Jump to content
  • I think that it’s now safe to say that we Texans now live in a failed state.  30 years of GOP rule, setting our own standard, living the “Texas Dream,” which they’ve bragged about relentlessly…and let’s see where we are:

    A majority of the state in complete failure, unable to deliver the most BASIC of services (things that are called “utilities,” not “luxuries,” for a reason).  No power.  No water.  No means of clearing roads (that one, I can’t fault the state so much….but it wouldn’t be as big a crisis if people weren’t stuck in their homes with no power and water).  So citizens are stuck in their homes, some of them dying there. 

    Water resource planning?  After pretending for decades that a drought would never happen again, and not doing ANYTHING to develop resources in the state water plan (a document actually developed using science and mathematical projections), we had several locations, including actual cities, down to a few days of water supply.  We’ve finally gotten on our horse a bit, but it may be too late if the next drought comes anytime soon.  

    State rank in key categories:

    Education – 34

    Health Care - 37

    Infrastructure - 33

    Opportunity - 39

    Environment - 44

    Infrastructure - 33 

    In overall quality of life ranking by US News, we are now #38, down from #36 just two years ago.  At that rate, we’ll be in the bottom 3 within ten years.

    We are SUPER independent, and FUCK the feds….but we have requested federal disaster assistance more than any other state in the past decade or so.

    But hey, our economy is ranked #15!

    That’s right, we have a “roaring economy” and the “Texas Miracle!”  But we can’t deliver the basics for our citizens.  The economy is VERY efficient at funneling bazillions to the very few…..with little of it “trickling down” to most Texans.  Yeah, the people on this board generally do fine, but face the facts – we’re the top 10% or so.  We are educated, older, and fortunate.

    Our federal system allows for state-by-state experiments.  Texas is the poster child for near anarcho-capitalism and zero regulation or oversight.  We have tested that approach, for over a generation now (30 years of Republican rule).  That approach is a failure.  The evidence is undeniable, and overwhelming.  It doesn’t matter how many River Oaks millionaires you produce if the rest of your people are dying in their homes.  Shit, some of those River Oaks millionaires might be freezing to death today, too.

    The kids of a middle class family can hardly afford to go to a good state school.  Their prospects for employment are mediocre.  Their prospects of suffering crippling medical debt at some point are significant.  Their chances of not having basic utilities needed for life safety at some point – all but certain.  Their chances of becoming ill or dying from a pollution-caused illness are material.

    What’s the result?  Our leaders have sold Texas as a paradise – move here!  Bring your business here!  And some businesses have done so, adding opportunity…..but providing little to no tax support for the infrastructure we all depend on.  To the contrary, over the past few years, I know more and more people – educated people, people who can do their jobs elsewhere, who are looking to bail on this state.  It’s people with young kids, who want them to grow up in a better place.  It’s people in their working years, who simply want a better path.  It’s retirees, who want a safe and secure place to live.

    We have consumed our seed stock.  We have burned through our reserves.  We are now consuming ourselves.  The ability to pitch Texas as the land of opportunity is done.  Seeing what we have become, the tentative thought/plan my wife and I had of wrapping up our careers here and then getting the hell out of Dodge is becoming much more concrete.  My children are already unlikely to make their future in this state.  Now we are, too.

    But the response from the Republican leadership and their sycophants – “how are you gonna pay for it?  Taxes?  That’s socialism!  You want that stuff, you have to pay for it!”

    Fuck yes I do, and I’m okay with that.  I want groceries…so I have to pay HEB.  I want a car…so I have to pay Ford.  I want clothes…..so I have to pay Dillards.  I want my population educated….so I have to pay the school district.  I want electricity, with enough capacity to keep us running when we need it…..so I have to pay my bill, maybe with a capacity surcharge.  I want water to come out of the taps….so I have to pay for development of resources and maintenance of infrastructure.  I want roads….so I pay taxes to build and maintain them.  YES, I have to pay for all of those things, and “nothing is free” – no fucking shit.  So, let’s pay for it.  We have the #15 economy….we HAVE the funds in this state.  An economy with the flow of funds that ours has can produce and maintain all of those results.  But we have chosen a different path; funnel all the dollars to the top, and spend next to nothing for the public good.  We have privatized profit….we have socialized the costs.  And we are dying because of it.

    My fellow Texans are dying in their homes….and there’s nothing I can do about it today.  And I am enraged.

    I love Texas.  I am 6th generation here.  My ancestors have Texas historical markers on their graves.  We helped make this state, and this state helped make us.  It educated us (back when college was affordable).  But it’s time to face the fact – this state is a failure, and on its current path, with its current leadership and philosophy, it will only get worse.  This state has a terrible future, unless we dramatically change our path.   Chances of that happening?  0.0% -- because we’ll continue to vote for the guys who make our leadership priorities bathroom bills, and transgender sports, and requiring the national anthem be played at certain events.  Any bill that has been proposed to improve emergency preparedness of gov’t entities has been crushed by the Republicans controlling the lege….but we will definitely stick with those guys.  No taxes.  No government functionality.

    What we are seeing happening right now is our system working EXACTLY AS IT WAS DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO WORK.  And we will, I guarantee it, collectively decide to stick with that.  This state is in free-fall, and anyone with eyes can see it.  And anyone with a brain is starting to think of ways to make their life elsewhere.  It breaks my goddamned heart to see us commit collective suicide, but here we are.

     

     


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Elvis

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    That's insane.  I mean, when the SCOTUS voids the 13th amendment next year, you'll surely be able to pick up a Cherokee for half that price, just like back in the old days.

    cherokke_orig.jpeg

     

    You really wrote that? WTF?!

    South Austin

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Elvis said:

    You really wrote that? WTF?!

    You think a Cherokee will cost more?

    • Like 3
    • Haha 4
    DDD Dad

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, South Austin said:

    You think a Cherokee will cost more?

    I can get you a good deal on an Apache. 

    sasquatch69

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    I can get you a good deal on an Apache. 

    image.gif.3d954fec000315b18ed7525f98ea1fbd.gif

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
    Sawbonz

    Posted

    22 hours ago, Pasken said:

    I blame the regular program in Texas public schools. I took a few non-honors classes for shit I really wasn't good at and you don't learn anything. It's like busywork babysitting. 

    image.jpeg.2873261f686d1dd98f912e65bd7a823a.jpeg

     

    • Haha 1
    South Austin

    Posted

    37 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    I can get you a good deal on an Apache. 

    PM sent.

    • Haha 3
    Captain Ron

    Posted

    On 8/8/2025 at 8:03 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    No. They don’t. That’s what separates them from Democrats. Texas GOP voters care more about winning races than anything else. That’s why they were able to break the Democrats hold on the state. GOP voters in Texas haven’t gotten lazy yet. 

    They know Paxton is the favorite and can win. They aren’t sure he will and they know if will be expensive to get him there.
    Hunt, on the other hand, assures them of taking the natural statewide 56-44 break, making the race much cheaper to win, and presents an opportunity to take some black voters from Democrats as well, which then means the GOP could be competitive in local races in urban districts where they otherwise would not be. 
     

     

     

     

     

    To be fair I would put the state of the GOP in Texas clearly in the hands of well orchestrated moves by Rove and others. I recommend reading this -https://www.texasobserver.org/john-cornyn-profile-mitch-mcconnell-trump-2020/ which talks about the moves made during the 80s and 90s that put us squarely where we are today.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    Ag with kids

    Posted

    On 7/31/2025 at 10:10 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Wait. You’ve consistently supported a consideration of party support in creating congressional districts.
    My opinion is and has always been that partisan gerrymandering is bad, period, at all times and in all places and that party outcomes should *never* be considered in the districting process.

    Have you changed your mind? California and Illinois just do what you’ve always advocated for. 
    The difference is that you and I don’t live in those places. And for the record. I really don’t care about them. I do care that northern Hays county, where I served in an official capacity for about a decade, will be deprived of congressional representation by sharing a rep with places that it has nothing in common with.

    My consideration of party support had to do with how a state voted.

    CA voted Harris 58.47% Trump 38.33%.  Their legislature should be close to representing that ratio.

    However, it's currently 83%-17%

    A state that votes 55-65%-45-35% for X party should have a state legislature and US House representation somewhere around those values.

    Unfortunately, you will NEVER be able to do a NON gerrymandered map.  Look at every single state - the rural areas are bright red.  WHY?  Because they have "conservative values" (however you want to define those)...

    But, then you get to the urban areas and that's why you have the "salamanders" crawling all over them.  And you want, I forgot what you called it, but I think "communities of interest" or something like that to be linked.  I don't think I ever argued against that.  People in urban or even suburban areas don't live where they live to fit some type of good "district map"...

    My whole point has been that the legislature makeup should match the voting makeup.

    How do you propose that districts be drawn up that ONLY reflect "communities of interest" and yet allow the majority in the state to have their voting "power" be reflected in a way that actually works?

    • Fuck You 1
    Ag with kids

    Posted

    On 8/1/2025 at 12:39 AM, Eskimohorn said:


    Dems will gladly accept nonpartisan redistricting commissions across the country.

    They have one...

     

    And their "nonpartisan" redistricting commission gerrymandered the state to 83%-17% when the state votes 59%-39%...

    • Fuck You 2
    Ag with kids

    Posted

    On 7/31/2025 at 10:22 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Btw, @Ag with kids, are you OK?
    Is that the best you can do? After defending such an unconcionable position for so many years it’s pretty sad that “the Dems in California do it too!!1!1!!” is where you landed, like I give a fuck about what Democrats do, or California. Whom are you even addressing?
    It makes me think your media diet must be pretty low calorie. 

    How about this:  if you can’t defend this gerrymander, at least you know your party is going to get to the bottom of this Epstein scandal, amirite.

    I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

     

    HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

    The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

     

    Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

     

    Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

     

    BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

    • Fuck You 5
    Ag with kids

    Posted

    On 8/1/2025 at 5:22 AM, Bojack said:

    You stupid motherfucker, you make a political statement every time you post on this website because your avatar is a dumbass political joke. You do it everywhere except the place that's designated for politics. 

    Meh...

     

    I changed it from my avatar that was on shaggy/hornfans that was kind of a joke on my school...

     

    I'll change it so that the sand will get out of your vag...

    • Fuck You 2
    Ag with kids

    Posted

    On 8/2/2025 at 8:58 AM, hookemATL said:

    Lot of words and numbers to say “I love nazis and pedophilia”.  

    Go fuck, you un-American cunt. 

    And you're one of the reasons why this site is nothing but a burnt orange democratunderground echo chamber.

     

    Congrats, I guess???

    • Fuck You 2
    LCHorn

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

    The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.

    Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

    And that's not including the general presumption that we SHOULD be trying to steer this democratic experiment back towards majority rule, and the most simple method of doing so would be to have districts drawn in a manner that invites the most general election competition.  

    • Hook 'Em 3
    Bozo_Casanova

    Posted (edited)

    9 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    Not to pile on, but there's a good argument that gerrymandering results in weaker, less competitive candidates whether the district is drawn for team blue or team red.  

    Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

    In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

    Edited by Bozo_Casanova
    • Hook 'Em 3
    speed817

    Posted

    1 hour ago, crash_davis said:

    Fucking pieces of shit.

    c43dfpbf6pif1.jpeg

    Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

    • Hook 'Em 3
    SubliminalHorn

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

    That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

    And it’s fucking beautiful. One of the healthiest states with the lowest level of obesity. I love Colorado. Maybe it’s time to start planning the escape 

    • Hook 'Em 5
    Im_smarter_then_you

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, LCHorn said:

    I did the math for our family living in Colorado versus Texas, and we'd save about $7k a year.  We're pretty fortunate income and asset wise, so I re-did the math using a hypothetical $100K household income and the median value house in Denver and it's a savings of $6K living in Colorado.  

    That's $500 a month, or a car you wouldn't have otherwise, or the prorated deductible on a high deductible insurance plan for a family.  It's a really nice vacation, maybe two, or after school care for kids so a family can manage their household.  It's a quality of life upgrade for most and all the good people of Colorado had to do is get is not vote for incompetence and corruption.  

    Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

    crash_davis

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, speed817 said:

    Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

    hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
    • Rage+1 1
    crash_davis

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

    Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

    I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
    HenryJames

    Posted

    Sometimes it's cheaper because there is more of it.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    Macanudo

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

    Used to live in Denver.  I found it to be pricier tha. Any Texas city by far. Also look at pricing per square foot for housing.  Houston is far cheaper. 

    Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

    And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

    • Hook 'Em 8
    speed817

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

    hotwheels also graduated from UT. Fuck the both of them.

    I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

    But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

    • Haha 2
    crash_davis

    Posted

    Just now, speed817 said:

    I hope there's a day when a football player runs his ass over when he's on the sidelines.

    But then hotwheels will sue the player and the university for millions.....

    ...and then make it illegal to sue football players and the university.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Rage+1 4
    Im_smarter_then_you

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

    I'm sure Lincoln, Nebraska is cheap as fuck. Why? No one wants to fucking live there. Cheaper housing is cheap for a reason.

    Choir preaching.   I’ve lived in Denver, Seattle, most Texas cities, DC and now in SoCal.  Guess which one was the cheapest?  Guess which place I would never move back to?

    • Like 1
    Im_smarter_then_you

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

    I don't like how many states have apportioned their voting structure.

     

    HOWEVER, I also don't think that the right should acquiesce to the fact that the left has "gerrymandered" or "partisan apportioned" their legislatures to be more partisan than the right.  And are now demanding "fairness"...

    The right should return the favor and get on an even field and THEN negotiate to change things.  Otherwise, they're doing every election with AT LEAST one hand tied behind their back

     

    Hell, blue states are apportioned at 79% Democrat.  Red states are at 76% Republican.  IF Texas gets 5 more seats, the red states STILL won't be at 79%.

     

    Tell YOUR side to change first since you don't like the way the districts are set up...

     

    BTW, to answer your original question...Yes, I'm OK.  Thanks for asking.

    This is a joke right?

    Macanudo

    Posted

    23 minutes ago, Im_smarter_then_you said:

    This is a joke right?

    He's an Ag with 9 kids.  He most certainly is not all right. 

    • Haha 3
    Biff Tannen

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    He's an Ag with 9 kids.  He most certainly is not all right. 

    God, what a nightmarish existence.

    Im_smarter_then_you

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

    God, what a nightmarish existence.

    Yep but that’s nine future GOP voters

    wildcat09

    Posted

    22 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    He's an Ag with 9 kids.  He most certainly is not all right. 

    I bet they homeschool all of them too.

    • Haha 1
    Brisketexan

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Of course it does- that’s the Iron Law of Single Party Districts: in a district or state where one party has a dominant advantage, the nominating process of the dominant party will produce the least acceptable candidate the majority is willing to vote for. 

    In competitive districts and states, parties will typically nominate two relatively strong, well qualified candidates.  

    QFT because this is really, really, really important.  As we've seen the Karl Rove strategy borne out over the last few decades, this is what we've gotten.  It's not just that we've ended up with Republican congresscritters, it's also that we've ended up with truly shitty, embarrassing, terrible Republican congresscritters.  MTG.  Boebert.  Come on.  Any self-respecting American should be fucking mortified that people like that have offices in our Capitol.  Shit, even when it's not a gerrymander, and you have long-time one-party rule, you end up with awful fucking leaders.  Senator Tuberville?  Attorney General Paxton?  These are pieces of shit who should never have had ANY sort of successful career, much less occupied high office....and today, they are the tip of the spear of Republican leadership and thought.

    It's not just that ag with kids wants to elect Republicans.  It's that he favors a system that will elect the Temu version of Republicans.

    9c6nuu.jpg

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Rage+1 1
    Bozo_Casanova

    Posted

    33 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

    Counterpoint:  Winters in Denver are far preferable to summers in Houston. 

    And the power stays on all year in Denver. 

    Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

    crash_davis

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    Amarillo doesn’t get enough run for having great weather. It’s windy, but it has four seasons and since Covid had the happy impact of reducing my ability to smell shit while leaving my ability to smell food untouched, I feel like it would be a good option (if my wife didn’t hate Amarillo).

    George Strait summarized Amarillo perfectly. He has to get there by morning because no one wants to the dipshit who has to wake up there every morning.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Drool 1
    Brisketexan

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

    A shitload of this.

    When you tell your kids that the moon is made of green cheese, and do everything you can to prevent them from accessing alternate information....shit changes when they go to a university with an actual astronomy department, and a real moon rock on display.  Then they come home and say "so, the moon is really made of rock and such," you get all pissed off because the lies/incomplete information you gave them went poof.

    That's not to say that young people are the best digesters of new ideas and information.  They also hear certain ideas for the first time, and are enamored by them at a surface level, and their youthful energy and passion get out in front.  That's how you also often have students taking absurd/extreme political positions at a campus protest or whatnot.  But when you understand that an overly enthusiastic embrace of new/controversial ideas and theories is PART OF THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING YOUR BRAIN, it's not that big a deal.  We've had to roll our eyes plenty at some of the "absolutist" positions our kids have taken/stated from time to time.  We know that time and experience will sand he edges off of those extremes.  And we also know it's not the school or any "indoctrination" that gave them those thoughts.  It's just the ordinary process of your worldview expanding.

    • Hook 'Em 7
    TwiceHorn

    Posted (edited)

    20 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

    My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
    And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
    And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

    Yes, I have been pondering this, as well, and have reached the same conclusion.

    True conservatism is maintenance of the status quo, or really more accurately, measured change and acknowledgement of unintended consequences.

    Other than history, or studying that principal in action in some other context, there really isn't much to be gained academically or educationally by "teaching conservatism" except actual political indoctrination.  In a lot of ways, conservatism is antithetical to education.  Actual conservatism is "that's a great idea, but  . . . ."  And that means you actually need exposure to great ideas, even if they're ultimately flawed in execution or some other way.

    I mean hell, most of the people in this forum are former conservatives or hewed to a fair amount of conservative notions and we all attended that commanis, hommasekshul librul UT.

    Edited by TwiceHorn
    • Hook 'Em 2
    Im_smarter_then_you

    Posted

    19 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    My daughters and I talk about this. I’ve always been puzzled about where the idea of on-campus indoctrination comes from. I don’t think humanities and liberal arts faculty are any more or less tolerant of dissent than they ever have been, and so also frankly don’t think curricula and professors usually have the ability to dictate a  point of view to their students. 

    My daughters have said they think it’s just a matter of exposure to other students and new places, because the only kids they have seen do 180  ideological turns in college are kids from sheltered, homogeneous environments who see the world outside for the first time and realize that things are not as they were told. There’s a prog-left version of this too, but the Republican small city kids learn that cities aren’t dangerous, liberals don’t hate the free market, people don’t get third term abortions other than in medical emergencies and white Christian political conservatives are the discriminators more often than they are the object of discrimination. 
    And it is not extremely important also that college is where the gay kids from those environments finally have the space to accept themselves for the first time. 
    And then they come home from college, and the parents blame woke indoctrination, when it was really just seeing the world outside the cloister for the first time. 

    Yep. First time o loved outside of Texas was eye opening. Met liberals that actually worked hard and weren’t on the government cheese. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    Gourmand

    Posted

    1 hour ago, speed817 said:

    Bomani Jones approves of this.  Can't believe Will Cain graduated from UT

    repped for the Bomani Jones reference

    Far too few people have heard Bomani torch Will Cain on his own show in the aftermath of that Bubba Wallace Nascar controversy. Absolute fire from Bomani.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    pyrohornIII

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

    So you want Texas, which votes about 56% Republican, and is currently gerrymandered to predetermine a 66% Republican outcome, to increase the number of safe seats to 79%? That does not square with your repeated insistence that you think it should reflect how the state votes. 
    The fact is that if we just had 38 competitive districts drawn without regard to partisan lean and reflected actual communities it would play out closer to the natural break than anything else. 

     


    Designing districts around actual places on the map where people have important things in common is called “representation,” not “gerrymandering.”

    So you support efforts to hugely overepresent Republicans?

    I don’t have a side, I have a community. You do have a side, and your side is doing this in Texas. I don’t care about states where I don’t live. I care about Representative from Austin who have a reason to pick up the phone when someone from Austin calls.

     

    These numbers are skewed because they represent how people voted, but don't take into account how many would vote if they felt their districts were established fairly.  And also in the smaller rural counties they vote Red because that's the only party that has candidates, usually.  

    2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    Yep, the actual tax burden in California is lower for most people than in Texas.

    And then when you start figuring in things like cost of health insurance that are directly impacted by a state's political policies, the non-real-estate cost-of-living in Cali is even or cheaper than Texas.

    Plus I am betting the return of services per dollar is greater in a lot of those blue states.  

    • Hook 'Em 2



    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...