TexasCHLforum.com

150-0 vote.
Unbelievable.

Usually when you see vote totals like this, they are in countries ran by a dictator.

jason812 wrote:Usually when you see vote totals like this, they are in countries ran by a dictator.

Sounds like he is either very good at his job or very good at extracting revenge upon those who oppose him.

It's good to be king. If you don't believe me, ask Joe.

jason812 wrote:Usually when you see vote totals like this, they are in countries ran by a dictator.

This is no different.

He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

To be opposed.

mojo84 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

To be opposed.

I'm not a big Joe Straus fan but open carry did pass last session under his watch and I believe he had a hand in it. If he can help HB560 along to the floor for a vote, I'll give him a few points. <----- Joe Straus with his gavel.

tomtexan wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

To be opposed.

I'm not a big Joe Straus fan but open carry did pass last session under his watch and I believe he had a hand in it. If he can help HB560 along to the floor for a vote, I'll give him a few points. <----- Joe Straus with his gavel.

Gun issues aren't the only issues that effect the state and it's citizens. I have quite a few reasons unrelated to guns I don't want Straus to be speaker. I can't ignore those reasons just because there has been some pro gun legislation passed under his leadership. That would be pretty myopic of me.

I also believe there are others that would help pro gun legislation get passed if they were speaker.

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

I agree...it's not a position that most of the legislators want to put themselves in. If the speaker doesn't work behind the scenes to bring together a coalition of legislators with opposing viewpoints (which depend primarily on which lobbyist that is backing them) then nothing gets done. Personally, I'm glad to have someone in there that's willing to rein in Dan Patrick who spends 90% of his time trying to get in front of a camera anywhere he can to pontificate on issues all over the country that have nothing to do with his alleged "job" in Austin. The last 6 months before the elections he showed up at almost every primary in the country to give his views on the issues while being paid to be in Austin. I've never seen a Lt. Governor that thought he was so newsworthy.

talltex wrote:

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

I agree...it's not a position that most of the legislators want to put themselves in. If the speaker doesn't work behind the scenes to bring together a coalition of legislators with opposing viewpoints (which depend primarily on which lobbyist that is backing them) then nothing gets done. Personally, I'm glad to have someone in there that's willing to rein in Dan Patrick who spends 90% of his time trying to get in front of a camera anywhere he can to pontificate on issues all over the country that have nothing to do with his alleged "job" in Austin. The last 6 months before the elections he showed up at almost every primary in the country to give his views on the issues while being paid to be in Austin. I've never seen a Lt. Governor that thought he was so newsworthy.

I am not a Dan Patrick fan by any means. He is paid 7200 a year plus expences. He isn't paid any more than any other State Senator or Rep. He is paid to lead the Senate for 120 days every 2 years. It's concidered a part a part time job, and is paid as such.

Liberty wrote:

talltex wrote:

tomtexan wrote:He was unopposed. What else would could be expected?

I agree...it's not a position that most of the legislators want to put themselves in. If the speaker doesn't work behind the scenes to bring together a coalition of legislators with opposing viewpoints (which depend primarily on which lobbyist that is backing them) then nothing gets done. Personally, I'm glad to have someone in there that's willing to rein in Dan Patrick who spends 90% of his time trying to get in front of a camera anywhere he can to pontificate on issues all over the country that have nothing to do with his alleged "job" in Austin. The last 6 months before the elections he showed up at almost every primary in the country to give his views on the issues while being paid to be in Austin. I've never seen a Lt. Governor that thought he was so newsworthy.

I am not a Dan Patrick fan by any means. He is paid 7200 a year plus expences. He isn't paid any more than any other State Senator or Rep. He is paid to lead the Senate for 120 days every 2 years. It's concidered a part a part time job, and is paid as such.

The salary figures for State Representatives, State Senators, Lt. Governor and Governor are all very misleading...and not by accident. All of those positions long ago ceased to be "part time" jobs. In addition to the meager salary publicly quoted, they also receive $150 per Diem while in session and expenses while engaged in activities related to their public office. That's for the public relations. In addition to the salary and per Diem, each official is given an annual office budget amount to furnish their office in the Capitol and to pay administrative expenses such as administrative aide(s) and secretary. Phone and mail privileges are covered by the state. The Senator's office budget is $456,000.00 per year. The office budget money is allocated each and every year...not just when they are in session. THAT money allows them to not have to come home and work at a full time job. I've had family members in both the House and Senate in the 70's and 80's and none of them had second jobs back in their Districts, and they lived very well. They also receive pension benefits after 8 years in office...based not on their legislative salary, but on the salary of a District Judge ($125,000.00) along with lifetime health benefits. Do not believe for a second, that Dan Patrick or anyone else in the Legislature, is footing the bill for all the travel and living expenses related to public office at the State or Federal level. Ask yourself why would anyone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign costs to run for election to a job that would not even pay for their apartment rent and meals in Austin while in session? Well all those campaign funds they are eligible to receive while in office, can be used to support there lifestyle as part of the re-election process. Dan Patrick has already announced that he is running for re-election in 2018 and already has over $13,600,000.00 in cash on hand in his campaign fund. He can spend that money on whatever he wants as long as he claims it is supporting his effort to remain in office. I'm not trying to just pick on Patrick, ( well maybe a little) but that IS how the system works, and the higher up the office, the more campaign money is thrown at them. The bulk of the campaign money comes from lobbyists and PACs that donate to them with expectations that they will be able to influence votes in the future.