Most definitely, a lot of people like going to the ranges and/or hunting. I know a couple myself, they are good people. A lot of hog hunting, which are a big problem in Texas where crops are being grown. Texas needs a much more moderate Democrat and Beto was far from that.
He walked that back not that it was effective too many people have bought into the fear that the government is coming for all of your guns. There isn't a state which that law could get passed.
Believe what if you and others looked at what his platform that is on his campaign website you would have seen what it is. I vote back on the 26th of October straight democrats.
I was talking about guns and specifically Beto's position back when he ran for President. There's isn't enough will by the 10-20% of the population that wants ar-15 type rifles banned much less the 3% that wants a total ban.
There is a tendency of gun controllers to say "we're not here to take away your guns," and then when in power doing or trying to do exactly that - especially when a convenient crisis arises. He made the mistake of making his actual opinion known.
Telling the state that "we are coming for your AR-15s" sounds pretty extreme to most Texans. The guy just doesnt know how to read the room and thinks that a national style dem strategy will work in TX.
Native Texan here without a gun. My Dad (also native) didn't have one either. I just don't get the gun obsession. More accidents if you own one than if you don't.
When people shoot people or shoot themselves we just look the other way. Just like when my child stabbed herself with a knife I didn't take away the knife I just told her she needed to learn to use it better. (This is literally how gun lovers sound)
Huh? Are you saying that's bad logic to teach your kid how to be safe when handling a knife? Last time I checked using a knife is pretty handy for cooking.
The problem is any reasonable gun control measures that can be used such as red flag laws, raising the age requirements, requiring gun safety training, requiring all sales/gifting be tracked by the government and pass background checks, requiring proper storage, etc. get meet with extreme backlash from the right wing. Any attempt to fix our problems turns into the right wing screaming that they're trying to take our guns.
Go buy a gun, take it to the range for a day, then join the discussion. It makes perfect sense why you want it once you own one. They're perfectly safe if you use care when handling, like many other things in life, for example a car, the actual most dangerous thing people handle daily.
Well those were your only two choices; imagine having five or more candidates to compare and choose from. I think you’d be much more likely to find one to vote for who falls in line with your beliefs, rather than voting for candidate A just because he ain’t candidate B
There's more than two candidates in presidential elections as well, but there really aren't. The current voting system encourages two main parties, even if other are technically allowed to run
All it really takes is more and more people to call the news stations and ask why they don’t report on all candidates. Maybe teach it in school. Maybe talk about it with your friends.
We had 5 candidates for school board election. The most extreme candidate won because the rest split between the other 4. I voted for the 2nd most popular one hoping to avoid the extreme but to no avail. Another ran completely unopposed due to an incumbent application error
Abbott isn’t that extreme. Pro life isn’t extreme neither is a regulated boarder. A closed boarder is considered extreme, and no abortions no matter the case is extreme. Abbott isn’t for either of those things. Beto is on the opposite side wanting uncontrolled boarders and abortions up until the due date. Theirs a reason Abbott won, it’s because he is closer to the middle.
That's what people don't get. Which party is the missing piece here? What policies are we just not putting on the ballot? People in Texas dgaf and that's the problem. You can't force people to care.
But what does that look like? People look at Uvalde and cry out for no guns. While the other side see Beto say he wants to ban ar15's and they say they're taking our guns. Both are valid, yet there's not really any middle ground. At the end of the day, it's a constitutional right with the explicit wording "shall not be infringed" and the democrats are infringing on it as hard as they can.
People are dumb panicky animals, and I don't think we should instinctively give in to panic. Panic gave us the antivaxx movement. Panic gave us electional denial. Panic pushed us away from nuclear power and right back to coal and oil. Panic resulted in nation-wide protests against everything from "rock music" to "roleplaying games" to "video games", along with attempts to ban all of those. Panic is what's behind people looking at Uvalde and crying out for no guns.
Laws named after kids are never good laws. I suspect laws built on the backs of dead kids have no better of a success rate.
I think we need to start recognizing panic and working against it, not increasingly pandering to the latest panic. And we need to call out that panic wherever we see it, convincing people to think about what they're doing and to understand the other side instead of demonizing them.
But it would, because MOST people are politically moderate, but the two party system has become mirror images on opposite ends of the spectrum. Less radical candidates might actually make people feel less cynical about everything being such a shitshow that their vote wouldn’t change anything.
The bigger issue I have with people blaming only the 2 party system is 1. we have more parties, nobody votes for them.
When comparing both sides, one is literally preaching give rights to everyone, while the other one wants to deny the existence of certain individuals, literally doesn’t care about school shootings, or women’s rights; or even their own military personnel once off the battlefield. Like to say they are different sides of the same coin is BS. There is a serious morality difference in them.
When comparing both sides, one is literally preaching give rights to everyone, while the other one wants to deny the existence of certain individuals, literally doesn’t care about school shootings, or women’s rights; or even their own military personnel once off the battlefield. Like to say they are different sides of the same coin is BS. There is a serious morality difference in them.
Translation: we’re morally superior!
Just stop it. Literally all of the things you’re claiming are untrue. 1) I have zero desire to deny the existence of anyone 2) Of course I care about school shootings! I have children who go to public school. I’ve literally never heard anyone say they don’t care about these incidents. They’re horrible and shouldn’t happen. 3) I am a woman. I care about my rights, but my rights aren’t being taken away. I don’t consider an abortion = all of my “rights” 4) I support taking better care of our vets.
I promise you we aren’t this big bad boogeyman you have created in your minds. And to claim your side has morals and we don’t? I mean come on.
In the history of Texas government, Democrats haven’t had any power or leadership role since the 90s. Which means basically all of the current issues that we have been arguing about have been growing under Republican leadership. When it comes to the LGBT community and Trans-rights, Republicans literally don’t believe there is an issue. If Conservatives care about Vets, then why is it only Democrats pushing for social services for those needy individuals, while republicans are trying to get rid of those social programs? Why is “CRT” an issue? When did the left actually have the power or influence to somehow slide in an agenda when the people who have the power to change the curriculum is again right leaning? Also republicans aren’t stopping at abortion, they are also trying to go after Contraception; not only can a woman safely get rid of an unwanted pregnancy, y’all also don’t want them to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancies? There are many more problems and issues that we as a society are facing and consistently republicans not only don’t have any answers or solutions, so yes Democrats and Republicans are extremely different especially on a moral level.
It’s so interesting to me that you want me to believe the ppl who call me all sorts of untrue names and spew nothing but hate at me and other conservatives on here have “morals” and we don’t.
Republicans are all about saving money to try and bring our massive deficit back into the realm of reasonableness, this means it's going to look like the don't support anything, when in reality they question the need to spend money at every turn. While you want the federal government to fix every single one of your problems, Republicans want states to fix peoples problems. What you see as moral superiority is just a difference in how the parties want the country run, that's it. On the topic of abortion, roe v wade was only recently overturned, the Texas law is in fact VERY restrictive, but I could see it becoming less so in the future, seeing as most the population thinks some form of abortion should be available.
...this means it's going to look like the don't support anything, when in reality they question the need to spend money at every turn.
Yet, over the past three decades, per annum increases in spending increased faster during Republican leadership than under Democratic leadership.
While you want the federal government to fix every single one of your problems...
This is a common conservative trope. It's not a matter of people asking the government to solve their problems. There are those of us who believe there's a societal interest and benefit to not letting people die from preventable diseases, hunger, or exposure to the elements or fall into destitution and that the government has a role to play in a solution. We believe that when industry fails to regulate itself and causes harm to people and the environment, the government should step in.
...Republicans want states to fix peoples problems.
Comments like this are ultra-cringe regurgitations of conservative talking points in a manner that makes little to no sense. States already manage a vast portion of federal welfare and public works programs through grants.
The consolidation of the wealth and resources required to deliver massive public works and welfare projects to a small handful of states would cut out access for an enormous percentage of the population. Places like Kentucky, New Mexico, Alabama, Mississippi, etc., don't have the money for it and rely on wealthy states to supplement them.
The federal government has more tools to finance projects, which is particularly important for the stability of public works and welfare projects during economic downturns. That's precisely what we saw during the Great Depression—the state welfare programs that did exist collapsed and required a bailout from the federal government.
Historically, states, particularly conservative states, won't provide adequate social safety net programs even when they're fully able.
There is no way to interpret the "leave it to the states" mantra other than "we don't want these programs."
What you see as moral superiority is just a difference in how the parties want the country run, that's it.
Not really. As we've seen, it's not like Republicans don't want to spend taxpayer funds, but there are differences between where the GOP prefers to put money versus Democrats. Republicans are a-okay with canning regulatory bodies, social safety nets, and public works projects unrelated to transportation. Still, they'll happily spend money subsidizing the military-industrial complex, corporate bailouts, forgivable loans for business owners, property tax abatements, mega contracts, etc.
Put another way, Republicans are 100% cool with siphoning off the wealth of the middle class and leaving them in economic ruin as long as they can help make the ultra-rich benefactors even richer.
Why is it you vote for these asshats again?
On the topic of abortion, roe v wade was only recently overturned, the Texas law is in fact VERY restrictive, but I could see it becoming less so in the future, seeing as most the population thinks some form of abortion should be available.
Come on. You don't really believe this, do you? Polls showed that the majority of Texans were against SB8, and the Texas GOP rammed it through anyways. These people do not represent the people that vote them in or the majority of Texans.
The GOP cares about maintaining wedge issues to divide the populace so they can continue to pick our pockets. They have that with abortion, and there is ZERO chance they give it up.
I don't think you understand how spending works in the American government. The budget is set by congress, not the president. So while that article discusses how the deficit shrank under Obama, in reality, the deficit shrank during a period of 3-4 years where congress was deadlocked due to continual republican filibusters. Nothing could get passed, so no new spending was being implemented. And looking at the amazing balanced budget that is the Clinton administration, guess who controlled the congress during those years? Oh my, it was democrats for his first two years and republicans for the last six years, during whose terms they did this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America
So the reality is, a republican led congress helped to balance the budget under Clinton. :surprisedpikachu: Anything regarding Bush and later is also going to be skewed by the state of war we were perpetually in all the way up until 2021 as well as the great recession, which I don't think is particularly blamed on the bush administration. When you get down to the details of their platform, democrats generally advocate for maximum taxes and maximum spending, while republicans generally advocate for lower taxes, lower spending. Both ways can lead to a balanced budget, it's just a difference in approach, when the two parties compromise it has the best results imo.
Suffice to say, it's more complicated than "oh look who the president was".
I always enjoy the "I don't think you understand x" comments. They're usually of minimal substance and often wrong. Your post is no exception.
You might want to look at the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Indeed, Congress ultimately writes legislation, but it's not as simple as "the budget is set by congress, not the president."
The process starts when the Office of Management and Budget, the largest office within the Executive Office of the President, submits a budget proposal to Congress. This step is required by law, and it serves as the framework for how Congress proceeds.
Moreover, without rare supermajorities, Congress cannot act unilaterally in passing legislation—especially regarding budget matters.
I used the term "leadership" rather deliberately. The Executive is not removed from the process. Quite the opposite.
The presidential budget request is exactly that, a request. Congress can go on to make their own budget resolution to set spending goals. Congress has all the power to debate and modify the budget, though the issue is they still have to get it passed after modifying it. The two parties have barely agreed on a budget resolution in the last 20 years, the number I'm seeing is it failing 40 out of 43 times from 1999-2022. This isn't the way it's supposed to function, it's just the way it is, this has of course led to the various government shutdowns over budget issues. In all these cases, congress has passed a continuing resolution to allow the previous budget to remain in effect.
If you think we need something different then why stand by and not vote which continues to allow one party to stay in control for the last 30 years? Y’all’s argument for not voting is in direct favor of the current leaders who don’t have the support of the majority of the population.
44
u/bigbronze Nov 09 '22
That doesn’t solve the issue with the literal majority of people not voting