(10-31-2018 07:12 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 11:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I’d heard about these claims before, but have not read details. Did some googling to try and learn a bit about this and found this from KHOU:

Quote:However, because of the perceived conflict of interest, O’Rourke recused himself from several key votes on the project, according to city council minutes from 2006.
On top of that, the redevelopment plan never actually happened.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.khou.co...-602204646

So, Robert tried to use eminent domain to throw a bunch of poor people out of the barrio in favor of his rich father-in-law, got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, and backed down. Yes, that's the kind of paragon of ethics that I want representing me. How about you?

If we’re going off that scenario (again, I can’t read the NYTimes article which I bet is more in depth), it gives me pause. But since he ultimately did the right thing and recused himself from the matter, it is hard to have a big enough problem with it to make me want to vote for Cruz. The reality is not candidate is perfect, but so long as they do the right and ethical thing in the end, that’s what is most important.

Had he shown that he cared so little about ethics that, even when the conflict of interest was raised that he did not refuse himself, and he pushed forward with the eminent domain, then you bet my tune would be different.

But maybe there is info about how things transpired before he recused himself that would give me pause, but that darn paywall is keeping me from reading the article. I can try tomorrow though, I should get a whole new set of articles.

Considering every single article paints him as one of the main drivers in championing this, I hope that 'championing' or being the main ramrod to line his billionaire father's pockets (maybe indirectly his own) is not fine with you from a public official as long as they at the end dont vote for it.

Try the Texas Observer article linked to (written 11 years ago before Robert-mania) which paints just that picture.

NY Times goes into more detail, since O'Rourke's involvement is the focus. The Texas Observer article's focus isnt O'Rourke and he still gets plenty of spotlight.

When you actually go back into the El Paso Times reporting on the issue over the years, O'Rourke simply did not recuse himself from every vote *affecting* the plan.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...reddit.com

Young people vote is up 500 percent in Texas compared to 2014. Black and Hispanic early voting has doubled (although to be honest, that's not that impressive considering the early voting numbers in general).

I do feel pretty confident we're looking at most at about a 5 or 6 percent Cruz win. That alone would be pretty significant since no Republican win has been less than 10 percent since Lloyd Bentsen won the 1988 Senate race.

(10-31-2018 05:26 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...reddit.com

Young people vote is up 500 percent in Texas compared to 2014. Black and Hispanic early voting has doubled (although to be honest, that's not that impressive considering the early voting numbers in general).

I do feel pretty confident we're looking at most at about a 5 or 6 percent Cruz win. That alone would be pretty significant since no Republican win has been less than 10 percent since Lloyd Bentsen won the 1988 Senate race.

Cruz isn't farther ahead because he's Cruz, not because the Republicans are in any real danger of losing his seat to the Democrats. Even the people who vote for him don't like him.

(11-01-2018 10:19 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(10-31-2018 05:26 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...reddit.com

Young people vote is up 500 percent in Texas compared to 2014. Black and Hispanic early voting has doubled (although to be honest, that's not that impressive considering the early voting numbers in general).

I do feel pretty confident we're looking at most at about a 5 or 6 percent Cruz win. That alone would be pretty significant since no Republican win has been less than 10 percent since Lloyd Bentsen won the 1988 Senate race.

Cruz isn't farther ahead because he's Cruz, not because the Republicans are in any real danger of losing his seat to the Democrats. Even the people who vote for him don't like him.

yeah, if the choice is between an unlikable person who mostly backs good causes, or a likable guy who mostly backs wrong causes,, I must go with the unlikable guy. And did. But I would rather party with O'Rourke, as long as i can do the driving.

Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

Using a duplicitous claim of asylum seems copacetic you. Got it.

What other forms of lying do you condone and wish to have happen to obtain a result you want?

By the way, they are not 'showing up at ports of entry' mind you. I guess the fact that they dont present themselves to La Migra at the checkpoint and make this claim, and only make this claim after they have been nabbed doing the 40 meter Rio Regatta means nothing to you. Again, very illuminating.

I am glad to know that every singe point along the continuous border is now a 'port of entry' to you. Very unique perspective. Another example in the annals of Lad-definition?

(11-01-2018 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

I also like the term from Lad -- "the *caravan* is trying to use a legal form of entry". Kind of presages his disposition to ascribe that right to an amorphous rabble of personage....

(11-01-2018 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

Um, there is a word that comes three words later that addresses your comment.

As O'Rourke says, he wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.

I guess you didn't catch that?

So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

(11-01-2018 01:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

Quote:“Beto does not yet have a statement about the migrant caravan. Stay tuned,” an email from the campaign stated. “In general, Beto believes that immigrants help our state and country grow strong, safe, and prosperous and wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

Using a duplicitous claim of asylum seems copacetic you. Got it.

What other forms of lying do you condone and wish to have happen to obtain a result you want?

By the way, they are not 'showing up at ports of entry' mind you. I guess the fact that they dont present themselves to La Migra at the checkpoint and make this claim, and only make this claim after they have been nabbed doing the 40 meter Rio Regatta means nothing to you. Again, very illuminating.

I am glad to know that every singe point along the continuous border is now a 'port of entry' to you. Very unique perspective. Another example in the annals of Lad-definition?

I haven't seen any indications that these carvans, or any others, have attempted mass crossings as you suggest. Just that they are attempting to make it to ports of entry to claim asylum. I never once stated that every single point along the border was a port of entry - point out where I did that. Your continued insistence to put words in my mouth is tiresome.

Honestly, I'd prefer that immigrants not abuse the asylum system if they absolutely know they won't be granted asylum. But I have no problem with them using a legal immigration method (seeking asylum) and dealing with the consequences once a decision has been made. That's why I advocate for more immigration judges, so that we can more quickly weed through the BS.

From a practical stand point, how can we stop people from making dubious claims of asylum? It's not copacetic to me, it as you suggest. But it's also not copacetic to me calling the caravans that explicitly state they're trying to gain entry through a lawful manner (asylum) as trying to enter illegally.

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

I guess you surmise all the members of the caravan have valid visas. Got it. Say no more.

(11-01-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 10:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Brave Sir Robert, chapter 18.

In response to a query on the caravan:

I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

Um, there is a word that comes three words later that addresses your comment.

As O'Rourke says, he wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.

I guess you didn't catch that?

Nope, i saw that. I also saw that he did not limit that lawful path to lawful immigrants. That's the part you missed. Twice.

(11-01-2018 02:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

I guess you surmise all the members of the caravan have valid visas. Got it. Say no more.

Huh, news to me that you need a visa to claim asylum.

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

(11-01-2018 02:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 01:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess he means lawful, after they gain unlawful entry.

The caravan is trying to use a lawful form of entry - asylum.

You may disagree with their methods to obtain it (and if they lie or don't meet the criteria a process exists to deport them), but they are using a lawful method to enter this country - showing up at our ports of entry and claiming asylum.

If you want to make that an illegal immigration route, then advocate for that. But don't suggest that it is an illegal form of entry.

I was referring to this statement by Mr. O'Rourke:

"...wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.”

As usual from the left, no distinction is made between lawful and unlawful immigrants.

didn't catch that? Shocker.

Um, there is a word that comes three words later that addresses your comment.

As O'Rourke says, he wants to ensure that immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship.

I guess you didn't catch that?

Nope, i saw that. I also saw that he did not limit that lawful path to lawful immigrants. That's the part you missed. Twice.

What US immigration laws have the immigrants that are traveling in caravans through Central America broken?

What makes them an illegal immigrant?

(11-01-2018 02:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-01-2018 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you admit that Robert supports a position to "ensure that ALL ILLEGAL immigrants have a lawful, earned path to citizenship", correct? Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Seems you have more cojones than Brave Sir Robert. Spanish phrase intended there....

How are immigrants who have not yet entered the US illegal immigrants????

How are they immigrants if they have not yet entered the US?

Because they have left their home with the intention of immigrating to the US...