Jump to content

TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) running For Reelection In 2022


Blue Dogs

Recommended Posts

In case anybody else has been living under rocks during the Summer, TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) has pretty much all but announced his reelection campaign for a 3rd term in 2022, which means if he pulls this off, Abbott will become the Lone Star State's 2nd longest-serving TX Governor with 12 years in the TX Governor's Mansion by January 19th, 2027.

 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190614/tilove-abbott-says-biden-will-fade-and-trump-will-win-texas

 

 

  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
On 10/8/2019 at 3:23 PM, Blue Dogs said:

In case anybody else has been living under rocks during the Summer, TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) has pretty much all but announced his reelection campaign for a 3rd term in 2022, which means if he pulls this off, Abbott will become the Lone Star State's 2nd longest-serving TX Governor with 12 years in the TX Governor's Mansion by January 19th, 2027.

 

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190614/tilove-abbott-says-biden-will-fade-and-trump-will-win-texas

 

 

The more I learn about him, the less I like him. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 5/19/2020 at 11:35 AM, Montrose1100 said:

The more I learn about him, the less I like him. 

Hate to break it to you, but Abbott's likely getting reelected in a landslide this fall since 2022 is a big GOP year nationwide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Blue Dogs said:

Hate to break it to you, but Abbott's likely getting reelected in a landslide this fall since 2022 is a big GOP year nationwide.

What in the world were Texas Democrats thinking to nominate Beto as their candidate?

beto2.jpg

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2022 at 10:33 AM, august948 said:

What in the world were Texas Democrats thinking to nominate Beto as their candidate?

beto2.jpg

Like I've said before: Abbott's getting reelected in a massive landslide victory on November 8th:

1393177187_GOPWAVE!.png.5d475b890d0616b5f60777eeadd687cc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I realize that some of the more simple-minded among us might find the above map telling in a kindergarten "look at all the red in the picture" kind of way, I'm not sure why any sensible Republican would look at the trends in recent elections as positive and brag about the fact that the Republican party has likely permanently lost every major urban county in the state, save perhaps Tarrant, but that's a matter of time.  Not only are these the most populous counties in the state, they are also the primary drivers--by far--of economic activity and innovation.  But, if you think it's great to build a party around Waco, Tyler, Abilene, Amarillo, and Lubbock--and to brag about it as some sort of accomplishment--well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Goes with the territory, so to speak.  

During most of my life, I've disagreed with a lot of the platform of the Texas Republican Party, but it was difficult to argue with the results.  Moreover, for the most part, the old school Republicans were able to steer the party away from toxic demagoguery, men in women's restrooms and the like.  Of course, there was perennial silliness, but at least there was some degree of principle, and it was more or less internally coherent.  The mostly "hands off" governance lasted even into the early days of the pandemic, and, I must say, I was even surprisingly pleased how Abbott handled the summer 2020 George Floyd protests.  But--either because they were afraid of primary challengers or they are tripping over each other like fools for a nonexistent chance to become the next president--it flew out the window rapidly with the 2021 legislative session.  The whole of the Texas Republican Party can now be associated with the whack-o politics of Dan Patrick (a Baltimorean, mind you) and the utterly corrupt and unapologetic criminal--yet Chief Law Enforcement Officer--Ken Paxton.  Not that the Texas state government has really ever been concerned about governing for all, but now all it can concern itself with is a prurient circle-jerk about transgender this, transgender that, and creating an abortion Gestapo.  And, while we're at it, let's ban tenure and have the state's curriculum be written by a bunch of know-nothing mouth-breathing imbeciles cuz that's the ticket to keep the state competitive in the future and not the pathway to become Mississippi, but bigger!  It's an absolute disgrace, and all true Texans should be absolutely embarrassed that we're this close to screwing the golden goose so a bunch of man-children have a chance to compete against each other for a race none of them will win in 2024.  News flash: they don't give two sharts about you.  And they don't even have a single shart to spare for the City of Houston or Harris County.

It used to be said that Texas would naturally turn blue with the relocations from blue states like California and New York, but the truth of the matter is, the people moving here are largely self-selecting to join this nonsense.  They like it.  Why?  God knows.  I don't think they've spent even a minute on thinking where this is going to end up.  But, rest assured, it'll catch up with them.  I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it catches up with the rest of us.  I, for one, am not interested in cleaning up the inevitable mess.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

It used to be said that Texas would naturally turn blue with the relocations from blue states like California and New York, but the truth of the matter is, the people moving here are largely self-selecting to join this nonsense.  They like it.  Why?  God knows.  I don't think they've spent even a minute on thinking where this is going to end up.  But, rest assured, it'll catch up with them.  I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it catches up with the rest of us.  I, for one, am not interested in cleaning up the inevitable mess.

It takes a lot to push people to pack up and leave the homes they've known en-masse.  You shouldn't be asking what they are running to but rather what they are running from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, august948 said:

It takes a lot to push people to pack up and leave the homes they've known en-masse.  You shouldn't be asking what they are running to but rather what they are running from.

Hey, I lived in California and other “blue” states, no disagreement there. But to trade Texas’s more responsible, hands-off government of the recent past for the absolute farce that it is now is making a deal with the devil. As I said, I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it affects all of us. It’s an absolute shame and disgrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

Hey, I lived in California and other “blue” states, no disagreement there. But to trade Texas’s more responsible, hands-off government of the recent past for the absolute farce that it is now is making a deal with the devil. As I said, I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it affects all of us. It’s an absolute shame and disgrace.

Politicians. both left and right, delicate flower about all kinds of social issues.  I don't see the silly things they do and say regarding abortion or transgender issues actually killing the golden goose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, august948 said:

Politicians. both left and right, delicate flower about all kinds of social issues.  I don't see the silly things they do and say regarding abortion or transgender issues actually killing the golden goose.

Well, that’s not surprising to me as you are a reasonable person. If you thought otherwise I am sure you would vote the other way.

But, how about approaching it from this perspective? What good do you think will come from this?  Abortion and people identifying as different genders have been around since the beginning of time, as inconvenient as that may sound it is a fact of life. From my perspective it just results in further “ghettoization” of poor people, which isn’t good for anyone—at best it’s just a “comfort” law for religious radicals. People will still find a way. Want to make abortion illegal after the first trimester? Fine. Don’t deputize neighbor against neighbor. Absolute imbecility. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to see it ain’t going to work out well and any effect on behavior will be at the margins. While that may be desirable for the ideologues who are selectively blind to the first amendment, I’d argue the cost of appeasing such ignorance and hypocrisy is much higher. It is not in anyone’s interest to be a Mississippi with 30 million people, except maybe the politicians, who can run for higher office on a base of elevating the lowest common denominator.

The “make no laws” approach is the way to go—no “feel good” nondiscrimination laws, no explicitly discriminatory laws. Such an approach is, at its heart, truly CONSERVATIVE.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/upshot/texas-abortion-women-data.html

 

 

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in a sign of responsible conservative governance that shows another way than that chosen by the toxically sex-obsessed Texas state government, the Governor of Utah vetoed a bill that would have barred transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports, joining his counterpart in Indiana.

Quoth Spencer Cox, the Republican governor of Utah: "I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion . . . Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day . . .  Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live."  (Wanting constituents to live, even if they didn't vote for you . . . truly a novel concept, I know.)

From NYT article today summarizing the veto of Eric Holcomb, the Republican governor of Indiana:  Mr. Holcomb said the bill, known as H.E.A. 1041, would likely have been challenged in court. He also questioned whether it was solving any pressing issue, writing in a letter to lawmakers that “the presumption of the policy laid out in H.E.A. 1041 is that there is an existing problem in K-12 sports in Indiana that requires further state government intervention.”  "It implies that the goals of consistency and fairness in competitive female sports are not currently being met,” the governor added in his letter. “After thorough review, I find no evidence to support either claim even if I support the overall goal.”  (Another novel concept . . . don't make a law to address a nonexistent problem.)

Meanwhile in Texas, we have our governor thinking it's great policy to prosecute parents for child abuse for seeking sanctioned medical treatment that they think is in their child's best interest.  A medical institution--well-respected worldwide--has ended its treatment along these lines.  You want to not "promote" transgenderism in state-funded schools?  Fine.  You want to take steps to ensure that those individuals receiving such treatment are doing so (1) with their parent's full understanding and permission; and (2) consistent with the consensus views of the medical community?  Fine.  But no nuance, no attempt to understand even the many situations in which there is an undeniable biological basis for "gender dysphoria."  Just a toxic combination of sticking one's head in the sand while throwing red meat to the lowest common denominator whose brain is incapable of processing anything that may be marginally complex.  Hell, all they have to process is, "Hmmm . . . this doesn't seem to affect me in any way, so maybe I should sit this debate out and leave it to the parent and the kid."

What majority of Texans is asking for this nonsense?  What majority of Texans is asking for a de facto end to limited access to abortion?  What majority of Texans wants to be deputized to spy on their neighbor and collect a reward for an entirely private decision?

Truly deplorably demented, entirely irresponsible governance and an absolute embarrassment.  So much for "parents' rights," so much for "freedom," nevermind the real difficulties the state will face in attracting truly the "best and the brightest," many of whom will think twice about submitting to the troglodytic governance whose practitioners can't stop tilting at windmills.

I ask again . . . "How does anyone think this will possibly end well?"  The only hope is that the real majority of Texans stands up and says ENOUGH and takes back our government from the gluttonously corrupt and nakedly hypocritical right-wing radicals.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

Well in a sign of responsible conservative governance that shows another way than that chosen by the toxically sex-obsessed Texas state government, the Governor of Utah vetoed a bill that would have barred transgender athletes from participating in girls' sports, joining his counterpart in Indiana.

Quoth Spencer Cox, the Republican governor of Utah: "I struggle to understand so much of it and the science is conflicting. When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion . . . Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day . . .  Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through or why they feel the way they do. But I want them to live."  (Wanting constituents to live, even if they didn't vote for you . . . truly a novel concept, I know.)

From NYT article today summarizing the veto of Eric Holcomb, the Republican governor of Indiana:  Mr. Holcomb said the bill, known as H.E.A. 1041, would likely have been challenged in court. He also questioned whether it was solving any pressing issue, writing in a letter to lawmakers that “the presumption of the policy laid out in H.E.A. 1041 is that there is an existing problem in K-12 sports in Indiana that requires further state government intervention.”  "It implies that the goals of consistency and fairness in competitive female sports are not currently being met,” the governor added in his letter. “After thorough review, I find no evidence to support either claim even if I support the overall goal.”  (Another novel concept . . . don't make a law to address a nonexistent problem.)

Meanwhile in Texas, we have our governor thinking it's great policy to prosecute parents for child abuse for seeking sanctioned medical treatment that they think is in their child's best interest.  A medical institution--well-respected worldwide--has ended its treatment along these lines.  You want to not "promote" transgenderism in state-funded schools?  Fine.  You want to take steps to ensure that those individuals receiving such treatment are doing so (1) with their parent's full understanding and permission; and (2) consistent with the consensus views of the medical community?  Fine.  But no nuance, no attempt to understand even the many situations in which there is an undeniable biological basis for "gender dysphoria."  Just a toxic combination of sticking one's head in the sand while throwing red meat to the lowest common denominator whose brain is incapable of processing anything that may be marginally complex.  Hell, all they have to process is, "Hmmm . . . this doesn't seem to affect me in any way, so maybe I should sit this debate out and leave it to the parent and the kid."

What majority of Texans is asking for this nonsense?  What majority of Texans is asking for a de facto end to limited access to abortion?  What majority of Texans wants to be deputized to spy on their neighbor and collect a reward for an entirely private decision?

Truly deplorably demented, entirely irresponsible governance and an absolute embarrassment.  So much for "parents' rights," so much for "freedom," nevermind the real difficulties the state will face in attracting truly the "best and the brightest," many of whom will think twice about submitting to the troglodytic governance whose practitioners can't stop tilting at windmills.

I ask again . . . "How does anyone think this will possibly end well?"  The only hope is that the real majority of Texans stands up and says ENOUGH and takes back our government from the gluttonously corrupt and nakedly hypocritical right-wing radicals.

I've been reading comments on the topic in a number of places, and the anger and hatred towards the parents of children with gender issues is frightening. It's pretty much "they are abusing the children. Nothing should happen until the children reach the age of consent and can make their own decision" or "this is just grooming by pedophile parents" or "anyone who supports this is a pedophile". No empathy, nothing. Some will begrudgingly say that the kids need counseling, but if that fails, try more counseling. I am guessing that some think that maybe parents should beat the gender dysphoria out of the kids. There are some sad, scary people out there.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ross said:

I've been reading comments on the topic in a number of places, and the anger and hatred towards the parents of children with gender issues is frightening. It's pretty much "they are abusing the children. Nothing should happen until the children reach the age of consent and can make their own decision" or "this is just grooming by pedophile parents" or "anyone who supports this is a pedophile". No empathy, nothing. Some will begrudgingly say that the kids need counseling, but if that fails, try more counseling. I am guessing that some think that maybe parents should beat the gender dysphoria out of the kids. There are some sad, scary people out there.

Continuing the *overwhelmingly positive* trend of self-appointed experts on vaccines, voting fraud, the Ukraine war, etc, etc.  It seems like a full third of the country has fully lost its mind.  Again, I just don't think it's going to work out well when, in a never-ending quest to "own the libs" and hold on to power, the State actively throws kerosene on the worst of the worst.  Yet more people are going to die.  Such an absolutely needless waste.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2022 at 7:59 PM, mattyt36 said:

Continuing the *overwhelmingly positive* trend of self-appointed experts on vaccines, voting fraud, the Ukraine war, etc, etc.  It seems like a full third of the country has fully lost its mind.  Again, I just don't think it's going to work out well when, in a never-ending quest to "own the libs" and hold on to power, the State actively throws kerosene on the worst of the worst.  Yet more people are going to die.  Such an absolutely needless waste.

Surely none of this is a surprise?  You could flip this to be "owning the conservatives and hold on to power" and pick a deep blue state and make the same arguments.  The third of the country that seems to you to have fully lost it's mind has a different perspective than yours and thinks there's another full third of the country that's lost it's mind.  It'd be nice if we had pragmatic populists in charge, but that's not the reality of how politics work in a democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 6:59 PM, august948 said:

Surely none of this is a surprise?  You could flip this to be "owning the conservatives and hold on to power" and pick a deep blue state and make the same arguments.  The third of the country that seems to you to have fully lost it's mind has a different perspective than yours and thinks there's another full third of the country that's lost it's mind.  It'd be nice if we had pragmatic populists in charge, but that's not the reality of how politics work in a democracy.

Sorry, no.

I know whataboutism is an effective rhetorical technique as of late, but the fact that it is effective quite honestly is a sign of how dumb we've all become.

Republicans can clutch their blankets all they want thinking that, as crazy as their worst party members are, well at least the Democrats have some too as if this is some sort of legitimate justification for voting for an absolute clown and clear failure as a person on almost every level over a woman that they're beyond weirdly obsessed with.  But it completely lacks even an ATTEMPT at an appreciation of magnitude or degree.

You cite politicians in blue states holding on to power, we are way beyond that.  No Democratic governor is out there tilting at windmills over nonexistent issues and shaping an entire party platform around whack-o conspiracy theories.  At a recent rally, the shining star and new vanguard of the Republican Party, Marjorie Taylor Greene stands up at a rally and says, "Pete Buttigieg and his husband can stay out of our girls' bathrooms" to a round of applause.  I'm sorry, that is just nuts.  I guess it's supposed to be about transgender people?  Neither Pete nor his husband are transgender.  It's supposed to protect women?  Well, I don't think there's any risk there.  Would they prefer Trump to come in?  I mean it doesn't make any sense, it is a very clear sign of an absolutely diseased mind.  The people who clapped for it seem to be suffering from the same disease.  It truly is a cult, clear as day, right in front of you to see.  Turn on Tucker Carlson on any given day, I mean, there is a textbook case study in a new kind of narcissism and just outright nihilism.  Religious leaders talking about hanging people from trees--entirely unironically.  The wife of a Supreme Court justice--an escapee from an actual cult--thinking that it is appropriate to text the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States conspiracy theories from YouTube and qualify it all with, "I hope this is true."  The woman is absolutely nuts and has her hands deep in Republican politics for the past 40 years!  How many of these people seriously call for a Civil War every night on Fox News, while talking about all the guns they have in their closets and mentioning that they talk to Jesus?  I mean, Texas state government officials calling for a Civil War as if it won't be a problem in their own damned state . . . "Sorry Harris County . . . bad luck of the draw.  You're stuck with a government ran by Bubba from Jasper whose top concerns in life are that his neighbor doesn't get an abortion and little Timmy doesn't wear a dress."   Scroll up in this very thread, someone posting a map of red counties in Texas as if land votes!  That's essentially what he's saying . . . there's this whole undertone of "come and take it, I dare you!"  There's also this consistent undertone of unhealthy pscyhoses centered around sex and children . . . a whole cult shaped around talking nonstop about child sex trafficking and the return of JFK, Jr, I mean WTF, America?!  I know your mind my say, "Well history has always had people like this."  Um, no, buddy, not the country I've been living in for the past five decades, and they sure as hell haven't had control of one of the major political parties.  You think it's going to work out well to have these total nutters as the normies in one of our country's two political parties? Maybe one day people will open their eyes and just notice what is right in front of them.  Connect the dots.

Sure, you'll say, "Well people really believe them, so they're valid beliefs--they just have a different opinion than you."  Absolute hogwash.  What is considered mainstream in the Republican party these days is absolute nuts--let's just call a spade a spade.  I'll stipulate that Democrats have some whack jobs of their own, but they aren't anywhere near the mainstream of the party, nor are they anywhere near as transparently nuts.  This kind of craziness produces political leaders like Putin who, with a straight face, can say, "We're invading Ukraine to denazify it" along with a whole network of mealy-mouthed arse shiners who will happily and reflexively engage in some sort of mind contortion to defend the statement.  Why?  I have no idea.

What I do know--none of these people belong in politics.  I fear it is not going to work out well for most of us, Democratic or Republican.  The only people it will work out for is whoever is in the cult.  Wake up--the golden goose that is the USA is at stake.  They're not going to pull any punches in destroying the entire system, ironically most likely in some sort of effort to prove their psychoses are true.  There will be massive long-term financial and societal consequences.  Only a few people will be better off than before.  It's everything we were taught was bad in high school civics.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more evidence of what constitutes acceptable debate in today’s Republican Party:

“In a suburban Fort Worth House runoff, Republicans debate killing women over abortion”

https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/bud-kennedy/article259670215.html

Like I said, the writing is on the wall and it’s absolutely loco. Back in the day, at least there was a decent chance party leaders would’ve stood up and said, “That doesn’t represent the mainstream views of the party.” Rest assured there’s little chance of that these days. It’s an implicit acknowledgment that such views ARE indeed the mainstream views of the party. The entire id of the party can be summed up with one word: Retribution. Against what? Hell if I know. But that’s in a nutshell.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Yet more evidence of what constitutes acceptable debate in today’s Republican Party:

“In a suburban Fort Worth House runoff, Republicans debate killing women over abortion”

https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/bud-kennedy/article259670215.html

Like I said, the writing is on the wall and it’s absolutely loco. Back in the day, at least there was a decent chance party leaders would’ve stood up and said, “That doesn’t represent the mainstream views of the party.” Rest assured there’s little chance of that these days. It’s an implicit acknowledgment that such views ARE indeed the mainstream views of the party. The entire id of the party can be summed up with one word: Retribution. Against what? Hell if I know. But that’s in a nutshell.

Toss in the other Republicans who want every miscarriage investigated to ensure it wasn't an abortion, and women become third class citizens, kept only for their womb. What happened to keeping your nose out of other people's business?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2022 at 6:14 PM, mattyt36 said:

Sorry, no.

I know whataboutism is an effective rhetorical technique as of late, but the fact that it is effective quite honestly is a sign of how dumb we've all become.

Republicans can clutch their blankets all they want thinking that, as crazy as their worst party members are, well at least the Democrats have some too as if this is some sort of legitimate justification for voting for an absolute clown and clear failure as a person on almost every level over a woman that they're beyond weirdly obsessed with.  But it completely lacks even an ATTEMPT at an appreciation of magnitude or degree.

You cite politicians in blue states holding on to power, we are way beyond that.  No Democratic governor is out there tilting at windmills over nonexistent issues and shaping an entire party platform around whack-o conspiracy theories.  At a recent rally, the shining star and new vanguard of the Republican Party, Marjorie Taylor Greene stands up at a rally and says, "Pete Buttigieg and his husband can stay out of our girls' bathrooms" to a round of applause.  I'm sorry, that is just nuts.  I guess it's supposed to be about transgender people?  Neither Pete nor his husband are transgender.  It's supposed to protect women?  Well, I don't think there's any risk there.  Would they prefer Trump to come in?  I mean it doesn't make any sense, it is a very clear sign of an absolutely diseased mind.  The people who clapped for it seem to be suffering from the same disease.  It truly is a cult, clear as day, right in front of you to see.  Turn on Tucker Carlson on any given day, I mean, there is a textbook case study in a new kind of narcissism and just outright nihilism.  Religious leaders talking about hanging people from trees--entirely unironically.  The wife of a Supreme Court justice--an escapee from an actual cult--thinking that it is appropriate to text the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States conspiracy theories from YouTube and qualify it all with, "I hope this is true."  The woman is absolutely nuts and has her hands deep in Republican politics for the past 40 years!  How many of these people seriously call for a Civil War every night on Fox News, while talking about all the guns they have in their closets and mentioning that they talk to Jesus?  I mean, Texas state government officials calling for a Civil War as if it won't be a problem in their own damned state . . . "Sorry Harris County . . . bad luck of the draw.  You're stuck with a government ran by Bubba from Jasper whose top concerns in life are that his neighbor doesn't get an abortion and little Timmy doesn't wear a dress."   Scroll up in this very thread, someone posting a map of red counties in Texas as if land votes!  That's essentially what he's saying . . . there's this whole undertone of "come and take it, I dare you!"  There's also this consistent undertone of unhealthy pscyhoses centered around sex and children . . . a whole cult shaped around talking nonstop about child sex trafficking and the return of JFK, Jr, I mean WTF, America?!  I know your mind my say, "Well history has always had people like this."  Um, no, buddy, not the country I've been living in for the past five decades, and they sure as hell haven't had control of one of the major political parties.  You think it's going to work out well to have these total nutters as the normies in one of our country's two political parties? Maybe one day people will open their eyes and just notice what is right in front of them.  Connect the dots.

Sure, you'll say, "Well people really believe them, so they're valid beliefs--they just have a different opinion than you."  Absolute hogwash.  What is considered mainstream in the Republican party these days is absolute nuts--let's just call a spade a spade.  I'll stipulate that Democrats have some whack jobs of their own, but they aren't anywhere near the mainstream of the party, nor are they anywhere near as transparently nuts.  This kind of craziness produces political leaders like Putin who, with a straight face, can say, "We're invading Ukraine to denazify it" along with a whole network of mealy-mouthed arse shiners who will happily and reflexively engage in some sort of mind contortion to defend the statement.  Why?  I have no idea.

What I do know--none of these people belong in politics.  I fear it is not going to work out well for most of us, Democratic or Republican.  The only people it will work out for is whoever is in the cult.  Wake up--the golden goose that is the USA is at stake.  They're not going to pull any punches in destroying the entire system, ironically most likely in some sort of effort to prove their psychoses are true.  There will be massive long-term financial and societal consequences.  Only a few people will be better off than before.  It's everything we were taught was bad in high school civics.

You speak of guns in closets like that's a bad thing.

Seriously, though, the only place I've ever seen Marjorie Taylor Greene described as the shining star and vanguard of the Republican party is in the monologues of various left leaning hosts on MSNBC or in articles in Slate or The Daily Beast.  I've seen AOC spun as the shining star and vanguard of the Democratic party on right leaning stations.  The reality is that neither one is all that important in the grand scheme of things.  But it's outrage that brings eyeballs to "news" outlets and video channels.  Oddly (or perhaps not oddly) "connect the dots" is a frequent refrain on all kinds of silly conspiracy videos.  Unfortunately, we seem to have entered a new age of yellow journalism.  Be careful not to fall too far down the rabbit holes, there are a lot of them out there.

As you have mentioned you have five decades under your belt, as have I, you might remember this tune...

 

Edited by august948
Link to comment
Share on other sites

spacer.png

Well, we've got August's vote . . . there's absolutely nothing to see here when politicians talk about killing women from availing themselves of a procedure that was entirely legal one hot minute ago.  Or the former National Security Advisor taking oaths to a cult centered around child sex trafficking.  Or having elected officials talk about Civil War.  Or having the cult-susceptible wife of a Supreme Court justice and a high-profile, longtime Republican activist trying to impose her YouTube-inspired fever dreams on the government of the United States cuz that's how she feelz and that's what she "hopes is true" (her own words, multiple times, from wet ballots to Trump rounding up elected officials and sending them to Guantanamo).  

I can't say I admire your glibness and cynicism, but I will at least say I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.  I just don't have the same faith in the red proletariat that you do.  You get people this riled up, they're going to demand catharsis somehow.  Always great when they are hoarding guns, too.  (Not keeping "guns in the closet," Augie, ha ha ha, total LOLz, but talking about their stash of guns in the context of an inevitable Civil War, Part Deux, The Elimination of the Woke.)  See Sixth, January, 2021.  In case you don't believe me, why not ask Gretchen Whitmer to give you a rundown of her first-hand experience?

Maybe, at the end of the day, you're seeing everything I'm seeing and the truth of the matter is you just like it.  Cuz, seriously, it really doesn't take much to say, "Now that you mention it, some of those things are pretty kooky and I can at least see the argument that they could spin out of control.  I don't personally believe it, mind you, but I'd give it, say, a 0.1% chance."  Or, let's step back a couple messages . . . how about answering this simple question . . . "Would you trade the Texas Republican Party of today for the Texas Republican Party of yore?"  Hell, not even yore, let's just go with 2017!  If the answer is yes, well that's certainly saying something!

(Do you really think you're saying anything with this reflexive whataboutism, incidentally?  Someone mentions MTG and all you have to do is mention AOC and the left-wing media in some sort of ritual, and it somehow cancels everything out?  (Nevermind it's not even a valid comparison . . . see how AOC has been managed by the party versus MTG . . . there's a big difference, and I'm not talking about the obvious fact that once again is the real point here . . . AOC isn't out saying batflurf crazy things on the daily . . . you may disagree with her policy positions, but she isn't giving a limp shrug at the possibility of Americans killing other Americans while clapping and yelling "WOO-HOO!")  Or that you can say, "the reality is that neither one is all that important in the grand scheme of things" as if it is some incontrovertible truth and is really saying anything at the end of the day.  How about replacing "The reality is that . . . " with "I think that," which is an entirely more accurate statement (have you ever considered you may be wrong?).  I suspect it is because such word choice would obligate you to express at least some scintilla of reasoning as to why you are so convinced.  I mean, I get the condescending tone, the advisory about "rabbit holes" (no "rabbit holes" there, Augie . . . nothing I cited is the output of "yellow journalism," all of it actually happened) . . . surely someone who so happily condescends would actually engage on the merits?)

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is timely and germane to the discussion.

"THE REVENGE OF THE NORMAL REPUBLICANS
Will Hurd thinks there are enough normal voters to deliver him the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. But is he right?"

Will Hurd 2024: Revenge of the Normal Republicans? - The Atlantic

Seems like Will Hurd may be seeing at least a little of what I'm seeing.

Quoting the article:

“Some of my friends, some of my former colleagues, they are desperate,” Hurd tells me. “They are so desperate to hold on to their positions, to hold on to their power, that they make really bad decisions.

Those bad decisions are evident when it comes to big, history-forming events, such as the party’s enabling of Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy. But the bad decisions are also made subtly, in response to smaller episodes every single day, often to accommodate the party’s ugliest impulses. (The third chapter of Hurd’s book, written as an open letter to the Republican Party, is titled “Don’t Be an Asshole, Racist, Misogynist, or Homophobe.”)

The desperation—lawmakers catering to the loudest voices in the party base—is not healthy, Hurd says. It’s the by-product of safely partisan districts that provide more incentive to light fires than put them out. It’s the consequence of the public’s collapsing faith in the core institutions of civic society, which invites national politicians to weaponize disputes that should be addressed at the local level. It’s the expression of a country in decline—a country convinced that its existential concerns are not Chinese sabotage and Russian disinformation, but face masks in public and vaccines for a virus.

“We’re in a competition. If we don’t win it, we’re going to be a former superpower,” Hurd says. “We need to treat it as a competition—us versus the world. But we can’t, because our politics are so messed up. We’re too busy fighting with ourselves.”

Hurd’s book is notable for many reasons—his personal and professional journeys are legitimately compelling—but most of all for its rebuke of America’s proportionality problem. Drawing on his diverse experiences, from chasing down intelligence overseas to parsing classified documents in Congress to working with groundbreaking tech companies today, Hurd argues that we are woefully unprepared for what is coming our way. Quantum computing has the potential to break every form of encryption that guards our money and our secrets. Artificial intelligence could cut the service-based workforce in half—every two years. Biomedical advances will force questions about the ethics of rewiring our brains and halting the degradation of human cells. In the meantime, China will continue its siege of the American economy—swiping our intellectual property, snatching up our real estate, sabotaging our investments—while Russia will intensify its decades-old campaign to delegitimize our systems of government and turn Americans against one another.

His subtext is plain enough. To confront these challenges, Hurd’s colleagues in the Republican Party might need to rethink their fixation on transgender athletes and critical race theory.

[...]

Republicans have become comfortable “saying or doing anything to win an election,” Hurd writes. The party of family values champions cruel policies and hateful politicians while lecturing the left on morality. The party of fiscal discipline and personal responsibility blows holes in the budget, then blames Democrats for their recklessness. The party of empowerment and opportunity systematically attempts to disenfranchise voters who are poor and nonwhite. The party of freedom and liberty keeps flirting with authoritarianism.

Hurd’s most pressing concern for his party is that it’s become an agent of disinformation. This is not a uniquely Republican phenomenon, he emphasizes—the book contains a blistering critique of Democrat Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for leaking faulty information regarding Trump colluding with Russia—but it’s the Republican Party’s embrace of lies and propaganda that most immediately threatens our system of government. Hurd says that watching the January 6 assault on the Capitol, just three days after his retirement from Congress, felt like he was watching a sequel to 9/11—extremism infiltrating America in a new form.

It was “an example of the kinds of internal threats many of our military leaders have cautioned our political leaders to take as seriously as external threats,” Hurd writes. “To prevent future manifestations of this threat from materializing, the Republican Party must drive out those who continue to push misinformation, disinformation, and subscribe to crackpot theories like QAnon.”

[...]

For the Republican National Committee to gather more than a year after the insurrection and pass a resolution justifying the death and destruction at the U.S. Capitol was a “new level of crazy”—and, to him, proof that the party needs an intervention."

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

spacer.png

Well, we've got August's vote . . . there's absolutely nothing to see here when politicians talk about killing women from availing themselves of a procedure that was entirely legal one hot minute ago.  Or the former National Security Advisor taking oaths to a cult centered around child sex trafficking.  Or having elected officials talk about Civil War.  Or having the cult-susceptible wife of a Supreme Court justice and a high-profile, longtime Republican activist trying to impose her YouTube-inspired fever dreams on the government of the United States cuz that's how she feelz and that's what she "hopes is true" (her own words, multiple times, from wet ballots to Trump rounding up elected officials and sending them to Guantanamo).  

I can't say I admire your glibness and cynicism, but I will at least say I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.  I just don't have the same faith in the red proletariat that you do.  You get people this riled up, they're going to demand catharsis somehow.  Always great when they are hoarding guns, too.  (Not keeping "guns in the closet," Augie, ha ha ha, total LOLz, but talking about their stash of guns in the context of an inevitable Civil War, Part Deux, The Elimination of the Woke.)  See Sixth, January, 2021.  In case you don't believe me, why not ask Gretchen Whitmer to give you a rundown of her first-hand experience?

Maybe, at the end of the day, you're seeing everything I'm seeing and the truth of the matter is you just like it.  Cuz, seriously, it really doesn't take much to say, "Now that you mention it, some of those things are pretty kooky and I can at least see the argument that they could spin out of control.  I don't personally believe it, mind you, but I'd give it, say, a 0.1% chance."  Or, let's step back a couple messages . . . how about answering this simple question . . . "Would you trade the Texas Republican Party of today for the Texas Republican Party of yore?"  Hell, not even yore, let's just go with 2017!  If the answer is yes, well that's certainly saying something!

(Do you really think you're saying anything with this reflexive whataboutism, incidentally?  Someone mentions MTG and all you have to do is mention AOC and the left-wing media in some sort of ritual, and it somehow cancels everything out?  (Nevermind it's not even a valid comparison . . . see how AOC has been managed by the party versus MTG . . . there's a big difference, and I'm not talking about the obvious fact that once again is the real point here . . . AOC isn't out saying batflurf crazy things on the daily . . . you may disagree with her policy positions, but she isn't giving a limp shrug at the possibility of Americans killing other Americans while clapping and yelling "WOO-HOO!")  Or that you can say, "the reality is that neither one is all that important in the grand scheme of things" as if it is some incontrovertible truth and is really saying anything at the end of the day.  How about replacing "The reality is that . . . " with "I think that," which is an entirely more accurate statement (have you ever considered you may be wrong?).  I suspect it is because such word choice would obligate you to express at least some scintilla of reasoning as to why you are so convinced.  I mean, I get the condescending tone, the advisory about "rabbit holes" (no "rabbit holes" there, Augie . . . nothing I cited is the output of "yellow journalism," all of it actually happened) . . . surely someone who so happily condescends would actually engage on the merits?)

The "guns in closets" comment was, I believe, quoted from your post.  If I misquoted that, I will happily change it to "You say stash of guns like that's a bad thing." 😉

Besides, no gun owner worth his salt would keep his stash in a closet.  It is far better to keep your guns in a place with good air circulation and/or with good humidity control.  Plus, keeping them in the closet risks getting gun oil on your clothes (or worse on your wife's clothes).  Same goes, of course, for your ammo stash.

No doubt I am seeing what you are seeing to a large degree, it's just that I've seen this dog and pony show before, many times over many years.  Much of it is panem et circenses, as it has been since before that term arose.  This isn't something new.  I'd invite you to step back and take a look at the longer picture.  Where are we with regards to where we were in 1860?  In 1960? In 1980?  You can't expect utopia or paradise, but you also can't deny that much progress has been made on many issues over the proceeding decades.  You also can't deny that others have different views and, more importantly, different priorities.  To some people LBGTQ+ issues are priority number one and they vote that way.  Some others could care less about those issues and vote on different priorities that are important to them, but which may be unimportant or even antithetical to you.  That's how a democracy works.

People have a right to say stupid thing out loud just like you have a right to laugh at them.  Shall we abridge the first amendment to prevent that?  Shall we disenfranchise anyone not toeing a particular political line?  Send MTG and her audience that day to a gulag?  Ultimately, you have to trust the voting public to decide if they like what's going on or if it needs to change.  In that regard, taking a longer look at history, I'm an optimist. 

I think you may have misunderstood what yellow journalism is.  Yellow journalism is the "the use of lurid features and sensationalized news in newspaper publishing to attract readers and increase circulation" to quote from Britannica.  It's not that something didn't actually happen, it's that it's sensationalized, taken out of context, or blown up out of proportion in order to provoke an emotional reaction (and keep users/viewers/readers coming back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well by this point I have been conditioned not to expect any careful consideration of any of the points being made.  At least I got an acknowledgment, "Well I see it, too," so I suppose that is an improvement.

The divergence seems to be that what I am seeing is a "dog and pony show," as if it is some cycle in American politics that we've seen before and somehow have "grown out of."  If that's the case, then please provide me with some modern examples of similar scale . . . I'm all ears!  Maybe the John Birch Society?  Don't think they were anywhere near this successful, not to mention they were disowned and exiled by the Republican Party.  I will stipulate they were equally bonkers and cruel, though.

It's either that "none of this is real" or the "real" problem is "yellow journalism," which you keep on bringing up, Lord knows why.  (Is Will Hurd, a former CIA officer and congressman and current Republican a victim of this “yellow journalism” that seems to explain it all to you?) The implication being, what?  That it's not really a problem that congressional candidates are talking about the possibility of legislating the practice of killing women for getting an abortion per se, but rather that the media reports on it?  I guess linked with the "dog and pony show" reference, I should surmise that your view is that (1) people have been making such comments in the background for a long period of time; (2) in the past the media just ignored it; and (3) it was just a bunch of people "shooting the shart" so to say that didn't really mean anything.

I suppose that is possible.  Sounds pretty naive if you ask me.  Even if you believed that, you'd have to agree that the circumstances have totally changed with this stuff all out in the open and amplified.  Why would one default to a position that what happened in the past when the circumstances were different will happen again?

As far as misunderstandings go, I also think it's possible that you've misunderstood the entirety of my point.  Or you do, but still choose to throw out straw men.  Nowhere in any of the above am I arguing that if people really do have a moral argument against abortion or transgender people or gay wedding cakes do they have an obligation to vote for a party that contradicts their position on those issues.  I have not proposed anyone be thrown in any sort of Gulag, or held that the right of free speech only applies to "woke" positions.  Or that guns should go in closets or by beds or in the kitchen or not at all . . . your fixation on it has been duly noted.  I am saying we should all be worried when it's a common turn of phrase in the context of "Well we may disagree on this issue, but I want to remind you that only one side has all the guns . . . hehehehe LOLz"  (Incidentally, I'm not sure why all you gun owners think that any situation in which everyday Americans are using guns each other is going to be "controlled" enough in any way where the "good guys" win . . . I mean that sounds pretty self-evidently ridiculous on its face, if you ask me, but best of luck to you, Augie, in the crossfire.)

I'm saying that what constitutes normal, run-of-the-mill Republicanism these days--and acceptable political discourse on that side--is crazy and runs fully counter to the ideals this country was built upon.  Why?  Because the endgame appears to be to shove all of the Republican superstitions about sex, race, gender, the "role of government," etc. down the throats of those they disagree with, with any appreciation of the "freedoms" guaranteed by the constitution be damned.  "If my religion thinks abortion is wrong, well no one can have one, and don't be surprised when we kill you for it."  "If I don't think the country is racist, I'm going to ban every institution of the state from teaching otherwise."  "If I don't get gender dysphoria, well I'm still going to force little Timmy to wear some jeans and a jock strap."  "If I think Trump won, well the rest of the country is going to have to recognize it!"  I know the "whatabout" instinct is that the left is also trying to jam this down the throat of the country, but nowhere are there parallel and central policy positions like there are in conservative whack-a-doodle land.  Maybe a "don't discriminate," but nothing like any sort of movement to "Don't say God" in the classroom.  

I mean, come on! It's why the "mainstream" Republican intelligentsia (e.g., the Claremont Institute) and prominent enough Republican sociopolitical figures (e.g., Rod Dreher) are now openly integralists and calling for an entirely new political system fused with religion, and (I would qualify the following with "until recently," but I really don't think their position has changed) exactly why they idolize Vladimir Putin--and entirely unironically, mind you.  The Russian economy has for a long time been absolute crap and there are no universally enforced freedoms . . . it's just political patronage.  Why in the hell would anyone in the United States of America want to emulate Russia?  Or Pinochet's Chile?  Or Franco's Spain?  All of these are political systems antithetical to our own.  Again, this is not good for any average voter--Republican or Democrat.  It is a recipe for a suicide of the American experiment and our leading position in the world--and all for the sake of a bunch of nutjobs to have even more power?

Do you not think it's good (and conservative) advice to take people at their word?

Edited by mattyt36
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Well by this point I have been conditioned not to expect any careful consideration of any of the points being made.  At least I got an acknowledgment, "Well I see it, too," so I suppose that is an improvement.

The divergence seems to be that what I am seeing is a "dog and pony show," as if it is some cycle in American politics that we've seen before and somehow have "grown out of."  If that's the case, then please provide me with some modern examples of similar scale . . . I'm all ears!  Maybe the John Birch Society?  Don't think they were anywhere near this successful, not to mention they were disowned and exiled by the Republican Party.  I will stipulate they were equally bonkers and cruel, though.

It's either that "none of this is real" or the "real" problem is "yellow journalism," which you keep on bringing up, Lord knows why.  (Is Will Hurd, a former CIA officer and congressman and current Republican a victim of this “yellow journalism” that seems to explain it all to you?) The implication being, what?  That it's not really a problem that congressional candidates are talking about the possibility of legislating the practice of killing women for getting an abortion per se, but rather that the media reports on it?  I guess linked with the "dog and pony show" reference, I should surmise that your view is that (1) people have been making such comments in the background for a long period of time; (2) in the past the media just ignored it; and (3) it was just a bunch of people "shooting the shart" so to say that didn't really mean anything.

I suppose that is possible.  Sounds pretty naive if you ask me.  Even if you believed that, you'd have to agree that the circumstances have totally changed with this stuff all out in the open and amplified.  Why would one default to a position that what happened in the past when the circumstances were different will happen again?

As far as misunderstandings go, I also think it's possible that you've misunderstood the entirety of my point.  Or you do, but still choose to throw out straw men.  Nowhere in any of the above am I arguing that if people really do have a moral argument against abortion or transgender people or gay wedding cakes do they have an obligation to vote for a party that contradicts their position on those issues.  I have not proposed anyone be thrown in any sort of Gulag, or held that the right of free speech only applies to "woke" positions.  Or that guns should go in closets or by beds or in the kitchen or not at all . . . your fixation on it has been duly noted.  I am saying we should all be worried when it's a common turn of phrase in the context of "Well we may disagree on this issue, but I want to remind you that only one side has all the guns . . . hehehehe LOLz"  (Incidentally, I'm not sure why all you gun owners think that any situation in which everyday Americans are using guns each other is going to be "controlled" enough in any way where the "good guys" win . . . I mean that sounds pretty self-evidently ridiculous on its face, if you ask me, but best of luck to you, Augie, in the crossfire.)

I'm saying that what constitutes normal, run-of-the-mill Republicanism these days--and acceptable political discourse on that side--is crazy and runs fully counter to the ideals this country was built upon.  Why?  Because the endgame appears to be to shove all of the Republican superstitions about sex, race, gender, the "role of government," etc. down the throats of those they disagree with, with any appreciation of the "freedoms" guaranteed by the constitution be damned.  "If my religion thinks abortion is wrong, well no one can have one, and don't be surprised when we kill you for it."  "If I don't think the country is racist, I'm going to ban every institution of the state from teaching otherwise."  "If I don't get gender dysphoria, well I'm still going to force little Timmy to wear some jeans and a jock strap."  "If I think Trump won, well the rest of the country is going to have to recognize it!"  I know the "whatabout" instinct is that the left is also trying to jam this down the throat of the country, but nowhere are there parallel and central policy positions like there are in conservative whack-a-doodle land.  Maybe a "don't discriminate," but nothing like any sort of movement to "Don't say God" in the classroom.  

I mean, come on! It's why the "mainstream" Republican intelligentsia (e.g., the Claremont Institute) and prominent enough Republican sociopolitical figures (e.g., Rod Dreher) are now openly integralists and calling for an entirely new political system fused with religion, and (I would qualify the following with "until recently," but I really don't think their position has changed) exactly why they idolize Vladimir Putin--and entirely unironically, mind you.  The Russian economy has for a long time been absolute crap and there are no universally enforced freedoms . . . it's just political patronage.  Why in the hell would anyone in the United States of America want to emulate Russia?  Or Pinochet's Chile?  Or Franco's Spain?  All of these are political systems antithetical to our own.  Again, this is not good for any average voter--Republican or Democrat.  It is a recipe for a suicide of the American experiment and our leading position in the world--and all for the sake of a bunch of nutjobs to have even more power?

Do you not think it's good (and conservative) advice to take people at their word?

You're welcome to take anything anyone ever says seriously and paint everyone else with a broad brush if you'd like, but I don't think that reflects reality.  Personally, I'm not inclined to go down every rabbit hole, track down every nutjob and analyze every word they say.  As I've said before, our current media environment encourages and rewards the magnification of the extreme.  What is said and what is done are frequently two very different things, especially in politics.  What, for instance, would constitute "legislating the practice of killing women for getting an abortion", as you said above?  Is there a bill on the floor of the House or Senate that's being considered?  Do you really, truly believe that a bill that proscribes the death penalty for abortion would pass Congress, be signed into law by the President and be upheld by the Supreme Court?  You can play that game 24/7/365 with all kinds of imaginary legislation.  As I recall, there was in the past year or so a call from some people to deny medical treatment to anyone not vaccinated against covid.  To let them die in the streets.  Should we take that seriously as well?  To dial it back a few years, when Obama was elected president there was a flurry of horseflurf about how the America we know and love would be destroyed forever, how America was about to become a socialist country.  Guess what, America is still here and still much the same as it was prior.  I'm sure you also remember the dire predictions from Democratic party operatives upon Trump's election in 2016.  How it was the Weimar republic all over again and the nazi's were taking over.  And yet we're all still here.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2022 at 9:17 AM, mattyt36 said:

spacer.png

Well, we've got August's vote . . . there's absolutely nothing to see here when politicians talk about killing women from availing themselves of a procedure that was entirely legal one hot minute ago.  Or the former National Security Advisor taking oaths to a cult centered around child sex trafficking.  Or having elected officials talk about Civil War.  Or having the cult-susceptible wife of a Supreme Court justice and a high-profile, longtime Republican activist trying to impose her YouTube-inspired fever dreams on the government of the United States cuz that's how she feelz and that's what she "hopes is true" (her own words, multiple times, from wet ballots to Trump rounding up elected officials and sending them to Guantanamo).  

I can't say I admire your glibness and cynicism, but I will at least say I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.  I just don't have the same faith in the red proletariat that you do.  You get people this riled up, they're going to demand catharsis somehow.  Always great when they are hoarding guns, too.  (Not keeping "guns in the closet," Augie, ha ha ha, total LOLz, but talking about their stash of guns in the context of an inevitable Civil War, Part Deux, The Elimination of the Woke.)  See Sixth, January, 2021.  In case you don't believe me, why not ask Gretchen Whitmer to give you a rundown of her first-hand experience?

Maybe, at the end of the day, you're seeing everything I'm seeing and the truth of the matter is you just like it.  Cuz, seriously, it really doesn't take much to say, "Now that you mention it, some of those things are pretty kooky and I can at least see the argument that they could spin out of control.  I don't personally believe it, mind you, but I'd give it, say, a 0.1% chance."  Or, let's step back a couple messages . . . how about answering this simple question . . . "Would you trade the Texas Republican Party of today for the Texas Republican Party of yore?"  Hell, not even yore, let's just go with 2017!  If the answer is yes, well that's certainly saying something!

(Do you really think you're saying anything with this reflexive whataboutism, incidentally?  Someone mentions MTG and all you have to do is mention AOC and the left-wing media in some sort of ritual, and it somehow cancels everything out?  (Nevermind it's not even a valid comparison . . . see how AOC has been managed by the party versus MTG . . . there's a big difference, and I'm not talking about the obvious fact that once again is the real point here . . . AOC isn't out saying batflurf crazy things on the daily . . . you may disagree with her policy positions, but she isn't giving a limp shrug at the possibility of Americans killing other Americans while clapping and yelling "WOO-HOO!")  Or that you can say, "the reality is that neither one is all that important in the grand scheme of things" as if it is some incontrovertible truth and is really saying anything at the end of the day.  How about replacing "The reality is that . . . " with "I think that," which is an entirely more accurate statement (have you ever considered you may be wrong?).  I suspect it is because such word choice would obligate you to express at least some scintilla of reasoning as to why you are so convinced.  I mean, I get the condescending tone, the advisory about "rabbit holes" (no "rabbit holes" there, Augie . . . nothing I cited is the output of "yellow journalism," all of it actually happened) . . . surely someone who so happily condescends would actually engage on the merits?)

 

I feel sorry for poor Jen Psaki having to constantly deal with her boss going off script. 

To borrow from your post...

leslie-nielsen-nothing-to-see-here.gif

Has Nancy Pelosi demanded yet that he give up the nuclear codes like she did with Trump?  It might be a good idea for her to do so considering Biden's ongoing gaffes.  He might push Putin into thinking he's being backed into a corner. 

Or do you suppose her demand at the time was political theater?  Hmmm...I wonder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Oh yippee, Gov Hot Wheelz wants to ban instruction of undocumented immigrants. How totally Christian of him. What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of uneducated poor kids who can’t get a job? Obviously another cog in his brilliant crimefighting strategy. Either that or maybe Hot Wheelz visited Managua recently and liked what he saw. Or the most likely scenario, that he’s jealous of all the attention Governor “Gin Blossom” DeSantis is getting and wants to make sure he can poll at least 2% in the 2024 presidential primary. Regardless, one thing’s for sure … he’s not doing what’s in the interest of the State of Texas.

What an odious excuse of a human being, a man who doesn’t even know what the words “good governance” means and a total embarrassment to boot.

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Oh yippee, Gov Hot Wheelz wants to ban instruction of undocumented immigrants. How totally Christian of him. What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of uneducated poor kids who can’t get a job? Obviously another cog in his brilliant crimefighting strategy. Either that or maybe Hot Wheelz visited Managua recently and liked what he saw. Or the most likely scenario, that he’s jealous of all the attention Governor “Gin Blossom” DeSantis is getting and wants to make sure he can poll at least 2% in the 2024 presidential primary. Regardless, one thing’s for sure … he’s not doing what’s in the interest of the State of Texas.

What an odious excuse of a human being, a man who doesn’t even know what the words “good governance” means and a total embarrassment to boot.

I thought we were going to bus them all to Delaware so those taxpayers can pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 8:36 PM, august948 said:

I thought we were going to bus them all to Delaware so those taxpayers can pay for it.

No FOX News outlet there, although maybe if Tucker does a "road show" at the Hunter Biden laptop repair shop (what a story!), maybe Greg from Gregg Co will phone a friend (Rebekah Mercer?) for some cash to bus them up there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2022 at 8:36 PM, august948 said:

I thought we were going to bus them all to Delaware so those taxpayers can pay for it.

Some were, but it backfired.  There was an article and photo in the newspaper showing the immigrants being welcomed with open arms by various relocation groups.

Many cities and states are happy to have immigrants (that's why so many sign up for refugees from overseas).  More immigrants = more federal money. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, editor said:

Some were, but it backfired.  There was an article and photo in the newspaper showing the immigrants being welcomed with open arms by various relocation groups.

Many cities and states are happy to have immigrants (that's why so many sign up for refugees from overseas).  More immigrants = more federal money. 

Some of us are old enough to remember when welcoming refugees (regardless of the reason for displacement) and helping them resettle was considered a very American thing to do.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mollusk said:

Some of us are old enough to remember when welcoming refugees (regardless of the reason for displacement) and helping them resettle was considered a very American thing to do.

Like the refugees from Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc that were welcomed here in the 70's and 80's.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ross said:

Like the refugees from Viet Nam, Cambodia, etc that were welcomed here in the 70's and 80's.

There's a big difference between refugees from war zones, particularly those from allied countries and those who worked with our government and military, and whom the federal government deliberately welcomed as legal immigrants and economic migrants who cross our borders illegally in hopes of gaming our system and being allowed to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, editor said:

Some were, but it backfired.  There was an article and photo in the newspaper showing the immigrants being welcomed with open arms by various relocation groups.

Many cities and states are happy to have immigrants (that's why so many sign up for refugees from overseas).  More immigrants = more federal money. 

Is Texas getting more federal money to directly offset the additional costs to state and local governments?  That seems to be Abbots point in this (besides the political spectacle)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, august948 said:

Is Texas getting more federal money to directly offset the additional costs to state and local governments?  That seems to be Abbots point in this (besides the political spectacle)

But that's not really what he's doing, is it?  He has announced he is suing to overturn Pyler v Doe, which would end the federal mandate to school all children.  He is not seeking increased funding, and if he wins, there won't be any increased funding.  Just a bunch of school-age undocumented immigrants--most of them here through no fault of their own--with nothing to do all day.  Again, what could possibly go wrong?

Anyway, there's not an ounce of strategy or real policy "chops" in Texas Republican Party politics--just the political spectacle.  These people are all now so high on their own supply (criminalizing parents of transgender children and turning neighbor against neighbor when it comes to abortions), they have to get even more of a rush by taking the culture wars even farther--to the absolute detriment of Texans.  The minimum requirement for a governor should be that the person is actually interested in governance, not stoking culture wars, or what's more likely, coming in 10th in the 2024 Republican presidential primary.  What a waste, and we're just along for the ride.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, august948 said:

Is Texas getting more federal money to directly offset the additional costs to state and local governments?  That seems to be Abbots point in this (besides the political spectacle)

The federal money I was talking about was the kind cities and states get for residents.  School funding, and things like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, august948 said:

Saw this and just couldn't help myself...

i-prefer-the-salsa-made-in-new-york-city

Well, Augie, you do have a little 5 year old boy in you, I mean with the toy gun fetish and all. So I’m not surprised that the above reference to a 30-year old hot sauce commercial gives you the gigglies. After all, it’s the second time you’ve indirectly referenced it today. 

What I am surprised about, however, is that the meme creator spelled surprise with the first “R,” which puts them a rung or two above the average Republican these days. They can’t spell O’Rourke correctly, though, which is totally ironic given the “I’m not surprised” comment. So I place the education somewhere around the 7th-8th grade level. (Or maybe homeschooled?) Regardless, definitely seems qualified to write for one of @Blue Dogs favorite political tabloids. Color me … not surprised. “Stupid is as stupid does,” I believe is a contemporary enough turn of phrase for “Get a rope.”

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/15/2022 at 5:20 PM, Blue Dogs said:

Like I've said before: Abbott's getting reelected in a massive landslide victory on November 8th:

1393177187_GOPWAVE!.png.5d475b890d0616b5f60777eeadd687cc.png

It's interesting what happens when you put the above map of party preference by county next to the below map of population density (ie, where all the people live) by county.

 

Tex pop density.jpg

Edited by Reefmonkey
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

It's interesting what happens when you put the above map of party preference by county next to the below map of population density (ie, where all the people live) by county.

 

Tex pop density.jpg

Now there’s the systems thinking I was expecting! 👍 But kind of mean, there, @Reefmonkey showing the population densities in shades of red and Harris County being solid red. It’s definitely going to confuse the poor chap! 🤣

In, other news, our illustrious Governor Hot Wheels, in a typical display of true crisis leadership, said today “On any given weekend more people get killed in Chicago than we have schools in Texas, so therefore gun control is not an option.”

I mean, I guess if Dubya said it I guess it would’ve been entertaining, but it’s almost like Wheelz is being just a tad bit disingenuous? And why is it always Chicago? Hmmmm …

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Now there’s the systems thinking I was expecting! 👍 But kind of mean, there, @Reefmonkey showing the population densities in shades of red and Harris County being solid red. It’s definitely going to confuse the poor chap! 🤣

In, other news, our illustrious Governor Hot Wheels, in a typical display of true crisis leadership, said today “On any given weekend more people get killed in Chicago than we have schools in Texas, so therefore gun control is not an option.”

I mean, I guess if Dubya said it I guess it would’ve been entertaining, but it’s almost like Wheelz is being just a tad bit disingenuous? And why is it always Chicago? Hmmmm …

Not sure what is disingenuous about opposition to gun control by the governor (Hot Wheelz?)  I'm quite sure he doesn't consider gun controls an option.  As for Chicago, that has been the go-to example for failed liberal leadership in recent years.  Chicago has gun controls and yet they aren't any safer.  You can make the argument that part of that is because criminals ignore the laws and law-abiding citizens obey them.  Imposing gun controls has the effect disarming the good guys while not disarming the bad guys, and perhaps encouraging them.  Thus it is not a real option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, august948 said:

Not sure what is disingenuous about opposition to gun control by the governor (Hot Wheelz?)  I'm quite sure he doesn't consider gun controls an option.  As for Chicago, that has been the go-to example for failed liberal leadership in recent years.  Chicago has gun controls and yet they aren't any safer.  You can make the argument that part of that is because criminals ignore the laws and law-abiding citizens obey them.  Imposing gun controls has the effect disarming the good guys while not disarming the bad guys, and perhaps encouraging them.  Thus it is not a real option.

You see, Augie, I don’t agree with your logic, but at least you presented some. It’s why I think, even though we disagree on a lot politically, you are a sensible and thoughtful guy, not full on whack-o like others. The Guv just race-baited, plain and simple. Only the latest in the long list of disqualifiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no fan of Abbott by any means, but can we please maintain a standard in this forum that we don’t make derogatory comments about someone that target their disability (ie. calling Abbott “Governor Hotwheelz”)? Even when directed at one particular person, such comments demean all people with disabilities. @editor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Reefmonkey said:

I am no fan of Abbott by any means, but can we please maintain a standard in this forum that we don’t make derogatory comments about someone that target their disability (ie. calling Abbott “Governor Hotwheelz”)? Even when directed at one particular person, such comments demean all people with disabilities. @editor

People who have consistently shown they have zero empathy are deserving of the same.

(And we both know where this is coming from … those damned bruises… 🙄)

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I made a general statement so as not to call you out specifically, with the hope that a non confrontational appeal to decency and consideration for other disabled people not named Greg Abbott might appeal to your better angels. But yes, people who habitually fire off personal insults and derogatory comments usually do it because they have a lot of bruises; I’m trying to be compassionate  about yours. 

Edited by Reefmonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • The title was changed to TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) running For Reelection In 2022

From the files of batflurf crazy . . . @august948 and I have talked back and forth on other threads about the risks involved to the economy if the state government continues to take such radical turns.  (In short, he doesn't think it's a real problem.)  I just don't see how something like this would be conducive to Texas continuing to be a place where businesses overwhelmingly choose to relocate.  It should be no surprise who'd be running the state in the fever dream of these manchild AR15-toting revolutionaries (spoiler alert--it's themselves . . . shocker!), and I challenge anyone to describe the circumstances under which being under such leadership would result in anything positive for the vast majority of Texans.  Seriously, what message does this send to the rest of the country or, better yet, the world?  Sadly, I fear the GOP has fully opened Pandora's Box by giving the time of day to these nutcases.

Texas secession from the U.S. — GOP wants Texans to vote on it (houstonchronicle.com)

Edited by mattyt36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

“Best Governor in Texas History” as I have heard on here

or

”It Could Have Been Worse”?

Hopefully people wake up and realize that the current Oppositional Defiant Disorder (i.e., “Lib Owning”) style of politics is not a path to anything greater or grander, and could very well be a path to disaster. Hello Mississippi!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...