Dallas Mayor Flips to GOP: 'Cities Need Republicans'

[GMDino]

(09-24-2023, 07:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, we are actually.



Yeah, I already admitted that was a bridge too far when Hollo commented on it.  But feel free to continue to be aggrieved about it I guess.


Interesting, who is engaging in the petty argument?  Me, Dill, both of us?  Regardless, the topic is very much in line with the thread, given that one of Johnson's major reasons for switching parties was the Dems horrible current policies related to the criminal justice system.

The two of you were back to the rule of law argument.

I was never aggrieved.  I never responded. Only commented that I saw it.

I said the two of you.

He was a "Dem" using those policies.  If he thought they were wrong he could have said so before being lying to the voters just to get reelected.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2023, 06:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Why would his voters be pissed?
Don't they vote based on Policy? or are you saying they vote based on R or D next to the name?
If a D is getting results and or doing/saying the right things, i have no issues voting for one.

I'm gonna assume they voted for the guy they thought would be the same guy with the same policies they voted for before.  Instead he says "all my old policies were bad...I need to a Republican so we can save the city from what I did" (paraphrased)...AFTER he is elected.

Like if P01135809 got elected and suddenly said he wanted to be a Democrat and tax the rich.  The only difference being P01135809 wouldn't have had a majority of votes.

[basballguy]

(09-24-2023, 08:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm gonna assume they voted for the guy they thought would be the same guy with the same policies they voted for before.  Instead he says "all my old policies were bad...I need to a Republican so we can save the city from what I did" (paraphrased)...AFTER he is elected.

The mayor position in Dallas is technically nonpartisan.  So the policies candidates campaign with end up catering to both sides of the aisle.  

I'm not defending him...I don't like the guy nor trust him (also did not vote for him in 2019), but this argument about him changing policies is a bit silly...He's pro law enforcement....he's gonna switch to R and now be anti law enforcement?  He was the equivalent of a RINO on the dem side (according to democrats) yet they still supported him?  Could it be because he had that D instead?  

People are upset that he identifies differently....they weren't upset with his policies last week.  It's textbook identity politics.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-24-2023, 07:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: The two of you were back to the rule of law argument.

Actually, I've never had that discussion with him.  I believe it to be asemantic waste of time as anyone discussing the subject honestly would realize the point being made.  But you are correct, I did allow him to suck me back in a bit to that pointless discussion.

Quote:I was never aggrieved.  I never responded. Only commented that I saw it.

Did you also see were I admitted it was an unfair statement to make within the confines of this board?

Quote:I said the two of you.

Fair enough.

Quote:He was a "Dem" using those policies.  If he thought they were wrong he could have said so before being lying to the voters just to get reelected.

He was a Democrat, but he was absolutely not using those policies.  In that regard you are entirely incorrect.  Also, you'd have to find were he lied to his voters, I'm not seeing it.  Lastly, you ignore the possibility that he had recently reached a tipping point on this issue.  We've all had those instances in our lives, where something we tolerated or ignored for a prolonged period of time suddenly reached the point that it became intolerable.  If I may give some well intended advice, it might be better to focus on his stated reasons for the party change rather than the change itself.  By all accounts this man was/is a wildly popular mayor.  Running unopposed is virtually unheard of.  He didn't suddenly become a garbage person because he felt the Democratic party no longer fit his moral and political beliefs.

[Eraserhead]

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is no such wiggle room or vagaries when it comes to street level crime.  Everyone except actual criminals loathes it.  There is no subjectivity about prosecuting criminals, especially recidivists, to the fullest extent of the law.  You assert that being concerned with this has to be on equal terms to being concerned about Trump's actions.  It doesn't and it's not even close to it.  A person can fully believe that Trump was in the right on the '20 elections and still want street level criminals rightfully prosecuted as prescribed by the penal code.

Sure there is. Judges, prosecutors, cops, states, municipalities use subjectivity all the time when dealing with crime. What are you even talking about. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-24-2023, 11:19 PM)Eraserhead Wrote: Sure there is. Judges, prosecutors, cops, states, municipalities use subjectivity all the time when dealing with crime. What are you even talking about. 

Shh, adults are talking.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-22-2023, 04:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Then run as a republican.  That's the farce.

He can choose to believe whatever policies he wants...but run on them and see if the voters want them.

Don't run on one set and then switch parties/policies after you win while at the same time claiming big cities "need" republicans.  He certainly had no problem accepting donations from Democrats to help fund his campaign.

It is unfair to the voters and it is an underhanded way of doing things, IMHO.

Maybe he is a rare actual Democrat and wants to get the party back to not being total lunatics? All of this is good for the country. The Dem policies aren’t working and they haven’t been for quite some time. But hey, at least they use their pronouns in their profile and meet their quota for diversity hires every year. 

[Dill]

(09-25-2023, 12:32 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Shh, adults are talking.

(09-23-2023, 01:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe it does?  Could tou provide me some examples of my being smug on the issue of public safety and the actual enforcement of the penal code?

Dino style.

[Dill]

(09-24-2023, 12:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: So are we still discussing the Mayor who lied to voters during his campaign and switched parties?

(I mean you guys could get back to telling me what I really mean, that I don't like black's who don't fall in line with the Democrats...that was at least *mentioning* the topic of the thread.   )

Or you two can continue the petty arguments.  I'm not a staff member.

Er, I don't think I was telling you what you really mean, was I?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2023, 06:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Dino style.

That wasn't smug, it was 100% condescending.  As a fan of semantics you should have really been all over that.


Also, "Dino style"?  So much cringe there I got douche chills.

[Dill]

(09-24-2023, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll forgive me for skipping over yet another diatribe about Trump and the "big lie".  You added nothing you haven't repeated at least a hundred times before in other posts, so please forgive me for moving past it.
What you, and many far leftists, can't seem to grasp is that there is no comparison here.  A street criminal may feel justified in what they do, although I can tell you regardless of their excuses they give the vast, vast majority of them know they're doing wrong and don't care.  I shared the story of the woman who was stealing groceries to "feed her kids" but had a cart loaded with hundreds of dollars of king crab legs and numerous bottles of liquor.  So, it's more a case of telling stories they know will garner sympathy in far left ideologues and the terminally gullible than it is believing what they're doing is justified.  Criminals play the far left like a violin, they see you as convenient marks, a sucker they can run game on.  And in the far left's rush to appear as virtuous as possible they eagerly fill this role to the detriment of everyone else.
You can try as you might to make people view Trump's actions on the same level as the guy who put a gun in their face and demanded their wallet or car.  Or the smash and grab theft ring that just looted their business.  Or the person who randomly assaulted them for "disrespecting them".  Or the person who punched an elderly woman in the face, took her purse and threw her down on the ground, breaking her hip.  Or the person whose house was broken into, robbed and ransacked with the thieves spray painting over their artwork and on their hardwood floors, leaving graffiti that said they were easy to rob.  And these are just a few examples of cases I have directly seen this month.
You can try all you like, and you will continue to fail in that regard, because street level crime, that actually affects people's day to day lives, will always matter more than what Trump did or did not do on 01/06, no matter how much righteous indignation you muster over the issue.

You dodged the essential argument, and went on to refute an argument I never made via a comparison I never made.
Who knows if the dodge was deliberate or a sincere failure to understand?  I sure don't. But a dodge it was.

An attempted coup is rather more of a problem FOR THE NATION than random assault, even of an elderly woman.
Just as the assassination of a president is more of a problem for the nation than a random murder.

Plenty of people do understand this, even people who are randomly mugged, because they understand what "rule of law" means.
You don't; that is clear enough. My worry is that many other voters don't either. The right can play them like a violin. And does.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................

@ Dino, this does have something to do with your thread topic, as the choice before the US voter now is that is between a law and order party and one that explicitly affirms rule of law (that's what the Trump prosecutions are about). One consequence of the former as that internal party dynamics change such that party leaders become more interested in gaining and maintaining power than ruling on principle. We see that in current Congressional divisions, as principled people are voted out of office and the number of people who want power so badly they will do amazing flip flops to stay in power increases.

Johnson's rationale for switching parties clearly appeals to the law and order faction and, as he expresses it, seems more about CA cities than Texas ones, but now will be applied to a Texas city that he has already been governing for some years. Except he has no plans to change his "approach."

Did he need to change parties in order to govern Dallas the "right" way? If he's not going to change his "approach," how does his becoming a Republican make Dallas better and safer, aside from less "virtue signaling" and nose thumbing at Republicans? More likely the switch is about a track to a more powerful office. That's about the only goal he could have that could be furthered by the change of party.

If BBG voted against him and remembers something of Dallas politics, maybe something about Johnson's style or what people thought of him, I would like to hear more about it.

[Dill]

(09-25-2023, 06:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That wasn't smug, it was 100% condescending.  As a fan of semantics you should have really been all over that.
Also, "Dino style"?  So much cringe there I got douche chills.

I'll accept "condescending," since it is hard to be smug without that.

Ok if you do it; I got that part too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2023, 09:11 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll accept "condescending," since it is hard to be smug without that.

Ok if you do it; I got that part too.

Actually one can be condescending without being at all smug about it.  Just because the two are inextricably linked in your posts does not mean this is true of anyone else.

[Dill]

(09-25-2023, 09:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually one can be condescending without being at all smug about it. 

Don't think so. In any case, no separation in your post to Eraserhead.

(09-25-2023, 09:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just because the two are inextricably linked in your posts does not mean this is true of anyone else.

You referring to my  "lols"?  You spin up quite a wallop from those.

Rather than looking down on other posters, why not go back and

give E-head a respectful answer to a good question?

Smugness can be a dodge too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-25-2023, 09:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Don't think so. In any case, no separation in your post to Eraserhead.


You referring to my  "lols"?  You spin up quite a wallop from those.

Rather than looking down on other posters, why not go back and

give E-head a respectful answer to a good question?

Smugness can be a dodge too.

This is actually more boring than your semantic arguments.  I'll leave you to continue derailing the thread on your own.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-23-2023, 01:13 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: "Cities need Republicans" 

DO they? Seriously. Do we need a party that wants to make things worse? 

How exactly have Republicans made things worse other than the man in charge making mean tweets before his freedom of speech was taken away by a public platform run by 98% democrats, because he “incited an insurrection” with the tweets “protest peacefully, we are the party of law and order”?

Someone said it earlier. The left has gone too far left and no one is stopping them. Today’s left is the reason for the polarization. They’ve come up with completely bizarre ideas that make no sense just within the last 3 years that no rational person can possibly get on board with. Because they scream the loudest, they control the narrative and are able to paint anyone that 10 years ago would be considered liberal as a bigoted far right fascist perpetuating “white supremacy.” 

Someone’s gotta pump the brakes on the left and it HAS to come from the Democrat party. They’ve lost their minds. If you wave an American flag and think having a penis means that you’re a man, you’re a far right bigot these days. Time for a reality check. Good on this guy for not being a total freak. 

[hollodero]

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't agree here.  A black person who is conservative is subject to abuse that the other groups, or people, you cite do not receive.  Being called a Uncle Tom or being accused of "cooning" is a common occurrence.  I've mentioned this before, but I heard more racial epithets directed at black, and to a much lesser extent Hispanic, officers during the "summer of love" from protestors than I had heard in my entire lifetime to that point.  For many there is a "correct way" to be black, and if you deviate from that you are guilty of an offense that justifies horrendous treatment.

I do not doubt these instances, protesters for one tend to have some more say extreme elements within them. I would, however, doubt that it goes so far that it can legitimately be called a trope for the democratic party as a whole. Eg. in case of that mayor, where I (of course I don't read all that much) have yet to see someone of importance calling him out for not being the right kind of black. As far as I can tell, in this specific instance skin color does not factor much into it and as long as the narrative doesn't switch that way, I will find it unnecessary to bring it up.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It is indeed speculation.  But if I may posit a position, do you not think it possible that a significant number of those angry people will, once their initial reaction cools, give some thought to his stated reasoning and actually examine their own position on those issues?

That would be an ideal, but I do not think the political landscape makes that realistic. I of course do not have any first hand experience. But from my perspective, intense refusal of the other party is among the most vivid motives for folks to vote a certain direction. Hardly any political argument fails to mention how awful the other party is, often there's no point beyond that. It's good versus evil on both sides. And not that I like it, but I guess that is also how many voters in Dallas feel.
I don't think making this switch in this highly polarized society is a good start for a meaningful debate. Most people, I assume, won't really listen and just stay angry. But alas, maybe I am wrong.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This argument rather runs contrary to your oft stated, and well argued, dislike for our two party system.  An independent does not have access to the extensive web of political contacts that being a member of either party provides.  Nor can you accrue and spend political capital as effectively.  This is different than Sinema, as a senator you have a large degree of autonomy and their relatively small number gives you political clout regardless.  Still, we'll see if she is reelected now that she is partyless.

I guess she will not. As for me disliking the two party system, I do not see a contradiction here. If there weren't a two party system, Mr. Mayor could switch to a third, less polarizing party, for example. Imho it can also be argued that without a two-party system, cities would not automatically be so deeply blue and hence many more extreme and misled policies would not see the light of day in the first place.

(09-24-2023, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which is exactly why I think Johnson made the move he did, and in the way he made it.  He apparently believes, and I tend to agree, that you have to shock people out of deeply entrenched, and in this case awfully destructive, ideals.  We see examples of the deflection attempts in this very thread, with comparisons of everyday crime to Trump's "big lie".  They're not the same and shouting and flailing about Trump isn't going to distract someone from the fact they were just carjacked, nor will it make them feel better about the Dems being the "rule of law" party, all the while ignoring the rule of law when it comes to street level crime.

That is absolutely true, but it still is the reality of things regardless. You can not separate the republican party from Trump these days. I could not do that. And I guess many voters could not do that either. Much like you say you never vote for a Democrat again if things do not change - which I can understand - I would (theoretically, of course) feel the exact same way about the GOP as long as they do not stand up to Trump. If one switches to this party, one can not be perceived as doing so in complete ignorance of Trump and what he stands for.

Had Mr. Mayor just left the democratic party, all these points - and yeah they are not addressing the issue at hand, apparently - might not have been so dominant. That would be my point from before. I get the argument of having access. But if it's more about a symbolic act and to start a meaningful debate, this was not the best way to go, imho. One can see how not meaningful the debate turns out to be now.

[GreenDragon]

(09-26-2023, 01:01 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: How exactly have Republicans made things worse other than the man in charge making mean tweets before his freedom of speech was taken away by a public platform run by 98% democrats, because he “incited an insurrection” with the tweets “protest peacefully, we are the party of law and order”?

Someone said it earlier. The left has gone too far left and no one is stopping them. Today’s left is the reason for the polarization. They’ve come up with completely bizarre ideas that make no sense just within the last 3 years that no rational person can possibly get on board with. Because they scream the loudest, they control the narrative and are able to paint anyone that 10 years ago would be considered liberal as a bigoted far right fascist perpetuating “white supremacy.” 

Someone’s gotta pump the brakes on the left and it HAS to come from the Democrat party. They’ve lost their minds. If you wave an American flag and think having a penis means that you’re a man, you’re a far right bigot these days. Time for a reality check. Good on this guy for not being a total freak. 

I didn't say anything about "mean tweets". Try to pay attention. 

Republicans want to take away women's rights to reproductive healthcare. 
Republicans want to take away peoples' right to VOTE. 

I'd say those 2 things alone make things worse. 


Also. You don't have freedom of speech on a private platform. On a platform like Twitter or Facebook or MySpace or thebengalsboard.com you agree to Terms of Service, the rules by which you must adhere to continue to be allowed to use the platform. Violating those rules that you agree to can result in you being removed from the platform. 
So, your orange hero being removed from Facebook for violating Terms of Service does NOT violate his free speech. Hope that clears that up for you and you stop regurgitating things that are not true. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2023, 06:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: I do not doubt these instances, protesters for one tend to have some more say extreme elements within them. I would, however, doubt that it goes so far that it can legitimately be called a trope for the democratic party as a whole. Eg. in case of that mayor, where I (of course I don't read all that much) have yet to see someone of importance calling him out for not being the right kind of black. As far as I can tell, in this specific instance skin color does not factor much into it and as long as the narrative doesn't switch that way, I will find it unnecessary to bring it up.

Not the Democratic part, no.  Outside of Biden they're smart enough not to publicly state as much.   That's left to their proxies in the media.  But, as I already stated, it was unfair to bring that up in the context of this board.  

Quote:That would be an ideal, but I do not think the political landscape makes that realistic. I of course do not have any first hand experience. But from my perspective, intense refusal of the other party is among the most vivid motives for folks to vote a certain direction. Hardly any political argument fails to mention how awful the other party is, often there's no point beyond that. It's good versus evil on both sides. And not that I like it, but I guess that is also how many voters in Dallas feel.
I don't think making this switch in this highly polarized society is a good start for a meaningful debate. Most people, I assume, won't really listen and just stay angry. But alas, maybe I am wrong.

But what would they be angry about?  The man isn't going to govern differently.  His policies haven't changed.  He isn't all of the sudden engaging in the worst excesses of the GOP.  He simply acknowledged that the Democrats have failed the public so badly on this issue, and continue to do so, that he was compelled to switch to a party that actually safeguards the citizenry.  In his opinion of course, although I don't know anyone who could make a strong argument against that belief.

Quote:I guess she will not. As for me disliking the two party system, I do not see a contradiction here. If there weren't a two party system, Mr. Mayor could switch to a third, less polarizing party, for example. Imho it can also be argued that without a two-party system, cities would not automatically be so deeply blue and hence many more extreme and misled policies would not see the light of day in the first place.

It doesn't contradict your belief regarding the two party system, it fails to acknowledge why he had only one real option because of it.  You can't dislike our two party system and then criticize someone for jumping to the only other major party.  By your own admission he's making the only viable choice available to him.

Quote:That is absolutely true, but it still is the reality of things regardless. You can not separate the republican party from Trump these days. I could not do that. And I guess many voters could not do that either. Much like you say you never vote for a Democrat again if things do not change - which I can understand - I would (theoretically, of course) feel the exact same way about the GOP as long as they do not stand up to Trump. If one switches to this party, one can not be perceived as doing so in complete ignorance of Trump and what he stands for.

Sadly, for many you are correct.  Trump certainly has an outsized influence on the GOP, one we both wish he did not possess.  But I disagree that his mere presence makes any connection to them odious by dint of this association.  Trump is more the GOP than any single Dem can be said to be the Democratic party.  But he is no way "the GOP".  There are millions of GOP voters who would prefer someone else, who also find more to loathe about Democratic policies and politics than a GOP with Trump in it.  

Quote:Had Mr. Mayor just left the democratic party, all these points - and yeah they are not addressing the issue at hand, apparently - might not have been so dominant. That would be my point from before. I get the argument of  having access. But if it's more about a symbolic act and to start a meaningful debate, this was not the best way to go, imho. One can see how not meaningful the debate turns out to be now.

Left and been a party of one?  Maybe get Sinema to join him and have two people?  Again, you're ignoring the realities of the two party system you so dislike.  This move was his only legitimate option.  As I said before, he doesn't have the autonomy of a Senator.  He needs a political network to be able to function as needed.  By your own admission Sinema will lose her bid for reelection, would she not stand a much better chance of returning the the Senate if she ran as a Republican?

[basballguy]

(09-28-2023, 03:26 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I didn't say anything about "mean tweets". Try to pay attention. 

Republicans want to take away women's rights to reproductive healthcare. 
Republicans want to take away peoples' right to VOTE. 

I'd say those 2 things alone make things worse. 

You can’t possibly believe this. If you do, I got no words and you’re beyond reasoning with.

God bless the ignore feature