injury or death to vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists), with stricter fines and license suspensions. [1]

• Distracted Driving: While driving without a destination isn't inherently illegal, distracted driving (e.g., using hand-held devices) is strictly prohibited. [1]

While cruising in itself is not explicitly illegal statewide, local municipalities in Washington often have their own local ordinances or cruising bans in specific areas, particularly to address street racing or safety concerns.

When we were teenagers we thought it was really fun to drive out to the middle of absolutely nowhere, get really, really stoned, and see if we could find our way back.

Looking back on it, probably not the greatest thing to do.

12 minutes ago, Gannan said:

When we were teenagers we thought it was really fun to drive out to the middle of absolutely nowhere, get really, really stoned, and see if we could find our way back.

Looking back on it, probably not the greatest thing to do.

Way back in the day in Lancaster City, there was a route around town that younger adults would cruise called the loop. It was mostly innocent, but there was enough extra traffic at times that they made it illegal to pass the same point 2 times in a certain amount of times.

2 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

Way back in the day in Lancaster City, there was a route around town that younger adults would cruise called the loop. It was mostly innocent, but there was enough extra traffic at times that they made it illegal to pass the same point 2 times in a certain amount of times.

It sucks that kids have no hangouts anymore. They aren't allowed to cruise around, they arent allowed in the movies, or at the mall. So they just hang out online all the time. Not good.

5 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Democrats doing Democrat things.

Very official looking document you have there, Sarah

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Very official looking document you have there, Sarah

Are suggesting he fell for fake news again?

The Dems just released a post mortem doc on the '24 election. It is 192 pages long, has no conclusion, no sources, and no Executive Summary. I'm sure some journalists will dig thru the 192 pages and pull something out but the fact that the Party can't put anything in around the conclusions and can't show any sources pretty tells me how Fed up the Dems are right now. Probably best they do literally nothing heading into November.

9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The Dems just released a post mortem doc on the '24 election. It is 192 pages long, has no conclusion, no sources, and no Executive Summary. I'm sure some journalists will dig thru the 192 pages and pull something out but the fact that the Party can't put anything in around the conclusions and can't show any sources pretty tells me how Fed up the Dems are right now. Probably best they do literally nothing heading into November.

Pretty sure it was written by ChatGPT

6 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Pretty sure it was written by ChatGPT

No way, chat ain't that bad

Just now, DrPhilly said:

No way, chat ain't that bad

No idea, really. That's just what I heard. Honestly, if it doesn't include taking the billions they raise every single election cycle up and down the ballot (including guaranteed loses and easy cakewalk unopposed wins), taking that money and instead using it to invest in media ventures that pump out pro-liberal propaganda then they still don't get it. No matter what they do, what stupid strategies they cook up or how many times they ask candidates to "talk like regular people", it's all pissing into the wind when your opponent has the most effective propaganda machine in human history at his back and you've got jack sheet.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

The Dems just released a post mortem doc on the '24 election. It is 192 pages long, has no conclusion, no sources, and no Executive Summary. I'm sure some journalists will dig thru the 192 pages and pull something out but the fact that the Party can't put anything in around the conclusions and can't show any sources pretty tells me how Fed up the Dems are right now. Probably best they do literally nothing heading into November.

The version Im reading has one, but not by the oiringal author whomever that was.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/05/May-20-2026.pdf

I don't think the "autopsy" should be that complicated though. Here's how I see it

1. Biden and his inner circle were in denial about his condition to run for a second term. His decision to try to run again pretty much doomed the election from the start (as my wife said at the time). I'm not sure if any of this other stuff even matters. Had he announced he wasn't running in 2023 and let a full process take place it may have been a different story.

2. Kamala ran a bad campaign. She brought in Obama people who ran like it was 2008. She could have and should have done podcasts and reached swing voters. They focused on door knocking and older methods.

3. Harris never distinguished herself from Biden, even when directly asked. People wanted change. Those of us with sense knew the change would be worse but people are stupid.

4. Harris trounced Trump in the debate. It was a total arse kicking. So did Hillary. It goes to show debates don't matter...at all.

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The version Im reading has one, but not by the oiringal author whomever that was.

Where is that one coming from. The document released by the Party did not contain any of the things I mentioned (conclusion, exec summary, sources).

On 5/14/2026 at 10:11 AM, The_Omega said:

Democrats doing Democrat things.

The best part of the moron posting this, Washington State does not appear to even use 3 digit bill numbers.

On 5/14/2026 at 10:11 AM, The_Omega said:

Democrats doing Democrat things.

The second best part of the moron posting this, is his quote "Democrats doing Democrat things.". It happened in other states, all Republican, and DeSantis had this to say

40 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The version Im reading has one, but not by the oiringal author whomever that was.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/05/May-20-2026.pdf

I don't think the "autopsy" should be that complicated though. Here's how I see it

1. Biden and his inner circle were in denial about his condition to run for a second term. His decision to try to run again pretty much doomed the election from the start (as my wife said at the time). I'm not sure if any of this other stuff even matters. Had he announced he wasn't running in 2023 and let a full process take place it may have been a different story.

2. Kamala ran a bad campaign. She brought in Obama people who ran like it was 2008. She could have and should have done podcasts and reached swing voters. They focused on door knocking and older methods.

3. Harris never distinguished herself from Biden, even when directly asked. People wanted change. Those of us with sense knew the change would be worse but people are stupid.

4. Harris trounced Trump in the debate. It was a total arse kicking. So did Hillary. It goes to show debates don't matter...at all.

Honestly #1 is pretty much the whole deal. Once 1 happens, 2 and 3 have no choice but to happen because Harris is the only one that could've run. And Harris isn't a very good politician. She would've made a fine President and would've been George Washington compared to what we've got now, but no matter what her strategy was, she was ultimately hamstrung by her own personality, which is just kind of forgettable.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

The version Im reading has one, but not by the oiringal author whomever that was.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2026/05/May-20-2026.pdf

I don't think the "autopsy" should be that complicated though. Here's how I see it

1. Biden and his inner circle were in denial about his condition to run for a second term. His decision to try to run again pretty much doomed the election from the start (as my wife said at the time). I'm not sure if any of this other stuff even matters. Had he announced he wasn't running in 2023 and let a full process take place it may have been a different story.

2. Kamala ran a bad campaign. She brought in Obama people who ran like it was 2008. She could have and should have done podcasts and reached swing voters. They focused on door knocking and older methods.

3. Harris never distinguished herself from Biden, even when directly asked. People wanted change. Those of us with sense knew the change would be worse but people are stupid.

4. Harris trounced Trump in the debate. It was a total arse kicking. So did Hillary. It goes to show debates don't matter...at all.

The only thing I might disagree with is that the inner circle was in denial. I think the inner circle was covering up.

But largely accurate. Harris wouldn't have won a primary.

They should do what has worked for them: promise a bunch of red meat BS to the base around universal healthcare and student loan forgiveness, etc., then govern like normy centrists.

Rahm Emanuel isn't wrong when he says most dem voters don't want them doubling down on the trans and other fringe issues. But they need to have enough messaging to excite the base to activate fringe adjacent (as in literally adjacent in the social sense) voters.

21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

They should do what has worked for them: promise a bunch of red meat BS to the base around universal healthcare and student loan forgiveness, etc., then govern like normy centrists.

Rahm Emanuel isn't wrong when he says most dem voters don't want them doubling down on the trans and other fringe issues. But they need to have enough messaging to excite the base to activate fringe adjacent (as in literally adjacent in the social sense) voters.

Agree, use a couple key affordability issues like the two you mention to rile up the base and stay away from the "own goal” identity politics type stuff. You need the base to get in the game and the swing center to win it.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Agree, use a couple key affordability issues like the two you mention to rile up the base and stay away from the "own goal” identity politics type stuff. You need the base to get in the game and the swing center to win it.

Affordability? Sounds like somebody has TDS

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Affordability? Sounds like somebody has TDS

Indeed