Can Beto O’Rourke really beat Ted Cruz?

[G26ster]

vnp.jpg

your 4 older!

Yeah, I was 28 then and looked 18



But back to Beto vs. Cruz. Nothing gets done in congress unless there is a majority. Majorities are not gained by individuals from various parties voting on issues. Divided gov't doesn't work IMHO. All the votes for Perot did nothing but elect Clinton. It may not be what democracy is supposed to be, but majorities work, and majorities are not gained by cherry picking issues that suit an individual, or state. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. How do you get 60 votes unless a majority party is in control. The Dems stay glued together as a bloc, so how will a divided rest of the senate block anything they try to do. Look at Europe's past and present and all the divided gov'ts struggling to form majorities. Nothing gets done, and all they do is fight to no avail. I'm tired of voters who vote for what's best for them, rather than what's best for the country. I'm dropping my AARP membership because I'm tired of them telling me how I should vote for individuals solely because of their stance on Medicare and Social Security. Yes, I need those programs, but my country comes first!

[jason812]

That's great but both of your positions are significantly different than infoman's. I'm curious about what dem positions makes him want to vote dem when one of their primary positions is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and what this forum is about.

Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

To you perhaps a "non-issue" and "silly crap", but to me and others that believe as I do, these issues are important. My first and most important stand is on Gun Rights and the expanding of the same. Next are those issues that I find to be repugnant and against my beliefs. The only reason I chose gun rights first, is because that so far, most of those who are for gun rights also believe as I do.

If you want to take away my guns, chances are you fundamentally disagree with me about most everything else related to government.

The big problem with the Republican party is not enough Rhinos are kicked out during the primaries and we have to hold our noses to vote for them.

[mojo84]

That's great but both of your positions are significantly different than infoman's. I'm curious about what dem positions makes him want to vote dem when one of their primary positions is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and what this forum is about.

I understand your focus as it relates to that single issue on this forum, but the members of this forum are voting for candidates who will be voting on MANY issues that are affecting their lives in many ways for the next term and probably for many years to come. I'm 62years old and the political system in Texas, as well as the rest of the United States, has changed drastically in the last 16 years. I've had family members who served as Senators and Representatives in Austin throughout the 60's and into the 90's. During those years, and for many more prior to that era, we had some politicians who were "Statesman" and unfortunately, many others who were just there to see how much money and influence they could acquire. For most of the 20th century, the Democratic party was in control of the process. They were not left wing liberals--they were the same people that later had to switch to the Republican party if they wanted to stay in office. We had ONE Senator that was a Republican--John Tower and he held his office for many years. He was a "Statesman". The people of his district didn't vote for him because he was a Republican--they voted for him IN SPITE of it, because they were voting for the MAN not THE PARTY. During all of those years the Legislators worked together and were able to get things done because they could meet and discuss the pros and cons and find common ground that they could both agree on." You give a little here and we'll give a little there, and we can both get something done that benefits us all". Instead of having to simply oppose any bill proposed by the other party, which is what we have devolved to nowdays. The situation now puts the party in control of the votes. If a conscientious legislator having studied the issue thoroughly and reached the conclusion that Bill # xxxxxx, which his party supports, will hurt more people than it helps, or is designed to give a particular company or industry an unfair advantage that would allow them to profit at the expense of others unfairly and he refuses to vote for it, he will be called into the Lt. Governor's or the Speaker's office and chastised severely, and told that if he ever does that again, the party will find and fund someone else to defeat him in the upcoming election and that he will never be allowed to bring any bill to the floor for the remainder of his term. That will not be a "thinly veiled threat"--it will be done in very "strong" language. That is not the way a Democracy is supposed to operate. Yes, the majority does rule, but the people are supposed to be voting for the individual they believe will best serve THEM in their district. What we have wound up with now is legislators that cannot vote their conscience if it is in conflict with the party bosses wishes. Majority rule is not supposed to mean that you get to have everything your way, without considering how it affects ALL of your constituents. A good example is our two top State government officials campaigning on the fact that they refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage in Texas because we don't need more "handout programs". That money (100's of millions of $$) comes from federal tax dollars, not from our state budget. The citizens of Texas have ALREADY paid that money into the federal budget. The money IS being spent, but it's going to other states and the people of Texas are not getting anything for the money they paid in. Our Hospitals and Clinics are required to provide service for people whether they can pay or not, and the primary reason Texas has seen a number of Rural hospitals closing their doors in the last 2 years is because that tax money was previously being paid to them for Medicare/Medicaid and Indigent Care, and the state is cutting that funding to them every year. I, personally do not think that is something to brag about in their political ads--saying they stood up to the feds and refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage, when what they really did was send our money to other states. Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

Did not take the time to read in detail but scanned what you had to say. All of that is fine and good for you. My question was to the person that said he is voting "dem". I am curious what has prompted him to come to that decision.

I haven't met anyone I agree or disagree with 100% yet. Not even my wife and definitely not any politician that holds office currently or that is running for office. However, I too consider their individual positions on issues that are important to me. Based on my evaluation and my value and beliefs, I can't find a dem I would vote for in this election. I do not have any one sole issue that I use as a litmus test but I do put the most weight on protecting the rights of all individuals, even the unborn ones.

I suspect Beto is far left of what many think and he is another Heitcamp in that he is misrepresenting his positions on key issues in order to sucker moderates and undecided people that base their decisions on feelings. By the way, I do not consider any of the dems that are running "statesmen".

[mojo84]

vnp.jpg

your 4 older!

Yeah, I was 28 then and looked 18



But back to Beto vs. Cruz. Nothing gets done in congress unless there is a majority. Majorities are not gained by individuals from various parties voting on issues. Divided gov't doesn't work IMHO. All the votes for Perot did nothing but elect Clinton. It may not be what democracy is supposed to be, but majorities work, and majorities are not gained by cherry picking issues that suit an individual, or state. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything. How do you get 60 votes unless a majority party is in control. The Dems stay glued together as a bloc, so how will a divided rest of the senate block anything they try to do. Look at Europe's past and present and all the divided gov'ts struggling to form majorities. Nothing gets done, and all they do is fight to no avail. I'm tired of voters who vote for what's best for them, rather than what's best for the country. I'm dropping my AARP membership because I'm tired of them telling me how I should vote for individuals solely because of their stance on Medicare and Social Security. Yes, I need those programs, but my country comes first!

It's uncommon for someone to put the country's needs above their own in this day and time. People just do not accept that many of these social programs are not sustainable long term.

[WTR]

El Paso just reported a record 17,000 early voters yesterday.

[Middle Age Russ]

It's uncommon for someone to put the country's needs above their own in this day and time. People just do not accept that many of these social programs are not sustainable long term.

We are mired in the muck we are in with creeping Collectivism, exploding Debt, and partisan politics because the tendency you note for men to be corrupted produced career-politicians instead of citizen legislators as our Founding Fathers wanted. The career politicians, the Political or Ruling Class, now simply do and say whatever they think stands the best chance of advancing their career another term -- or ten -- while at the same time working back-room deals to enrich and empower themselves.

While I am not convinced that Ted Cruz isn't a simple politi-creature, he has done pretty much what he said he'd do and I applaud him for that. I am pretty sure that Robert O'Rourke is a power and money-hungry politi-creature, and one of the worst sort bent on dragging the US into the Collectivist abyss.

[talltex]

That's great but both of your positions are significantly different than infoman's. I'm curious about what dem positions makes him want to vote dem when one of their primary positions is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and what this forum is about.

Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

To you perhaps a "non-issue" and "silly crap", but to me and others that believe as I do, these issues are important. My first and most important stand is on Gun Rights and the expanding of the same. Next are those issues that I find to be repugnant and against my beliefs. The only reason I chose gun rights first, is because that so far, most of those who are for gun rights also believe as I do.

My post had nothing at all to do with gun rights. I'm not a Beto supporter. Don't really care for Ted Cruz either, but he will probably wind up with my vote. There are many Democrats around that do not support banning any type of firearms but they don't publicly make an issue of it, lest they incur the wrath of their party bosses. Politics in both Austin and Washington is a very dirty business.

I have been hunting and shooting, on my own, since I was 11 years old. I have been a competitive Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays shooter for many years. I handload all my own ammunition, from centerfire rifles and handguns to all shotgun gauges. I am a gun collector. For many years I set up tables at all the gun shows buying and selling all types of firearms. I was an avid hunter and bred and trained English Pointer and English Setter quail dogs. I worked as a Deputy for the Sheriff's Dept. while getting my Bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice.

What I referred to as "non-issue and silly crap" is all the time and money spent debating "the Bathroom Bill". I'm NOT in favor of open bathrooms for both sexes. The truth is it's " a solution in search of a problem". We have gotten by just fine without a bathroom law since 1836. There was never a legislative push to demand uni-sex bathrooms. There was never a bill brought to a vote to make that legal. It was a "non-issue", until some publicity hounds (think Dan Patrick) brought it up and made it an issue. Have you ever had a problem with cross dressers molesting women or kids in your city? Can you show a verifiable account of it being a problem in ANY city in Texas? What I'm saying is we have gotten along without a law saying a "cross dressing man or transgender person" can't go into a female designated restroom for over 150 years without a problem. IF such a law was passed, how do you think it could be enforced? Are we going to a post a LEO at the door of every women's public bathroom in the state? IF we did so, how would that possibly work? Is the Officer going to perform a "hand between the legs" search of every woman entering the bathroom? I don't think so. The whole debate is just smoke and mirrors designed to stir people up and get them to send donations to help protect our women and kids from a threat that doesn't exist. You find the idea of someone molesting a women or child in a women's bathroom repugnant and against your beliefs? Well welcome to the club. I dare say you can't find anyone who is in favor of that. That's ALREADY against the law regardless of where it happens. Don't accept anything the politicians say at face value. Newsflash--sometimes they lie. Do the research yourself. Statistically a child is much more likely to be molested in a church setting --and not just by a Priest-- than in a public restroom.

[talltex]

We are mired in the muck we are in with creeping Collectivism, exploding Debt, and partisan politics because the tendency you note for men to be corrupted produced career-politicians instead of citizen legislators as our Founding Fathers wanted. The career politicians, the Political or Ruling Class, now simply do and say whatever they think stands the best chance of advancing their career another term -- or ten -- while at the same time working back-room deals to enrich and empower themselves.

While I am not convinced that Ted Cruz isn't a simple politi-creature, he has done pretty much what he said he'd do and I applaud him for that. I am pretty sure that Robert O'Rourke is a power and money-hungry politi-creature, and one of the worst sort bent on dragging the US into the Collectivist abyss.

[mojo84]

Males do not belong in women's restrooms.

http://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews ... throom.amp

I still haven't heard anyone make a case for a dem "statesman" on the ballot this election. I also do not see any dem that is worth voting for and risking the rights and positions I value.

[RoyGBiv]

That's great but both of your positions are significantly different than infoman's. I'm curious about what dem positions makes him want to vote dem when one of their primary positions is contrary to the 2nd Amendment and what this forum is about.

I understand your focus as it relates to that single issue on this forum, but the members of this forum are voting for candidates who will be voting on MANY issues that are affecting their lives in many ways for the next term and probably for many years to come. I'm 62years old and the political system in Texas, as well as the rest of the United States, has changed drastically in the last 16 years. I've had family members who served as Senators and Representatives in Austin throughout the 60's and into the 90's. During those years, and for many more prior to that era, we had some politicians who were "Statesman" and unfortunately, many others who were just there to see how much money and influence they could acquire. For most of the 20th century, the Democratic party was in control of the process. They were not left wing liberals--they were the same people that later had to switch to the Republican party if they wanted to stay in office. We had ONE Senator that was a Republican--John Tower and he held his office for many years. He was a "Statesman". The people of his district didn't vote for him because he was a Republican--they voted for him IN SPITE of it, because they were voting for the MAN not THE PARTY. During all of those years the Legislators worked together and were able to get things done because they could meet and discuss the pros and cons and find common ground that they could both agree on." You give a little here and we'll give a little there, and we can both get something done that benefits us all". Instead of having to simply oppose any bill proposed by the other party, which is what we have devolved to nowdays. The situation now puts the party in control of the votes. If a conscientious legislator having studied the issue thoroughly and reached the conclusion that Bill # xxxxxx, which his party supports, will hurt more people than it helps, or is designed to give a particular company or industry an unfair advantage that would allow them to profit at the expense of others unfairly and he refuses to vote for it, he will be called into the Lt. Governor's or the Speaker's office and chastised severely, and told that if he ever does that again, the party will find and fund someone else to defeat him in the upcoming election and that he will never be allowed to bring any bill to the floor for the remainder of his term. That will not be a "thinly veiled threat"--it will be done in very "strong" language. That is not the way a Democracy is supposed to operate. Yes, the majority does rule, but the people are supposed to be voting for the individual they believe will best serve THEM in their district. What we have wound up with now is legislators that cannot vote their conscience if it is in conflict with the party bosses wishes. Majority rule is not supposed to mean that you get to have everything your way, without considering how it affects ALL of your constituents. A good example is our two top State government officials campaigning on the fact that they refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage in Texas because we don't need more "handout programs". That money (100's of millions of $$) comes from federal tax dollars, not from our state budget. The citizens of Texas have ALREADY paid that money into the federal budget. The money IS being spent, but it's going to other states and the people of Texas are not getting anything for the money they paid in. Our Hospitals and Clinics are required to provide service for people whether they can pay or not, and the primary reason Texas has seen a number of Rural hospitals closing their doors in the last 2 years is because that tax money was previously being paid to them for Medicare/Medicaid and Indigent Care, and the state is cutting that funding to them every year. I, personally do not think that is something to brag about in their political ads--saying they stood up to the feds and refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage, when what they really did was send our money to other states. Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

Great post @talltex!

Cause?
Abject failure of the Fourth Estate.

[rotor]

A good example is our two top State government officials campaigning on the fact that they refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage in Texas because we don't need more "handout programs". That money (100's of millions of $$) comes from federal tax dollars, not from our state budget. The citizens of Texas have ALREADY paid that money into the federal budget. The money IS being spent, but it's going to other states and the people of Texas are not getting anything for the money they paid in. Our Hospitals and Clinics are required to provide service for people whether they can pay or not, and the primary reason Texas has seen a number of Rural hospitals closing their doors in the last 2 years is because that tax money was previously being paid to them for Medicare/Medicaid and Indigent Care, and the state is cutting that funding to them every year. I, personally do not think that is something to brag about in their political ads--saying they stood up to the feds and refused to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage, when what they really did was send our money to other states. Instead they come up with divisive "non-issues" to polarize support and raise party funds with silly crap like the "Bathroom Bill". "End of Rant"

Not to go off on some off-topic comments but wasn't the increased medicaid spending a sliding scale that after so many years Texas would pick up the majority, not the federal government, and that would break Texas financially? The old carrot and stick and those that took the carrot will receive the stick.

[talltex]

Males do not belong in women's restrooms.

http://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews ... throom.amp

I still haven't heard anyone make a case for a dem "statesman" on the ballot this election. I also do not see any dem that is worth voting for and risking the rights and positions I value.

I wasn't implying that there were many "Statesmen" of the old school left anywhere. Most of them couldn't survive under the current system. 20 years ago the Senate and House members could fight like cats and dogs on the floor while debating a bill, then after the gavel came down, they'd get a group together and go out to the Broken Spoke or The Headliners Club and have a few drinks--something to eat, and hash it out off the record and come up with a workable solution that was acceptable to both sides and progress got made. Nobody expected to get everything their way. If you insist on that, then nothing positive gets accomplished. "What goes around comes around". Texas is now overwhelmingly Republican, But the Tea Party has only been controlling the votes of the moderate Republicans for about 10 years-- by threatening them with public denunciation as closet liberals or RINO's. That will eventually change, as it always does. From 1846 to 1995 (with the exception of Unionist Elisha Pease during Reconstruction) there was only one Republican elected Governor--Bill Clement, followed by two more Democrats, Mark White and Ann Richards then George Bush, Rick Perry and Greg Abbott. That's pretty amazing when you think about it--how short a period of time the Republican party has had power, but again a lot of the current Republicans used to be Democrats 25 years ago. They switched parties when the majority of voters switched. The total population of Texas, as of 2010, was 25,145,561. The population projection for 2040 is 44,955,896. The make up of that 45 million is going to be very different from what it is currently. The political landscape will start changing well before then as the make up of the voter base changes. As the percentages of voters changes, so will the politicians allegiances once again.

[talltex]

Not to go off on some off-topic comments but wasn't the increased medicaid spending a sliding scale that after so many years Texas would pick up the majority, not the federal government, and that would break Texas financially? The old carrot and stick and those that took the carrot will receive the stick.

Yes, there is an increase in the state's contribution but the sliding scale peaks at a 10% cap. From 2014-2016 the Federal government covered 100% of the expansion cost. From 2017 to 2020 the state would haver to cover an increasing portion up to 2020 when the state's portion capped out at 10%. From 2020 forward the state would fund 10% and the Feds 90%. Still a good deal for the state in my opinion since we are already paying in the money that is funding it for 33 other states.

[rotor]

Not to go off on some off-topic comments but wasn't the increased medicaid spending a sliding scale that after so many years Texas would pick up the majority, not the federal government, and that would break Texas financially? The old carrot and stick and those that took the carrot will receive the stick.

Yes, there is an increase in the state's contribution but the sliding scale peaks at a 10% cap. From 2014-2016 the Federal government covered 100% of the expansion cost. From 2017 to 2020 the state would haver to cover an increasing portion up to 2020 when the state's portion capped out at 10%. From 2020 forward the state would fund 10% and the Feds 90%. Still a good deal for the state in my opinion since we are already paying in the money that is funding it for 33 other states.

More off topic but, Ohio went for the Medicaid deal and "Medicaid accounted for 37.4 percent of Ohio's budget in 2015". Reference https://ballotpedia.org/Medicaid_spending_in_Ohio
When one accepts Medicaid funding one also increases the number of people on Medicaid and don't forget, Ohio citizens pay income tax. There is also no guarantee that the feds will continue to cover the Medicaid portion. Carrot and stick and you know where the stick ends up. How many doctors in your community take Medicaid? Lucky to even find doctors taking Medicare.
Back to topic, by Thursday Cruz will have 2 more votes from my household.

[Abraham]

I thought, for all this time thought 'Lena' a female name and you a female.

Was I/am I wrong?

Was/Is your name an unusual male name?

Is Lena, like Evelyn or Carroll or Sue or ..., but still an unusual, easily often mistaken as female, but male?

I'm one of those guys who think - if you've a female or male name, I'm certain of who you are, but if you're calling yourself Sue, Elizabeth or Emily, I think you're a female. If William, or Steve or Robert a male. Am I a product of my youth, yes, of course. I also think I'd like to be 6'6", 25 years old, with a full head of hair and good looking. I'm none of these things nor do I insist society make me so. I am what I am as my hero pop eye said...trannies don't agree...

Don't call yourself Shirley if you ain't female or Lance if you're not male. Please, don't do that. Your DNA will tell the truth even when others don't...

Yeah, I'm not one to think of gender fluidity types. I'm one of those certain with a name..., but if others don't agree with my so-called inflexible definition of what I think normal, ah, ok..

Yeah, I'm old, but not stupid and not swayed by 'new think' - I'm not a believer in "Orwellian" thought crimes.

Male - Great!

Female - Great!

Gay - Great!

Orwellian - No gender...ridiculous.

Did I mention, I'm not given to PC baloney?

I'm not, even if you're a former great...anything, because truth is truth, no matter your past...

Please, set me straight if I'm off in the wrong direction as I hope I am.