Greg Abbott

[Blue Dogs]

I wouldn't go so far as to say the next four years, however, Mr. Patrick's history seems to indicate that he may find governing to be a less engaging activity than rabble rousing (his real area of expertise) and that is a situation in which a politician may well find himself in hot water not entirely of his own creation, e.g. the late Presidency of Mr. G.W. Bush and his eminence grise Mr. Cheney.

Interesting to see how Patrick handles governing because he's already pissed off the 11 Democrats in the TX State Senate by only giving them just 2 out of 14 committee chairmanships (they went from 18 to 14).

[Blue Dogs]

The Houston Chronicle reported on Governor Abbott's appointments since taking office last year, the majority of those appointed to state boards & commissions have been predominately Anglo.

 

Three-fourths of Abbott's appointments have been Anglo, with more than 60% of them Anglo men. State Senator Kirk Watson (D-Austin), who serves on the Senate Nominations Committee that considers appointees for confirmation, praised "the respect for the process" being demonstrated by Abbott. However, Watson did say the issue of diversity needs serious attention.

 

72% of Abbott's appointments have been Anglo, 62% have been men & 45% are Anglo men, according to figures provided by Abbott's office. Next largest subgroup by ethnicity & gender is Anglo women at 27%. 15% have been Latino & 6% African American.

 

Abbott's predecessors--including fellow GOPers Rick Perry [R] & George W. Bush [R] & Dem Ann Richards (D)--also appointed a preponderance of Anglos & men. Richards had the lowest percentage of each, with 67% Anglo & 59% men.

 

75% of Perry's appointments were Anglo & 64% men; for Bush, the respective percentages were 77% & 63%.

 

Thoughts on the appointments made by Governor Abbott so far ?

A.) LOVE IT

 

B.) Hate It

 

C.) TBD

 

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Abbott-s-appointments-raise-some-brows-7253188.php

 

 

[LTAWACS]

Well that's because republicans are mostly racist. We all know that.

[intencity77]

Reporting this post as it has nothing to do with Houston "City Hall". There is an appropriate subsection for this topic, under "State Politics". 

[(Otto Mation)]

 

By Patrick Svitek, The Texas Tribune

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Texas Tribune) – Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is maintaining his largely neutral stance on Texas’ “bathroom bill” as pressure picks up on him to weigh in on the legislation.

“This is an alarming issue that is an obvious concern to a lot of Texans,” Abbott told The Texas Tribune on Thursday night while attending the Latino Inaugural Gala, an event celebrating Friday’s inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump. “I think it’s very important that legislators have the opportunity to listen to the concerns of their fellow Texans and consider the right remedies for those concerns.”

Abbott’s remarks came a day after House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, delivered a speech in which he expressed apprehension about the legislation and said Abbott’s opinion on it could make a “big difference.” 

The legislation, Senate Bill 6, would require transgender people to use bathrooms in public schools, government buildings and public universities based on “biological sex” and would pre-empt local nondiscrimination ordinances that allow transgender Texans to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has called the bill one of his top priorities of the legislative session.

When he was asked about the bill before it was released, Abbott took a wait-and-see approach, calling it a legitimate issue but saying more information was needed on it. He indicated Thursday night his posture toward legislation has not changed much in the two weeks since Patrick unveiled it alongside state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, the bill’s lead author.

Pressed on the issue Thursday night, Abbott again emphasized that it is worthy of attention, especially after President Barack Obama created a “new paradigm” by issuing guidelines last year allowing for public schools to accommodate transgender students.

“So you have parents of kids in schools who have legitimate concerns about this new situation that their children are put in that they’re going to have to address,” Abbott said. “Now, it may mean dealing with the administration in Washington, it may mean that we come up with some new laws, but what’s important is we find remedies that allay the concerns of these parents about the situation their children have been put in.” 

Abbott spoke with the Tribune as he left the gala, which was held by Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council. The event featured brief remarks from Abbott’s wife Cecilia, the first Hispanic first lady of Texas.

“Mr. Trump’s message of economic opportunity, optimism and security really resonates with all Americans,” she said, “and the Trump Hispanic Advisory Council was instrumental in helping Mr. Trump get that message out to the Hispanic population.”

Republicans have high hopes for Trump’s administration, and the Texas governor is no exception. He said he expects Trump to quickly issue executive orders aimed at Obama-era measures, and he is looking forward to swift action on a repeal of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

On border security, Abbott said he expects “stiffer enforcement” from the Trump administration, as well as some kind of fulfillment of Trump’s signature campaign promise to build a wall between the United States and Mexico.

“Because of the fencing that already exists, they can go into those areas that they already occupy and be able to build wall or build fencing or build whatever type of barrier that could stave off” illegal crossings, Abbott said. “But the real thing they could do immediately is really just an attitude change … where the Trump administration will say, ‘No more will we allow people in illegally.’”

Aside from SB 6, lawmakers in Austin are currently focused on the budget, with the two chambers releasing their versions Tuesday. The state’s cash crunch has some lawmakers raising the prospect that they will need to turn to Texas’ Rainy Day Fund to plug holes in the budget.

Asked what advice he has for lawmakers on the Rainy Day Fund this session, Abbott hinted it could come in his State of the State address, which is scheduled for Jan. 31.

“Stay tuned,” he said. “I’ll speak more about the budget in my State of the State. Let me not give away too many secrets right now.”

He noted that he has laid out criteria, both as a gubernatorial candidate and during last session, for when lawmakers should turn to the fund. Abbott has proposed tapping the fund only for the purposes of “meeting unforeseen shortfalls in revenue, reducing existing debt, one-time infrastructure payments and expenses related to state disasters.”

“I’m going to stick to that,” Abbott said.

For Abbott, the inauguration marks the beginning of the second half of his gubernatorial term. Talk of the 2018 races is already heating up in Austin, where Patrick recently held a news conference to try to finally quell speculation he wants to challenge Abbott. Earlier this week, Abbott’s campaign disclosed having $34.4 million in the bank, a massive stockpile for a re-election bid.

Asked Thursday if he is expecting any challengers for re-election, Abbott invoked the freak accident that left him partially paralyzed at age 26.

“As a guy who’s in a wheelchair because a tree fell on him while he was jogging, my attitude is you never know when a tree’s going to fall on you,” Abbott said. “So be prepared for whatever may come, and I’ll be prepared.”

As for his message to voters in 2018, Abbott suggested he would again focus on building GOP support in minority communities.

“I believe that the Republican Party stands for the principles and ideas of the people who are in this room, which is the Hispanic community, of the African-American community, of the Asian community,” Abbott said. “One of my goals during the next campaign cycle is to make sure that the values of the Republican Party connect with the values of every single group in the state of Texas.”

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/19/bathroom-bill-abbott-still-sees-issue-concerning-m/.

 

The post On “bathroom bill,” Greg Abbott staying neutral as pressure builds appeared first on Covering Katy News.

View the full article

[H.Ham]

Gov. Greg Abbott addressed a joint chamber of the Senate and the House when naming his four emergency state priorities Tuesday during his State of the State address. These emergency items include Child Protective Services, border security, ethics reform and calling a convention of states. Once a biennium, the state’s governor gathers members of the two chambers to deliver their priorities for the upcoming session. These emergency items can be addressed by legislation in the first 60 days of the session, or before March 10. Otherwise, all legislation is barred from being passed before this two-month mark. Here is what you […]

The post Texas Gov. Greg Abbott names 4 emergency items during Tuesday’s State of the State address appeared first on Community Impact Newspaper.

View the full article

[H.Ham]

On Monday, four county judges from some of the largest counties in Texas, collectively with a population of more than 6.5 million, told Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker of the House Joe Straus, they were opposed to the so-called “bathroom bill.” The judges who signed off on the letter include Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins, El Paso County Judge Veronica Escobar and Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt. The judges call Senate Bill 6 an unnecessary, discriminatory and economically damaging piece of legislation and say the state could miss out on billions in […]

The post 4 of Texas’ largest counties to Gov. Abbott: Say no to ‘bathroom bill’ appeared first on Community Impact Newspaper.

full articles

[Blue Dogs]

Good afternoon HAIF Maniacs. TX Governor Greg Abbott (R) & TX LG Dan Patrick (R) were both inaugurated for their respective 2nd terms this morning on the North Grounds of the TX State Capitol in downtown Austin. Following Governor Abbott's Oath of Office, the 19 Cannon Salute (which starts 1:04:19) is fired by the TX National Guard.

 

 

Following the Inauguration, there was a daylong BBQ luncheon held on the TX State Capitol Grounds & there will NOT be an Inaugural Parade.

 

Plus, several aides close to Governor Abbott believe he might be back for a 3rd term (if he does run again & is successful in 2022), he could become the 5th TX Governor to serve 3 terms following 4 of his predecessors:

 

1.) Allan Shivers (D): 37th Governor from July 11th, 1949 to January 15th, 1957: as LG, Shivers ascended to the Governorship upon the death of then-Governor Beauford Jester (D); elected to full 2-year term in 1950 & reelected in 1952 & 1954 before choosing not to seek reelection due to major political scandals in 1956.

 

2.) Price Daniel (D): 38th Governor from January 15th, 1957 to January 15th, 1963: elected in 1956; reelected in 1958 & again in 1960.

 

3.) John Bowden Connally (D): 39th Governor from January 15th, 1963 to January 21st, 1969: elected in 1962 & reelected in 1964 & 1966 before choosing not to seek reelection in 1968.

 

4.) Rick Perry (R): 47th Governor from December 21st, 2000 to January 20th, 2015: as LG, Perry ascended to the Governorship upon the resignation of then-Governor George W. Bush (R), who resigned in order to prepare for his Inauguration as the 43rd POTUS; elected to full 4-year term in 2002 & reelected in 2006 & 2010 before choosing to retire in 2014.

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/01/15/will-greg-abbott-back-third-term-national-aspirations

 

[Blue Dogs]

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

 

 

[Montrose1100]

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. 

[Blue Dogs]

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.

[august948]

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?

[Blue Dogs]

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

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

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

[mattyt36]

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 March 16, 2022 by mattyt36

[august948]

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.

[mattyt36]

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.

[august948]

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.

[mattyt36]

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 March 16, 2022 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

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 March 23, 2022 by mattyt36

[Ross]

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.

[mattyt36]

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 March 24, 2022 by mattyt36

[august948]

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.

[mattyt36]

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 March 27, 2022 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

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 March 27, 2022 by mattyt36

[Ross]

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?

[august948]

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 March 28, 2022 by august948

[mattyt36]

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 March 28, 2022 by mattyt36

[mattyt36]

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 March 28, 2022 by mattyt36

[august948]

3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

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).

[mattyt36]

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 March 28, 2022 by mattyt36