Read and beware!! Spread the word!

[Stumpy]

I love Texas, but if this place goes liberal it's not out of the question for me to look to Montana or Wyoming... But I don't want to have that choice forced on me, so we need to combat this liberal talk. Liberal and Texas shouldn't even be used in the same sentence unless it's "kick that commie liberal out of Texas"

Ditto.

 

[Big Dipper]

A WSJ article on this topic. Well worth reading!

Deep in the Red of Texas, Republicans Fight the Blues - WSJ.com

 

[Odiferous]

Crap...and I moved here from Maryland...a couple of guys made the point that heavily-liberal cities pretty much overwhelm conservatives in the rest of the state. In Maryland, one city and two counties rule the rest of the state (26 counties). Maryland is also heavily gerrymandered, with just one Republican representative in Congress.

I learned when I moved here that my neighborhood (Alamo Ranch) is part of a congressional district that extends into the city - one of the Castro girls is now my rep. in Congress.

 

[dussandr]

It was only 20 years ago we had a Democrat Governor, Ann Richards, and the old gal was tough, certainly no liberal, then in '94 Gee-Dub was given the seat*. So a blue Texas is nothing new.

*His victory was due in no small part to the Texas Democrats support of Clintons Crime Bill, which also contained gun control measures. It cost Jack Brooks his job, and other Texas Politicians theirs, too. We've been Red ever since.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Ann Richards was as liberal as they come and her stint as governor is the single biggest reason the Democrats haven't won a single statewide office in 20 years.

 

[GrandpaOf18]

The issue we have, is that the large cities are getting more populated, and the rural areas are getting less populated. As this progresses, then the large cities (blue) will have a greater influence over the rural areas (red) on statewide and national elections.

 

[Shorts]

The issue we have, is that the large cities are getting more populated, and the rural areas are getting less populated. As this progresses, then the large cities (blue) will have a greater influence over the rural areas (red) on statewide and national elections.

Absolutely. Elections the last few cycles seem to be urban vs rural ways of life. Sadly the urban policies will blanket and suppress everybody no matter how far out and rural people try to go if laws go blue al la state legislature. Example? Colorado.

 

[mikeofcontex]

After Reagan... Bush 1 &2, Dole, McCain, Romney... how do you sell that to anyone? All completely statists!

 

[kusai]

We all know the problem, ​ but whats the solution ? all the calling,email, petitions and crap really do not work that much and have little to no effect. Emotional force is getting greater than factual and practical things to look at. Media is a two headed snake, financial institutions are kissing the feets of commie masters.
Seriously I hope the time does not come when everyone realizes that they are disarmed, helpless and enslaved.

 

[mikeofcontex]

Good questions do matter. Rand Paul's filibuster questioning the executive use of power over a non-threatening citizen caused many to think. The tension that Cruz had with Feinstein questioning whether the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments should be applied using the same logic was very good for teaching. We must wake up and be interested in more than Jwow, snookie, Justin "beaver", etc. and spend some time understanding what the founders were attempting. When questioned about what have you given us, one responded, "a republic if you can keep it." Rush's "low information voter" doesn't understand the difference between a republic and a democracy. "Shall not be infringed" is not just 4 words hung on the end of a sentence. They mean something. That they are used in the 2nd and no where else emphasizes their meaning. The 10th amendment sums up the design of the whole thing. We're giving you a specific little bit and reserve the rest to ourselves. The negotiation should not be to ADD anything to the already implemented infringements, but we should be calmly and coldly demanding that the GCA of 1968 be repealed and all paper or electronic 4473's be destroyed. The next time they bring it up, we should talk about repealing what was done in '29 or '34 (I'm not a historian).

 

[cbigclarke]

All you need is a conservative to run as a Dem. in the cities. Then govern as a conservative. The low information voter isnt smart enough to know the difference. As long as they see a D after the name they'll push the button.

 

[mikeofcontex]

Something like this... The Distinguished Gentleman (1992) - IMDb A very distinguished gentleman...

 

[pinoyinus]

I do agree that we all know the problem. And given how the laws and the media are stacked against us, I don't think there's any way out. The whole country turning blue is inevitable. But before we go on to solutions let's look at where we are. I mentioned that the laws and the media are stacked against us. I guess the media part needs no explanation as we can see how the main-stream media operates. They've practically become a propaganda arm of the democratic party. As for the laws, they were designed that way by the founding fathers and it was predicated on having a voting population with high moral standards. We used to have that but not anymore. What we have is an electorate that constantly votes for its self interest - community, county, state and country - all be damned. All that matters is "what's in it for me?". And that's the main reason why we will never get a majority of the Hispanic vote. Hispanics will vote for the party that will allow them to bring in their families and extended families into America and have them share in the democrat loot (funded by tax collections and borrowings). The other minority groups also vote democrat but most are due to ignorance. Most immigrants do not have a full understanding of the American culture and form of govt. Most of them do not understand that our rights are given to us by a Creator - not by the govt. We simply allow govt. to have certain powers, and that the power of the Federal govt. is supposed to be limited to what is enumerated in the constitution. Whatever is not enumerated is reserved to the states and are retained by the citizens themselves. 9 out of 10 immigrants do not understand this concept and yet they are accepted as US citizens. With an ignorant immigrant population and an even more ignorant voting population coming from our public school system, the democrats are able to make people believe in their slogan-based politics (the kind of politics that doesn't allow any real study of issues or debate). One of the solutions is to change voting laws so that only those who pay taxes get to vote. A lot of people may disagree but I see it as practical. Govt. is a net cost to its citizens. It doesn't create wealth. To the contrary, govt. consumes wealth. If you're not contributing to the funds that pay for the cost of govt., then why should you have a say on what govt. does? The rich and the poor still get their votes counted as one vote per person. But if you don't pay taxes, then no vote. It would also be simple to implement. Come election time, bring in your last 2 years of income tax returns. I do understand that this would be a tough sell simply because the ones who will approve of it are the very same electorate that we have now. And that's why I think we're all doomed. Another saving scenario is if TX will secede from the union and invite like-minded states to form a new union and have a new constitutional convention where all these un-popular but sensible laws can be adopted. In a new constitution, we need laws that protect its own citizens from an ill-motivated electorate and puts more priority on the sanctity of the ballot. Outside of that, only God can save us.

 

[stdreb27]

The problem isn't so much the people transplanting from other states, the problem is that the Republican party can't sell their message to Hispanic voters. Hispanics represent the fastest growing demographic group in Texas, and they vote for Democrats by a large margin. Republicans have a problem: they are lousy salesmen. They would market sushi as 'Raw Dead Fish'. They talk about reaching out to Hispanics and other groups, but they just can't pull it off.

There should be parts of the Republican message that resonate with Hispanics. Values issues such as opposing abortion and gay marriage should be an easy sell since the majority of Hispanics are Catholic; they've been taught from an early age that these things are wrong according to the church. Even the hot-button issue of immigration doesn't necessarily have to work against Republicans when talking to Hispanics. Why should Hispanics who are legal citizens in this country want money taken from them to pay for benefits that go to people who come across the border illegally and 'cut in line' for government handouts? For the most part, Hispanics understand the value of hard work - a core belief of conservatism.

People like Ted Cruz are the future of the Republican party in states like ours with large Hispanic populations. We just don't have enough like him yet.

I'd put a slight twist on it, it isn't that the republicans aren't reaching out to Hispanics, it's that they aren't articulating conservatism.

 

[pinoyinus]

I'd put a slight twist on it, it isn't that the republicans aren't reaching out to Hispanics, it's that they aren't articulating conservatism.

There is an interesting article about the Hispanic vote and why it is overwhelmingly democrat - Super-Economy: Why Hispanics are Natural Democrats and what the GOP can do about it.

In this article, it states that Hispanics have low average income. Although they work hard, working hard and being well-off are not the same thing. The article also states:

"... Why do Hispanics vote Democrat? The main reason is that Hispanics on average earn far less than Whites (henceforth "Whites" refers to non-Hispanic Whites). It is simply not in Hispanic material self-interests to vote for the party of limited government."

 

[stdreb27]

There is an interesting article about the Hispanic vote and why it is overwhelmingly democrat - Super-Economy: Why Hispanics are Natural Democrats and what the GOP can do about it.

In this article, it states that Hispanics have low average income. Although they work hard, working hard and being well-off are not the same thing. The article also states:

"... Why do Hispanics vote Democrat? The main reason is that Hispanics on average earn far less than Whites (henceforth "Whites" refers to non-Hispanic Whites). It is simply not in Hispanic material self-interests to vote for the party of limited government."

Yeah, I've read that, but my point is, people can be persuaded that limited government and self determination are better for everyone. And the republicans aren't doing that...

 

[inceptor]

Yeah, I've read that, but my point is, people can be persuaded that limited government and self determination are better for everyone. And the republicans aren't doing that...

Only the dems seem to have that down.

I wish we could have a viable alternative to the 2 party's we have now but it's not going to happen without some major changes. The Libertarian Party has a lot of good idea's like limited govt but the drug thing is a major part of their platform and the majority are not willing to go along with that.

 

[Shorts]

Speaking of the rural vs urban culture clash, here's an article: Iowa Fright: Obama Says If Michelle Lived There, She'd 'Probably Want a Gun, Too' | CNS News


Get the facts, Obama said: "We're not proposing a gun registration system; we're proposing background checks for criminals."

The response to this statement and others like it. Background checks, a physical copy of the 4473 remains on file with an FFL and stored for up to 20yrs. This leaves a papertrail. Mr Obama, you are an educated man. Don't pretend to be dumb about how paper trails work. The arm that is tied to those 4473s is the BATFE. And they can rattle cages if and when they see fit. Then it becomes common citizen against the US Govt. Mr Obama, when you say "we're not proposing a gun registration system" I believe you. You're too smart to propose such a thing. You are not dumb enough to not know how to work a system. Does the Senator Alice Palmer ring a bell? If not, it should.

 

[Greg_TX]

The response to this statement and others like it. Background checks, a physical copy of the 4473 remains on file with an FFL and stored for up to 20yrs. This leaves a papertrail. Mr Obama, you are an educated man. Don't pretend to be dumb about how paper trails work. The arm that is tied to those 4473s is the BATFE. And they can rattle cages if and when they see fit. Then it becomes common citizen against the US Govt. Mr Obama, when you say "we're not proposing a gun registration system" I believe you. You're too smart to propose such a thing. You are not dumb enough to not know how to work a system. Does the Senator Alice Palmer ring a bell? If not, it should.

Exactly right. Over time, the 4473 becomes a de-facto form of registration when everyone is required to go through an FFL to sell a firearm instead of FtF. Each time a gun changes hands another 4473 gets attached to it, with all the personal info of the buyer(s). When you add in criminal penalties for failing to report a lost or stolen gun, then someone could be presumed to have sold it illegally if they cannot account for it and there's no subsequent 4473 to validate that they legally sold it. How much of a stretch would it be to imagine that the laws will then change regarding how the 4473s are stored and who keeps them? Closing the individual sale "loophole" doesn't sound that bad to most people unless they think through how it would have to be done and what the practical result would be. Well, they'll be fine with it until they find their name and address published by a newspaper, like what happened in NY not long ago - that's what registration can lead to.

 

[TheDan]

"I don't know how to use paragraphs."

Back in the day only property owners could vote. That would be a simpler solution and I would prefer that to checking people's taxes. I'm not really sure either is morally right, however.

Perhaps one shouldn't be allowed to vote if they are on government assistance, but again I feel that might be ethically dubious. Today there are so many people on government assistance, it would be difficult to draw the line. Would "government assistance" include people on disability? Social security? Lot to think about...