Texas Political landscape going into the 2020 elections (unemployment, gated)

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by tcualum

You can be for some guns but not be for all guns. The second amendment mentions a well-regulated militia being the purpose for allowing gun ownership to not be abridged. Most gun owners I know aren't in any sort of militia, well regulated or otherwise.

Courts have long ruled the argument you just made as bogus. The intent of the framers clearly lays out an individual right to bear arms.

[happly retired]

Originally Posted by EDS_

The AR and AK in semi-automatic are not assault rifles*.Also you need to think through that culture of death nonsense, your claim is embarrassingly naive as numerically proven every year. Think about it.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle


*No service member would choose to go into battle with either in semi-auto. There are ~15,000,000 ARs in private hands in The US. Statistically all rifles combined account for a very small percentage of US gun crime. Most years more people are killed during fist fights than with all rifle types combined.

Originally Posted by H'ton

Illegals...It's actually the right that supports illegals more than the left. they publicly state the opposite but look at what is happening. The cheap labor is needed. the leaders of Texas AT ANY TIME could have made it that much harder to hire illegals within the state borders but then what would happen to the cheap construction labor, or cheap farming labor, etc. I've been on big construction sites in both Red and Blue states..and guess which one had more illegals on the project and guess which ones had more Americans.

Regulations on Business- I'm not for constraining the capitalistic model but I'm for restrictions making sure we get quality. Are you saying you don't mind eating fake food? breathing in polluted air? living or working in building with no restrictions to protect you in the event of an emergency? I could go on and on...we aren't the wild west..restrictions actually help our quality of life.

The left actually has made peoples lives better in terms of many things. But so has the right but it is the constant push-pull that keeps us left of center and then back to right-of center.

here we go the typical leftist response that states the conservatives and right want dirty air, dirty water and grandma eating dogfood - nice try but that wont fly anymore

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by happly retired

here we go the typical leftist response that states the conservatives and right want dirty air, dirty water and grandma eating dogfood - nice try but that wont fly anymore

H'ton was right about one thing: Conservatives love illegal immigrants but pretend they hate them.

If they truly did, they would be in favor of punishing businesses who hire them. They want to instead go after the individual person like trying to kill an ant mound one ant at a time. But Conservatives love big business and big business loves cheap labor. Cheap labor comes in the form of illegal immigrants.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

H'ton was right about one thing: Conservatives love illegal immigrants but pretend they hate them.

If they truly did, they would be in favor of punishing businesses who hire them. They want to instead go after the individual person like trying to kill an ant mound one ant at a time. But Conservatives love big business and big business loves cheap labor. Cheap labor comes in the form of illegal immigrants.

Negative you are both wrong at least a good bit. First, I don't hate or dislike anyone without cause. For decades a significant preponderance of conservatives have been against illegal entry into the country. For me it's simply a cost thing. There is no rational accounting for the costs imposed by illegals that tilts in their favor.........lower end of the wage scale debasement, cash remittances, mandated educational costs, crime, endless medical costs - disease burdens etc...........against the backdrop that vanishingly few illegal aliens are net positive taxpayers any year while in The US.


Further, many companies employing a good number of illegals are controlled by left wingers. Although dead Don Tyson was a great example. An acquaintance in Dallas indirectly employees hundreds of illegals - he's a life long and very, very loud democrat.


FWIIW a growing number of liberals are re-thinking soft approaches to legal and illegal immigration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/o...democrats.html

_______________

To be very clear. I'm in favor of significantly punishing businesses that hire illegals.

[Foamposite]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Negative you are both wrong at least a good bit. First, I don't hate or dislike anyone without cause. For decades a significant preponderance of conservatives have been against illegal entry into the country. For me it's simply a cost thing. There is no rational accounting for the costs imposed by illegals that tilts in their favor.........lower end of the wage scale debasement, cash remittances, mandated educational costs, crime, endless medical costs - disease burdens etc...........against the backdrop that vanishingly few illegal aliens are net positive taxpayers any year while in The US.


Further, many companies employing a good number of illegals are controlled by left wingers. Although dead Don Tyson was a great example. An acquaintance in Dallas indirectly employees hundreds of illegals - he's a life long and very, very loud democrat.


FWIIW a growing number of liberals are re-thinking soft approaches to legal and illegal immigration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/o...democrats.html

_______________

To be very clear. I'm in favor of significantly punishing businesses that hire illegals.

Being for anything but unrestricted immigration is not allowed on the left anymore

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by tcualum

The second amendment mentions a well-regulated militia being the purpose for allowing gun ownership to not be abridged. Most gun owners I know aren't in any sort of militia, well regulated or otherwise.

Here's an article about a protest earlier in the week in a small town east of Cincinnati:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rotesters.html

(Before any of you Faux News people call this paper 'liberal media', this is the Tory (Conservative) newspaper in the U.K.)

Sunday's demonstration was planned by Bethel's Solidarity with Black Lives group as a peaceful affair and was expected to draw in around 25 people, showing solidarity with the movement to end racial inequality.

However, it amassed to around 800 people as 80 protesters found themselves confronted by around 700 members of motorcycle groups, Back the Blue organizations and Second Amendment advocates.

The counterprotesters - many of whom are believed to have come from out of town - were pictured with rifles, bats and clubs slung over their shoulders while some wore Donald Trump t-shirts.

They yelled 'Blue lives matter!' and 'All lives matter!' and allegedly threatened the protesters and ripped Black Lives Matter signs out of their hands.

Around 250 motorcycles were used to take over the protest area, forcing out the demonstrators.

The judicial activists on the conservative Roberts court conclude that the 2A does include this group of boogaloos as a "well-regulated" militia.

2A activists say that the Constitution protects these acts of gun-toting terrorism and intimidation. Even overthrowing the Federal government is a protected 2A activity according to them!

A man wearing a confederate flag bandanna then comes up behind him and punches him in the back of the head.

At least one cop is seen both in front of the victim and behind him - yet neither move in to arrest the attacker or to protect the victim who has just been assaulted.

Don't tell me the police are in on it too! ("Back the Blue"!?!) If this was a conservative protest being invaded, the policemen would have taken action--no question.

Large swathes of the counterprotesters were thought to have come from out of town, with motorbikes seen carrying out-of-state license plates both days.

Will Bill Barr press federal charges of interstate terrorism on these boogaloos, the same way he intimidated Floyd protestors a few weeks ago?

[tcualum]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

H'ton was right about one thing: Conservatives love illegal immigrants but pretend they hate them.

If they truly did, they would be in favor of punishing businesses who hire them. They want to instead go after the individual person like trying to kill an ant mound one ant at a time. But Conservatives love big business and big business loves cheap labor. Cheap labor comes in the form of illegal immigrants.

I know way too many conservatives who complain about illegal immigration but aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is. Unlike me, they don't find out whether the people who mow their lawns and clean their houses are legal or not and they certainly aren't willing to pay more for produce that is picked by people who are here legally.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by tcualum

I know way too many conservatives who complain about illegal immigration but aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is. Unlike me, they don't find out whether the people who mow their lawns and clean their houses are legal or not and they certainly aren't willing to pay more for produce that is picked by people who are here legally.

Sure that's right only conservatives hire illegal aliens. Come on.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Sure that's right only conservatives hire illegal aliens. Come on.

The point is not that only conservatives hire illegals (and yes, I am comfortable using that term), but that conservatives talk a good game about eliminating them but then become part of the problem by hiring them to save money, even for personal stuff outside of business. Liberals, of course, have allowed "eliminate ICE" talk to enter their dialogue, and should just be excluded from meaningful discussion.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

The point is not that only conservatives hire illegals (and yes, I am comfortable using that term), but that conservatives talk a good game about eliminating them but then become part of the problem by hiring them to save money, even for personal stuff outside of business. Liberals, of course, have allowed "eliminate ICE" talk to enter their dialogue, and should just be excluded from meaningful discussion.

There's no question that some conservatives are hypocritical around this issue. I say so what? And using your point people on the other side throw this kind of thing out there to shut down meaningful discussion. Most on the left are fantastically adept at ending reasonable discussion around tough topics as a political tool.