TexasCHLforum.com

BBYC wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

Cornyn is up for election in 2020, not this year.

"When I vote Republican I get excuses. I'm tired of excuses. I think I'll do something different this November."
What do you plan on doing? Vote for a democrat?

Maybe I should wait until 2020 to answer you.

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

bblhd672 wrote:

allisji wrote:

rotor wrote:What specific things are people critical of? 1 vote senate majority and takes 60 to pass something. What do you expect Cornyn to pass? I see no better candidate out there.

I am curious as well. Here are some things that I have questions on about him.

1. he voiced support of a bump-stock ban
2. he separated fix NICs from National Reciprocity to pass fix NICs because he knew he couldn't pass Reciprocity.
3. Has he ever tried to reduce government spending?
4. Has he ever pushed to end US involvement in a foreign war?
5. Has he ever voted to defund Planned Parenthood?
6. Has he ever taken serious actions to stop illegal immigration and reduce US residency for refugees/asylum seekers/etc.

If the answers to the last 4 points are all "No" then he definitely needs to go. Though it is wise to weigh the cost of defeating him in a primary against the likelihood of losing the senate seat to a democrat.

60 votes is a Senate rule, not the law. As best I can tell it’s a convenient excuse for both sides to not accomplish anything.
The Republicans in Washington are, for the most part with a few exceptions, spineless weasels looking out for their bank accounts and re-election chances. Remember what they said, “we need the House,” and nothing got done. Then they said “we need the Senate,” and nothing got done. Finally they said “we have to have the White House too,” and what’s getting done? Oh yeah, they now say they have to have 60 Senate seats in order to get anything done. See yet where this is going? Let me tell you, give the Republicans 60 seats in November and you’ll have some of them voting with the Democrats all the time instead of only when it least affects them (see: McCain, Graham and Flake). Then they’ll be saying that they have to have 65 seats to accomplish anything, as America continues to swirl around the bowl.

anygunanywhere wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.

If you were there how would you do it without more senators? As long as it takes 60 votes we are dead. Tax relief passed because it didn't take 60 votes. We all complain but technically how can we pass anything when all of the dems vote no?

Trump and the GOP managed to eliminate the individual mandate. Barely.

The GOP needs to stop promising the moon during election time and then deliver only "crumbs" during congressional time.

It continues to amaze me how the progs can ram through so much crap and the GOP cannot. The GOP turns tail and runs at the slightest provocation from the progs. Heck, look at the bloated budget they passed. Even Chucky Schumer was laughing at all he got.

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.