Jump to content

🗳️ The official 2020 Election thread


Mr. P

Recommended Posts

On 12/28/2019 at 11:52 AM, Monte1076 said:

Should Conservatives be in favor of this, though? Think about it. If one of the tenets of Conservatism is "small government", shouldn't drugs like this be legal at a Federal level, and then make it a 10th Amendment issue? Is this "nanny state" conservatism, or "free market" conservatism? Do we want to tell people what to do, or allow them to have the "personal responsibility" to make (and in some cases live with) their own choices?

How do we decide?

That’s the very question that bothers me.   Texas is known as a conservative State, where we have less government, and rely more on individualism, yet we swarm to Louisiana to go to Casinos.  I suspect the folks in West & North Tx make trips to Colorado to buy marijuana.  Texas should be the leader in allowing the individual choices, at least within limits.  People are going to gamble, somehow, someway.  After 60+ years of being staunchly against MJ, I’ve finally come to the conclusion it’s no worse than alcohol.  I do draw the line on many other illegal drugs, PCP and Meth, for two, but if we’re individualist, is that even right?   Has anyone done any studies of States that have legalized MJ, that it has reduced other, more dangerous drugs?  I’ve read that opioid use has reduced 17% in them.  I wonder if it is helping, if the media would even tell us.  Like legal gun owners who use their weapons to take down bad guys, the Media chokes on those stories.  I admit I don’t have the answers.  My feeble brain goes into overload.  😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian's mother was a leader of the racist LaRaza hate group and she called the Alamo defenders a bunch of drunks and thieves and yankee imperialists. The  Castro brothers spent much of their early political career trying to give the Alamo to liberal groups outside of Texas. 

  • Like 1
  • Stinks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NightStar11 said:

Julian's mother was a leader of the racist LaRaza hate group and she called the Alamo defenders a bunch of drunks and thieves and yankee imperialists. The  Castro brothers spent much of their early political career trying to give the Alamo to liberal groups outside of Texas. 

So how exactly was LaRaza Unida a racist hate group?  Also, I believe that she called them drunks, crooks and slaveholding imperialists. She wasn’t exactly wrong about some of them. 

  • Like 1
  • Stinks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PepeSilvia said:

So how exactly was LaRaza Unida a racist hate group?  Also, I believe that she called them drunks, crooks and slaveholding imperialists. She wasn’t exactly wrong about some of them. 

Errr, you forgot to mention the fact that the old Spaniards who ruled early Mexico and many later Mexicans were slaveholders. You can ask the Indios and peasants about that. And America was not an empire and was not royal either. And LaRaza means The Race and they don't like whites so yes they are a racist group. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think mascots only raise awareness for kids in purchasing products.  I haven't bought Planter's in a long time, because they spend so much on advertising, and the price is twice the amount of what you can find with other brands.  I tried boiled peanuts while living in Alabama, and those things are nasty.  One of the tastiest treats that I still do today is add peanuts to my Dr. Pepper.  When I was a kid it was Frostie Root Beer, and I haven't seen that brand on shelves in years much less an ice box.  

Thinking back to my favorite mascot, I would say it would have been Crazy Ray with the Cowboys and The San Diego Chicken with the Padres.  The San Diego Chicken was fired in 1979, but due to fan popularity he was brought back.  One thing I have wondered is how Arby's that I used to work that had an oven mitt mascot wasn't sued by Betty Crockers Hamburger Helper for the similarities with their mascots.  In more recent news I want to know how in the world Buc-ee's won a lawsuit over the trademark mascot with Choke Canyon Bar-B-Q.  The only thing that is similar is the yellow background.  If anyone else see's a resemblance please let me know.  https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Buc-ee-s-beaver-trademark-texas-choke-canyon-gator-12934353.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/why-planters-killed-off-mr-peanut/ar-BBZgfBa?li=BBnbfcN

 

If you haven't read yet, because of all the political nonsense going on in Washington DC, a 104 year old ICON is being killed off. It's just not right. 

#RIPeanut. 

 

Why did they kill off Mr. Peanut?

.....because they got in a Jam!😜

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY Times writer is fed up with Iowa going first
Hot Air.com ^ | January 27, 2020 | JAZZ SHAW

Posted on 1/27/2020, 1:50:55 PM by Kaslin

Observing the comings and goings in both Iowa and New Hampshire this month, New York Times columnist David Leonhardt is clearly fed up. The system is rigged, broken and (obviously)… racist. With all that in mind, the author vented his frustrations at the Gray Lady, declaring once and for all that Iowa should never go first again. Let’s let him explain his reasoning.

Right now, I’m as obsessed as anyone with the early-state polls. Yet I also want to use this moment to point out how bizarre the current system is — and to make a plea: The 2020 cycle should be the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire benefit at the country’s expense.

The strongest part of the case for change, of course, is the racial aspect of the current calendar. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the country’s whitest states. About 6 percent of their combined population is black or Asian-American. Almost 87 percent is non-Hispanic white, compared with 60 percent for the country as a whole. Demographically, Iowa and New Hampshire look roughly like the America of 1870.

Julián Castro, the former presidential candidate, was right when he called out the Democratic Party’s hypocritical support for the status quo. “Iowa and New Hampshire are wonderful states with wonderful people,” Castro said. But Democrats can’t “complain about Republicans suppressing the votes of people of color, and then begin our nominating contest in two states that hardly have people of color.”

 

In addition to both Iowa and New Hampshire being “too white” (according to the white, male author), Leonhardt also complains that neither of them is home to a city with more than 250,000 people. On top of that, both states boast disproportionately high numbers of retired people and fewer under the age of 40 than the national average.

In other words, Iowa and New Hampshire are magnets for old, white people… precisely who we don’t need picking the Democratic Party’s nominee.

Let me first say that at least in terms of the final conclusion, Leonhardt is preaching to the choir here. I’ve been railing against this unpleasant “tradition” for as long as I’ve been interested in politics. Letting these two small states go first and determine who gets the much-coveted “momentum” going into Super Tuesday distorts the process and gives far too much power to certain special interests, such as Iowa’s ethanol lobby. The honor of going first needs to be spread around and I’ve long been in favor of an entirely revamped system, such as a series of regional primaries that rotate in order every four years.

But with that said, Leonhardt’s specific complaints are rather odd, to say the least. For evidence of the racism inherent in the system, the author points to the fact that both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are out of the race and this is blamed on their inability to gain traction in the first two states to vote. To bolster this argument, he notes that both of those candidates of color “were doing as well as Amy Klobuchar in early polls of more diverse states.” That’s a true statement to be sure, but doing as well as Amy Klobuchar back then was akin to saying that you’re doing as well as Joe Walsh is in the GOP primary. Klobuchar only recently cracked double digits in her first polls and she did so because she didn’t quit.

Kamala Harris had her own surge for a while nationally, but she never got into the top tier in California… her home state. And her campaign was famously in a constant state of upheaval, with staffers fighting and the candidate changing her answers on key issues like a leaf fluttering in the breeze. As for Booker, he never climbed in the polls significantly, even in the more “diverse” states containing large cities. He wasn’t offering anything that the voters couldn’t already get from Sanders and Warren. He just wasn’t a particularly exciting speaker or candidate.

Finally, as we peel away all of the clutter and get to what Leonhardt is obviously saying here, the author should keep in mind precisely which people he’s talking about. Republicans and conservatives don’t get to vote in the Democrats’ primaries and caucuses and they’re not being polled on the question. If you think there are too many racists controlling the fate of the nomination process, those are racist Democrats you’re talking about.

But even that argument doesn’t hold much water. South Carolina is also one of the earliest states to vote, is far more diverse and controls more delegates than either Iowa or New Hampshire. And from wire to wire so far they have supported Joe Biden, who still has double the support of his nearest competitor, particularly among black voters. And most of those not backing Biden back Bernie Sanders, so the two oldest, whitest, male Democrats imaginable are running the table. So even if we let South Carolina go first, it’s not looking as if the results would be markedly different and both Harris and Booker probably wouldn’t still be in the race at this point anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AKA said:

Yeah right, "13 percent undecided."

We all know that 13 percent consists entirely of write-in votes for Nick Saban.    :D 

Nick is helping Sessions stay in the lead over Tubberville, and is helping him to another defeat.  I suppose he's still angry that Tommy was the only SEC coach that had a winning record against him by one game 4-3.  

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

Nick is helping Sessions stay in the lead over Tubberville, and is helping him to another defeat.  I suppose he's still angry that Tommy was the only SEC coach that had a winning record against him by one game 4-3.  

Lol...  #SECafterdark   :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

With the dimtard Senator saying Alabama is wanting more gun control, whoever wins the GOP primary will be Senator.......

Lol...  wait, seriously? 

I mean, seriously? 

Well over 90 percent of counties in Alabama make East Texas look like the tenderloin of San Francisco. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...