Didn't Texas already fuck up education because the people in charge of their board are crazy religious zealots? I seem to remember something about a dentist telling us experts are full of crap
Edit: I agree with Spool that the platform is completely insubstantial and you guys need to chill out for a second and realize he's right that it's kinda meaningless. I'm far, far more worried about the people who make the education policy, because it's a different set of nutbars.
I mean it really illustrates what kind of shit Texas is in that their ruling party would even write such a thing, but I don't think they actually intend to launch an organized effort to remove critical thinking. As far as I know the legislature more or less stays out of the texas board of education's business except in regards to funding.
I half suspect the purpling of Texas is people from blue places moving here!
Don't believe it is a trend that will hold.
Basically, what I'm saying is stop moving to Texas, liberals. You're going to fuck up a good thing!
I have to believe that you are being facetious when you suggest that liberals could possibly make a state which removed critical thinking teaching from its curriculum over the fear that it might encourage students to question what teachers and parents tell them, worse.
The "state" did not do that.
Yet.
It's just in the platform of the party running the state.
yawn. Obama hasn't taken our guns yet either. He's just running the nation and the leader of the party that wants to.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements-–like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
See, you're comparing what the Republicans have said that they want to do based on their stated goals with what batshit insane people have stated Barack Obama wants to do based on wild conjecture.
No, ,I'm comparing your wild conjecture to some other wild conjecture.
I don't believe Obama wants to ban guns but members of his party certainly do, and have done so in cities around the country, including the one where he lived.
Why is it wild conjecture if it is an explicitly stated goal of the Texas Republican party?
Because no one in any position of authority or influence the party looks to the platform for guidance or uses it to formulate any policy.
So your position is, quite literally, "how dare you take us at our word!"?
No, my Argument is that the platform is not written by 'us', where 'us' means Texas Republicans.
And yet you signed 'your' name to it, endorsing it as 'your' policy platform.
No, 'you' don't get to disown this epic shit sandwich of a policy platform just because it's now politically inconvenient. It's all 'yours'. Take a big bite, and savor the flavor.
My name is nowhere near that platform, and it's not politically inconvenient because I already posted the complete list of people in Texas who give a shit about it.
Right, + several million points for being awesome - a couple for being politically douchey.
I'm just amazed the guy lived a life thats literrally in war movies. Though I'm sure to him its not so awesome when he like wants to wank with his right arm and its not there.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Then get your party in line. The platform is how a party is selling itself.
You don't get to be a political party and put out a list of THESE ARE THE THINGS WE BELIEVE and then turn around and have your members go "You think we're serious?"
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform.
Really. Really the party platform is how it's selling itself?
You sat down with a printout and a cup of coffee one morning back in 2008 and, after a thorough reading, you decided "hey, this is the party for me in the next election"?
That's how it went down?
Come on. Nobody reads the platform but policy wonks and political rabble-rousers. It is a non-thing. When this little brouhaha (started, let me remind you again, by someone completely wrong on the facts that none of you cared to correct) is over, no one will care about the platform ever again until a partisan rabble rouser (thanatos et al) needs another zinger to try and, well, rouse the fucking rabble.
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
And actually, yeah, I do look through the platforms before I sign up with a party and I read a candidate's platform before I decide to support them.
I half suspect the purpling of Texas is people from blue places moving here!
Don't believe it is a trend that will hold.
Basically, what I'm saying is stop moving to Texas, liberals. You're going to fuck up a good thing!
I have to believe that you are being facetious when you suggest that liberals could possibly make a state which removed critical thinking teaching from its curriculum over the fear that it might encourage students to question what teachers and parents tell them, worse.
The "state" did not do that.
Yet.
It's just in the platform of the party running the state.
yawn. Obama hasn't taken our guns yet either. He's just running the nation and the leader of the party that wants to.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements-–like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
See, you're comparing what the Republicans have said that they want to do based on their stated goals with what batshit insane people have stated Barack Obama wants to do based on wild conjecture.
No, ,I'm comparing your wild conjecture to some other wild conjecture.
I don't believe Obama wants to ban guns but members of his party certainly do, and have done so in cities around the country, including the one where he lived.
Why is it wild conjecture if it is an explicitly stated goal of the Texas Republican party?
Because no one in any position of authority or influence the party looks to the platform for guidance or uses it to formulate any policy.
So your position is, quite literally, "how dare you take us at our word!"?
No, my Argument is that the platform is not written by 'us', where 'us' means Texas Republicans.
And yet you signed 'your' name to it, endorsing it as 'your' policy platform.
No, 'you' don't get to disown this epic shit sandwich of a policy platform just because it's now politically inconvenient. It's all 'yours'. Take a big bite, and savor the flavor.
My name is nowhere near that platform, and it's not politically inconvenient because I already posted the complete list of people in Texas who give a shit about it.
Bullshit. You're a member of the Texas Republican Party, and the platform is, by definition, a product of the party. By identifying yourself as a Texas Republican, you say that platform applies to you. Because that's why it exists.
I half suspect the purpling of Texas is people from blue places moving here!
Don't believe it is a trend that will hold.
Basically, what I'm saying is stop moving to Texas, liberals. You're going to fuck up a good thing!
I have to believe that you are being facetious when you suggest that liberals could possibly make a state which removed critical thinking teaching from its curriculum over the fear that it might encourage students to question what teachers and parents tell them, worse.
The "state" did not do that.
Yet.
It's just in the platform of the party running the state.
yawn. Obama hasn't taken our guns yet either. He's just running the nation and the leader of the party that wants to.
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements-–like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
See, you're comparing what the Republicans have said that they want to do based on their stated goals with what batshit insane people have stated Barack Obama wants to do based on wild conjecture.
No, ,I'm comparing your wild conjecture to some other wild conjecture.
I don't believe Obama wants to ban guns but members of his party certainly do, and have done so in cities around the country, including the one where he lived.
Why is it wild conjecture if it is an explicitly stated goal of the Texas Republican party?
Because no one in any position of authority or influence the party looks to the platform for guidance or uses it to formulate any policy.
So your position is, quite literally, "how dare you take us at our word!"?
No, my Argument is that the platform is not written by 'us', where 'us' means Texas Republicans.
And yet you signed 'your' name to it, endorsing it as 'your' policy platform.
No, 'you' don't get to disown this epic shit sandwich of a policy platform just because it's now politically inconvenient. It's all 'yours'. Take a big bite, and savor the flavor.
My name is nowhere near that platform, and it's not politically inconvenient because I already posted the complete list of people in Texas who give a shit about it.
I think what he's saying is that if you are a Republican, then by default you have agreed to a certain set of ideas.
If you are a Texas Republican, the assumption is that you largely agree with your party's stated positions/platform. After all, agreement with most of a party's positions is what most people would consider the crucial part of being part of that party. You're allowed to disagree with some issues, but for the most part you're with them on the big issues.
After all, if you're running away from the party platform like it's a turd on fire, then you're clearly a member In Name Only.
EDIT: NINJA'D
adventfalls on
NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Didn't Texas already fuck up education because the people in charge of their board are crazy religious zealots? I seem to remember something about a dentist telling us experts are full of crap
Edit: I agree with Spool that the platform is completely insubstantial and you guys need to chill out for a second and realize he's right that it's kinda meaningless. I'm far, far more worried about the people who make the education policy, because it's a different set of nutbars.
I mean it really illustrates what kind of shit Texas is in that their ruling party would even write such a thing, but I don't think they actually intend to launch an organized effort to remove critical thinking. As far as I know the legislature more or less stays out of the texas board of education's business except in regards to funding.
Except that's the problem.
"Nobody cares about the platform, why bother?" is exactly why nutfucks can take a hold of it.
As I said "That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform."
Then get your party in line. The platform is how a party is selling itself.
You don't get to be a political party and put out a list of THESE ARE THE THINGS WE BELIEVE and then turn around and have your members go "You think we're serious?"
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform.
Really. Really the party platform is how it's selling itself?
You sat down with a printout and a cup of coffee one morning back in 2008 and, after a thorough reading, you decided "hey, this is the party for me in the next election"?
That's how it went down?
Come on. Nobody reads the platform but policy wonks and political rabble-rousers. It is a non-thing. When this little brouhaha (started, let me remind you again, by someone completely wrong on the facts that none of you cared to correct) is over, no one will care about the platform ever again until a partisan rabble rouser (thanatos et al) needs another zinger to try and, well, rouse the fucking rabble.
Yes. I'm my US Government class in High School we read both national party platforms.
After reading that I decided that Republicans were assholes.
Didn't Texas already fuck up education because the people in charge of their board are crazy religious zealots? I seem to remember something about a dentist telling us experts are full of crap
Edit: I agree with Spool that the platform is completely insubstantial and you guys need to chill out for a second and realize he's right that it's kinda meaningless. I'm far, far more worried about the people who make the education policy, because it's a different set of nutbars.
I mean it really illustrates what kind of shit Texas is in that their ruling party would even write such a thing, but I don't think they actually intend to launch an organized effort to remove critical thinking. As far as I know the legislature more or less stays out of the texas board of education's business except in regards to funding.
The party platform is very much substantial - it is the written expression of the stances of the party. Hence why the fact that the Democratic Party adding a same sex marriage plank to its platform is such a Big Goosing Deal - the Dems are officially saying that they believe that everyone has a right to marry regardless of orientation.
To say that the party platform is meaningless means someone is getting conned - either the person being told it's meaningless when it's not; or the rank and file who are being told it's meaningful when it's not.
Basically, what I'm saying is stop moving to Texas, liberals. You're going to fuck up a good thing!
I'm still blown away by this. Not just because its obviously not true (the children of vilified by the GOP illegal immigrant Latinos are increasingly going to be citizens who can vote), but the idea that anyone would believe Texas has a good thing going, or that what quality of life it has has anything to do with a rampant reactionary populace. Its got a high poverty rate, the lowest high school graduation rate, the highest uninsured rate, the highest incarceration rate, high violent crime rate, low life expectancy, high divorce rate, below average income, poor air quality, below average charitable giving, high teen pregnancy rate....
Texas has an infamously high death penalty rate, a famously high sense of self importance and a central place in right wing politics. That's about it.
Obviously you're completely ignorant of the policies instituted by the Texas Board of Education.
...or the state legislature refusing to use our rainy day fund designed originally to stave off severe cuts to education while they made historic cuts (the "Texas Miracle").
Welp, this is at least 50% false - HB275 did pass, and we appropriated $3.2 billion from the fund.
I would be willing to bet that 50% of voters, on both sides of the aisle, don't even know what a party platform is and have never seen one in their lives.
As much as you guys, as educated, politically active, and eager to be roused as you are, want to believe that people care about, think about, or even know about their own party's platform, it simply is not the case. You are all outside the norm, and probably all the people you respect are as well.
Even some of those people won't have read their own party's platform.
Hedgie, when you tell people that the Dems are adding a same-sex marriage plank to the platform, you have to explain why that's a big deal because nobody knows why it's a big deal. This should be an important indicator for you. It's also a fantastic counterexample because, as everyone knows, Democrats support gay marriage and gay rights even when it's not in the platform.
SMH
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I've heard some stuff recently, and it's got me thinking.
Maddow mentioned a quote from a Republican strategist 'nationally known' that if the Texas Senate primary went to the Tea Party candidate, then Texas would go purple in four or six years.
...Shockingly, that actually might be true if voter registration picks up on Latinos. Because the Democrats *do* have a guy in Texas that's a real up and comer.
Juan Castro, mayor of San Antonio. ...Though you'll have to get past his infamous surname.
So, Spool, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that in Texas, no one reads or cares about the Republican party platform, and so it doesn't matter that it has crazy shit in it. All right, then. So if people don't vote for the Republican party based on its platform, why DO they vote for it? Racism and bigotry, the unwritten platform of the party? Or just because that is what everyone does in Texas and they don't have the critial thinking skills to form their own opinion?
Sounds like a great place to live, where people don't even pretend to care about a party's platform before voting it total control of the entire state.
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I've heard some stuff recently, and it's got me thinking.
Maddow mentioned a quote from a Republican strategist 'nationally known' that if the Texas Senate primary went to the Tea Party candidate, then Texas would go purple in four or six years.
...Shockingly, that actually might be true if voter registration picks up on Latinos. Because the Democrats *do* have a guy in Texas that's a real up and comer.
Juan Castro, mayor of San Antonio. ...Though you'll have to get past his infamous surname.
He will be giving the DNC keynote speech this year.
I've heard some stuff recently, and it's got me thinking.
Maddow mentioned a quote from a Republican strategist 'nationally known' that if the Texas Senate primary went to the Tea Party candidate, then Texas would go purple in four or six years.
...Shockingly, that actually might be true if voter registration picks up on Latinos. Because the Democrats *do* have a guy in Texas that's a real up and comer.
Juan Castro, mayor of San Antonio. ...Though you'll have to get past his infamous surname.
He will be giving the DNC keynote speech this year.
And if you don't like it he'll release his army of acid spitting spiders... come on it can't just be me with that photo.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I've heard some stuff recently, and it's got me thinking.
Maddow mentioned a quote from a Republican strategist 'nationally known' that if the Texas Senate primary went to the Tea Party candidate, then Texas would go purple in four or six years.
...Shockingly, that actually might be true if voter registration picks up on Latinos. Because the Democrats *do* have a guy in Texas that's a real up and comer.
Juan Castro, mayor of San Antonio. ...Though you'll have to get past his infamous surname.
He will be giving the DNC keynote speech this year.
I knew there was another reason for it! People are expecting lightning to strike twice considering who gave the keynote in 2004. Some guy... um.... Osama? Orama? Bah, I can't remember. But it was important.
NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I doubt it.
I think he was picked because the DNC doesn't want to get in the middle of the 2016 fight yet.
Dude is mayor of San Antonio, that's not exactly pre-presidential work. There's a few steps in between.
But yeah, it doesn't surprise me that that's happening.
I think he was picked because the DNC doesn't want to get in the middle of the 2016 fight yet.
Dude is mayor of San Antonio, that's not exactly pre-presidential work. There's a few steps in between.
But yeah, it doesn't surprise me that that's happening.
That's an issue of speed though. I mean, yes, you're right that he will (probably) not be involved in the 2016 primary, but giving him a national stage from which to build a race for statewide office, which might be demographically feasible when Cornyn's seat is up again in 2016, for example and from there a Presidential run.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Right, I fixated on 2016. My baaaaaaaaaaaaad.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I doubt Castro would gun for 2016, even if his star did shoot up from the keynote.
...
What's the big fight in 2016 again? I know it's an election year, but I'm blanking.
I doubt Castro would gun for 2016, even if his star did shoot up from the keynote.
...
What's the big fight in 2016 again? I know it's an election year, but I'm blanking.
President...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So, Spool, it sounds to me like what you are saying is that in Texas, no one reads or cares about the Republican party platform, and so it doesn't matter that it has crazy shit in it. All right, then. So if people don't vote for the Republican party based on its platform, why DO they vote for it? Racism and bigotry, the unwritten platform of the party? Or just because that is what everyone does in Texas and they don't have the critial thinking skills to form their own opinion?
Sounds like a great place to live, where people don't even pretend to care about a party's platform before voting it total control of the entire state.
Their platform is dumb, but expecting people to read the whole thing before voting is equally dumb. In general, people vote for the GOP because they want lower taxes and have either been tricked into thinking that would help them (poor people) or don't care about the people it would hurt because it would help them (rich people). Beyond that, you have single-issue evangelicals.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I know it's President, but you all made it sound like battle lines were drawn and we had big names up against each other.
I doubt Castro would gun for 2016, even if his star did shoot up from the keynote.
...
What's the big fight in 2016 again? I know it's an election year, but I'm blanking.
I know it's President, but you all made it sound like battle lines were drawn and we had big names up against each other.
Apparently there's backroom stuff that all the wonks are getting excited about (Schweitzer vs. Cuomo, apparently), and the DNC doesn't want to be seen playing favorites I guess.
I know it's President, but you all made it sound like battle lines were drawn and we had big names up against each other.
Among political dorks, yes. :P
But seriously, from a progressive perspective the potential 2016 field is super strong:
Hillary Clinton if she wants to take a shot at it
Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana, owner of a veto branding iron with which he vetoes stupid shit)
Andrew Cuomo (Governor of New York, generally strong, but somewhat captured by the financial industry)
Martin O'Malley (Governor of Maryland, generally awesome)
Elizabeth Warren (Hopefully Senator from Massachusetts, the best)
I'd appreciate it if Sherrod Brown jumped in just to move things to the left a bit.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
Ah. Says something that I know two of those names (Schweitzer thanks to the viral video of dat iron and Warren thanks to awesome) and dislike a third (Cuomo).
Cuomo mostly gets mentioned because he was the first with higher ambitions to embrace gay marriage as a way to improve those ambitions, which struck people as a sea change. Also because he'll have a ton of Wall Street money.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
No one really knows yet, Cuomo from NY probably and Schweitzer from MT. Maybe Clinton (I doubt it). Maybe Biden (again, doubt it).
She'd be 69, older than any president at inauguration besides Reagan (who'd be a few months older than her). It'd play a pretty big factor. If she stays healthy, it's possible (I think McCain was 70, 71?), but she'd take a hit for it and I'm sure she'll want to semi-retire eventually. I think she'd be a good president, but I also think there'll be stronger candidates.
Edit: Also, Warren will be weak in 2016. I'll call it right now: she ends up a three term senator, then retires in '35 at the ripe old age of 81.
Solomaxwell6 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
No one really knows yet, Cuomo from NY probably and Schweitzer from MT. Maybe Clinton (I doubt it). Maybe Biden (again, doubt it).
She'd be 69, older than any president at inauguration besides Reagan (who'd be a few months older than her). It'd play a pretty big factor. If she stays healthy, it's possible (I think McCain was 70, 71?), but she'd take a hit for it and I'm sure she'll want to semi-retire eventually. I think she'd be a good president, but I also think there'll be stronger candidates.
Hence my doubts. I feel the same way about Biden as well.
Anyway, back to Congressional elections. Apparently the Tea Party here in Michigan is about to endorse Clark Durant over Pete Hoekstra. They're both so awful I kind of wish a meteor hit their debate (relax spool, this is an old joke I use in the college football thread frequently), but I hate Hoekstra so much I'm kind of rooting for Durant. Even though he's trying to sell himself as a "rebel" after being a member of the establishment for 30 years. Because he owns a motorcycle!
Primary is Tuesday. Hopefully Stabenow kicks either of their asses.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Biden won't run, he's not writing it off because its considered poor form. But I have no doubt he'll retire should Obama be reelected. Probably open an Ice Cream shop.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Welp, this is at least 50% false - HB275 did pass, and we appropriated $3.2 billion from the fund.
HB 275 was a bill to pay the previous legislature's budget shortfall. It was not a bill to help fund education for the next two years. Were you not paying attention when Rick Perry was screaming to veto any bill that used rainy day funds to fund education? Were you not there when Dan Patrick, Vice Chair of the Education Committee, was arguing we shouldn't use any of it at all because we might need it two years from now?
These two are not even the most crazy in the party (now). We've gone beyond the red line in the state at this point.
ethicalsean on
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I doubt the Tea Party can turn things around in a week's time. They're stuck with Hoekstra, who has already shot himself in the foot so bad he's left with a stump.
It'll be a tough race thanks to outside circumstances, but 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' will make sure Hoekstra stays far away from office.
I doubt the Tea Party can turn things around in a week's time. They're stuck with Hoekstra, who has already shot himself in the foot so bad he's left with a stump.
It'll be a tough race thanks to outside circumstances, but 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' will make sure Hoekstra stays far away from office.
Hoekstra's extremely racist ad and the GOP still picking him as a party canidate is fucking horrible.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Edit: I agree with Spool that the platform is completely insubstantial and you guys need to chill out for a second and realize he's right that it's kinda meaningless. I'm far, far more worried about the people who make the education policy, because it's a different set of nutbars.
I mean it really illustrates what kind of shit Texas is in that their ruling party would even write such a thing, but I don't think they actually intend to launch an organized effort to remove critical thinking. As far as I know the legislature more or less stays out of the texas board of education's business except in regards to funding.
My name is nowhere near that platform, and it's not politically inconvenient because I already posted the complete list of people in Texas who give a shit about it.
I'm just amazed the guy lived a life thats literrally in war movies. Though I'm sure to him its not so awesome when he like wants to wank with his right arm and its not there.
pleasepaypreacher.net
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform
And actually, yeah, I do look through the platforms before I sign up with a party and I read a candidate's platform before I decide to support them.
Imagi-fucking-that.
I think what he's saying is that if you are a Republican, then by default you have agreed to a certain set of ideas.
If you are a Texas Republican, the assumption is that you largely agree with your party's stated positions/platform. After all, agreement with most of a party's positions is what most people would consider the crucial part of being part of that party. You're allowed to disagree with some issues, but for the most part you're with them on the big issues.
After all, if you're running away from the party platform like it's a turd on fire, then you're clearly a member In Name Only.
EDIT: NINJA'D
Except that's the problem.
"Nobody cares about the platform, why bother?" is exactly why nutfucks can take a hold of it.
As I said "That, frankly, is a bigger problem than the actual text of the platform."
Yes. I'm my US Government class in High School we read both national party platforms.
After reading that I decided that Republicans were assholes.
The party platform is very much substantial - it is the written expression of the stances of the party. Hence why the fact that the Democratic Party adding a same sex marriage plank to its platform is such a Big Goosing Deal - the Dems are officially saying that they believe that everyone has a right to marry regardless of orientation.
To say that the party platform is meaningless means someone is getting conned - either the person being told it's meaningless when it's not; or the rank and file who are being told it's meaningful when it's not.
I'm still blown away by this. Not just because its obviously not true (the children of vilified by the GOP illegal immigrant Latinos are increasingly going to be citizens who can vote), but the idea that anyone would believe Texas has a good thing going, or that what quality of life it has has anything to do with a rampant reactionary populace. Its got a high poverty rate, the lowest high school graduation rate, the highest uninsured rate, the highest incarceration rate, high violent crime rate, low life expectancy, high divorce rate, below average income, poor air quality, below average charitable giving, high teen pregnancy rate....
Texas has an infamously high death penalty rate, a famously high sense of self importance and a central place in right wing politics. That's about it.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Welp, this is at least 50% false - HB275 did pass, and we appropriated $3.2 billion from the fund.
As much as you guys, as educated, politically active, and eager to be roused as you are, want to believe that people care about, think about, or even know about their own party's platform, it simply is not the case. You are all outside the norm, and probably all the people you respect are as well.
Even some of those people won't have read their own party's platform.
Hedgie, when you tell people that the Dems are adding a same-sex marriage plank to the platform, you have to explain why that's a big deal because nobody knows why it's a big deal. This should be an important indicator for you. It's also a fantastic counterexample because, as everyone knows, Democrats support gay marriage and gay rights even when it's not in the platform.
SMH
Maddow mentioned a quote from a Republican strategist 'nationally known' that if the Texas Senate primary went to the Tea Party candidate, then Texas would go purple in four or six years.
...Shockingly, that actually might be true if voter registration picks up on Latinos. Because the Democrats *do* have a guy in Texas that's a real up and comer.
Juan Castro, mayor of San Antonio. ...Though you'll have to get past his infamous surname.
Sounds like a great place to live, where people don't even pretend to care about a party's platform before voting it total control of the entire state.
He will be giving the DNC keynote speech this year.
And if you don't like it he'll release his army of acid spitting spiders... come on it can't just be me with that photo.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I knew there was another reason for it! People are expecting lightning to strike twice considering who gave the keynote in 2004. Some guy... um.... Osama? Orama? Bah, I can't remember. But it was important.
I think he was picked because the DNC doesn't want to get in the middle of the 2016 fight yet.
Dude is mayor of San Antonio, that's not exactly pre-presidential work. There's a few steps in between.
But yeah, it doesn't surprise me that that's happening.
That's an issue of speed though. I mean, yes, you're right that he will (probably) not be involved in the 2016 primary, but giving him a national stage from which to build a race for statewide office, which might be demographically feasible when Cornyn's seat is up again in 2016, for example and from there a Presidential run.
...
What's the big fight in 2016 again? I know it's an election year, but I'm blanking.
President...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Their platform is dumb, but expecting people to read the whole thing before voting is equally dumb. In general, people vote for the GOP because they want lower taxes and have either been tricked into thinking that would help them (poor people) or don't care about the people it would hurt because it would help them (rich people). Beyond that, you have single-issue evangelicals.
Open seat in the White House.
Apparently there's backroom stuff that all the wonks are getting excited about (Schweitzer vs. Cuomo, apparently), and the DNC doesn't want to be seen playing favorites I guess.
Well there's Omalley from Maryland, Schwietzer from Montana, and Lisa Ann from porn (she has a killer Palin impression). Those are the big names.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Among political dorks, yes. :P
But seriously, from a progressive perspective the potential 2016 field is super strong:
Hillary Clinton if she wants to take a shot at it
Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana, owner of a veto branding iron with which he vetoes stupid shit)
Andrew Cuomo (Governor of New York, generally strong, but somewhat captured by the financial industry)
Martin O'Malley (Governor of Maryland, generally awesome)
Elizabeth Warren (Hopefully Senator from Massachusetts, the best)
I'd appreciate it if Sherrod Brown jumped in just to move things to the left a bit.
She'd be 69, older than any president at inauguration besides Reagan (who'd be a few months older than her). It'd play a pretty big factor. If she stays healthy, it's possible (I think McCain was 70, 71?), but she'd take a hit for it and I'm sure she'll want to semi-retire eventually. I think she'd be a good president, but I also think there'll be stronger candidates.
Edit: Also, Warren will be weak in 2016. I'll call it right now: she ends up a three term senator, then retires in '35 at the ripe old age of 81.
Hence my doubts. I feel the same way about Biden as well.
Primary is Tuesday. Hopefully Stabenow kicks either of their asses.
pleasepaypreacher.net
HB 275 was a bill to pay the previous legislature's budget shortfall. It was not a bill to help fund education for the next two years. Were you not paying attention when Rick Perry was screaming to veto any bill that used rainy day funds to fund education? Were you not there when Dan Patrick, Vice Chair of the Education Committee, was arguing we shouldn't use any of it at all because we might need it two years from now?
These two are not even the most crazy in the party (now). We've gone beyond the red line in the state at this point.
It'll be a tough race thanks to outside circumstances, but 'Debbie Spend-It-Now' will make sure Hoekstra stays far away from office.
Hoekstra's extremely racist ad and the GOP still picking him as a party canidate is fucking horrible.
pleasepaypreacher.net