Wow. Guess next he'll want to bring back forcing people to wear stars of david and crosses on their clothing, you know, to 'identify' themselves. So, where does Beto propose to build his "work" camps? I suspect that announcement will be part of his economic platform.

(10-12-2019 10:29 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Wow. Guess next he'll want to bring back forcing people to wear stars of david and crosses on their clothing, you know, to 'identify' themselves. So, where does Beto propose to build his "work" camps? I suspect that announcement will be part of his economic platform.

Beto "little stalin" o rourke

(10-11-2019 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 04:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  How did this guy get 48.3% of the vote when he ran for US Senator in Texas?

Because Ted Cruz ran a campaign that was almost Claytie Williams bad.

What was the worst gaffe that Cruz made? What issues did he ignore that he should’ve emphasized? Or vice versa.

(10-12-2019 11:37 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 04:32 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  How did this guy get 48.3% of the vote when he ran for US Senator in Texas?

Because Ted Cruz ran a campaign that was almost Claytie Williams bad.

What was the worst gaffe that Cruz made? What issues did he ignore that he should’ve emphasized? Or vice versa.

He didn't do much of anything. He sort of acted like he had it won, so why do anything?

I've heard that his internal polling always told him that he was ahead, and so he did very little and spent relatively little money so that republicans elsewhere could have more to campaign with, while democrats poured so much into Texas that they shortchanged other candidates elsewhere. That is about the only explanation that makes much sense.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...41484.html

"Apart from the legal radicalism espoused during the CNN forum, candidates also promoted a cultural ostracism and public condescension toward Americans who dare to subscribe to traditional beliefs on core issues of family and faith. When leading candidate Elizabeth Warren was queried about a hypothetical male religious voter who believes in traditional marriage, the Massachusetts senator remarked with clear snark that she would tell such a man to simply marry a woman “if you can find one.” Such patronizing elitism suggests that the Democrats have still learned little about Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral upset. Political correctness surely made Warren popular in the faculty lounge at Harvard, but it hardly appeals to working-class voters, especially in the upper Midwest where 2020 may well be decided.

In fact, a common theme among those Americans – the Obama-to-Trump swing voters who provided the electoral difference in 2016 – was a revulsion regarding the disrespect constantly showered upon them by politically correct coastal elites. Warren’s haughty rejoinder earned roars from the event’s invited leftist activists, but it clearly jeopardizes her odds of winning over the kind of Rust Belt voters who might cheer for high school football games on Friday night and pray in churches on Sunday morning. Moreover, her sarcasm exposes her own sharp disconnect from many millions of Americans – including many women, by the way -- who subscribe to the traditional marriage practices of the three great monotheistic faiths.

As for the audience at the CNN forum, their behavior also showcased an important reality. The “woke” leftist mob cannot be placated with anything short of total submission to their agenda. Even though the format and the candidates provided an hours-long expression of fealty to social engineering, the radicals still found reason to take umbrage. Numerous program interruptions and agitations from audience members encapsulated the true extremism of the social justice warrior movement. For these militants, legal gay marriage is hardly enough. After all, Donald Trump was the first candidate ever elevated to the presidency who supported same-sex marriage, and yet he is still persistently pilloried by these fanatics.

In 2019 America, our country has reached an overwhelming determination that consenting adults can pursue their private intimate lives as they wish. But such liberty is not enough for the intolerant liberal mob. Instead they demand not just the freedom to act as they like, but also the positive affirmation and approval of all citizens, most of all from conservative Christians. Unfortunately, there has been a swift devolution from “let us love whom we wish” to “endorse our drag queen story hour for kindergarteners...."”

Let me paraphrase BO's commentary:

"Hi My name is Beto O'Rourke... what do you need me to promise to you to get your vote" (fingers crossed behind back)

(10-12-2019 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 11:37 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Ted Cruz ran a campaign that was almost Claytie Williams bad.

What was the worst gaffe that Cruz made? What issues did he ignore that he should’ve emphasized? Or vice versa.

He didn't do much of anything. He sort of acted like he had it won, so why do anything?

I've heard that his internal polling always told him that he was ahead, and so he did very little and spent relatively little money so that republicans elsewhere could have more to campaign with, while democrats poured so much into Texas that they shortchanged other candidates elsewhere. That is about the only explanation that makes much sense.

That may be what happened, although from a distance, Cruz didn’t seem to be a passive candidate. And he seemed nothing at all like Claytie Williams.

May I please ask, do you agree with the suggestions I made up-thread, to explain O’Rourke’s “success” (higher % than usual for a Texas Dem)?

(10-14-2019 11:00 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 12:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 11:37 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 07:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Ted Cruz ran a campaign that was almost Claytie Williams bad.

What was the worst gaffe that Cruz made? What issues did he ignore that he should’ve emphasized? Or vice versa.

He didn't do much of anything. He sort of acted like he had it won, so why do anything?
I've heard that his internal polling always told him that he was ahead, and so he did very little and spent relatively little money so that republicans elsewhere could have more to campaign with, while democrats poured so much into Texas that they shortchanged other candidates elsewhere. That is about the only explanation that makes much sense.

That may be what happened, although from a distance, Cruz didn’t seem to be a passive candidate. And he seemed nothing at all like Claytie Williams.
May I please ask, do you agree with the suggestions I made up-thread, to explain O’Rourke’s “success” (higher % than usual for a Texas Dem)?

I think to some extent. I think the "blueing" of Texas is exaggerated a bit, but that may be because of my location. Montgomery County went for Trump 75-25 in 2016, and went for Cruz 75-25 in 2018. It's the fastest-growing county in the US, and it's not turning even slightly blue.

I think the biggest thing is that O'Rourke ran a campaign almost totally devoid of issues--every time he expressed an issue position his polls went down. So he just posted selfies of his toothy grin in all 256 counties and that was his campaign. And Cruz never smoked him out on issues.

(10-11-2019 12:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 11:54 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

Quote:"This extreme intolerance is un-American," Sasse said in a statement. "This bigoted nonsense would target a lot of sincere Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Leaders from both political parties have a duty to flatly condemn this attack on very basic American freedoms."

Good luck with that. O’Rourke is probably speaking for about 40-45% of the public on this.

Not all Democrats hate religion.

True. But some non-Democrats do, too. Add it all up... yeah I think you’re looking at about 40-45%.

I hope I’m wrong. But I think we are headed down some very dark paths in this country. I don’t see a lot of hope right now. We’ll see what happens.

The problem here is other. The issue is not should religious institutions be taxed. The problem is should those who don't ideologically line up with the political left be taxed. Don't ignore the distinction Beto is making here. Most mainline protestant churches already line up with the LGBQT positions. Therefore the direct attack is on those who still see themselves as free not to line up with what the political left tells them they should believe.

In Beto's remarks is contained a continued tax exemption for mainline churches who have caved on same sex marriage and the rest of the agenda. The target here are those who have not caved. So tax is to be used as a weapon against freedom of religious belief and affiliation.

There are many Americans on the left and right who think churches should be taxed. But I wonder what % of those people would, or could, support legislation that singled out churches to be taxed for refusing to go along with a political agenda. I bet you don't have 40 to 45% on that one!

I have no problem with taxing churches who don't give back a certain % of their income to helping the widows, orphans, poor, and sick. Way too many mainline denominations actually give less than 5% of their total offering into those kinds of ministries. They all claim to give a high % but when you break down the numbers those go to insurance and salary for clergy and grounds and buildings, into the same for missionaries and their housing, insurance and travel, and into property in general (vans, buses, etc.) They then categorize what we would call clergy support as actual ministry to the poor, when it is not.

But this is also true of secular bureaucratic organizations like The United Way and others.

We should have a much higher threshold for charities to be able to claim tax exempt status and 5% is way too low. And we should have a standard accounting procedure for determining and distinguishing operating, maintenance, and salary & insurance costs, from actual charity.

If you are a real charity then I'm all for tax exempt status. If you are a self serving entity in that more than say 75% of your income goes to perpetuate your entity then you should not.

But my distinction here is that you are committing the error of lumping what Beto is saying (which is specific to churches rejecting the LGBTQ agenda) into how Americans feel about taxing entities that they don't see providing enough charity. There's a whopping big difference in those two subsets.