Dallas Mayor Flips to GOP: 'Cities Need Republicans'

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

Well, for one, crime is certainly an important topic, but not necessarily the only important topic. The GOP stands for a lot of other things aside from potentially serving the public better on that front; from cutting and/or not expanding health care and social benefits to more or less neglecting climate change (put a more positive framing around it if you please), business policies, taxation, abortion, affirmative action, refugees and immigrants, guns, LGBTQ topics and so on and so forth, too many to list. I don't aim to be judgmental on those issues and values, but I'd say most democratic voters have fundamentally different stances on most or all of them. Certainly, a GOP politician can have differing opinions on one topic or another. But seen as a whole, he symbolizes those policies when carrying the R around behind his name.

And it's particularly difficult when it comes to Trump, sorry for being a broken record and understanding Dill here, I make it quick. I figure he was a major reason for people to vote Biden, and to vote blue across the ballot. Most liberal voters (and also me) just see Trump not only as perfectly unpleasant, but also as a threat to the country and democracy; and they see the GOP as the party that in its entirety supports or at least does not hinder him in his past and possible future deeds to these ends. The R just has that stench these days, not my fault. And even if you rightfully argue that this is unreasonable, it will still remain like that on an emotional level for most people, and admittedly also for me. Imho there's hardly such a thing as a completely sober, unemotional stance, and therin lies the problem. This is why I feel a meaningful dialogue will not be the result of that move; especially when starting it by claiming republicans are needed. It might be a reality in the two-party system, but the message won't be perceived well. The system is bipolar, individual mindsets usually are neither that nor independent or flexible. They are entrenched, as is the logical consequence of the system, it's also observable reality and the mayor knows that too.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

I don't know that, for I just know too little about the inner workings of city administration to determine whether being within a party is just inevitable. If it's indeed just impossible to run a city without belonging to a party, then I sure have to concede the point here. I could not hate the player for having to play the game to its subpar rules.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.  

Sure, and I sure do not scold them, but those also are people that probably did not vote for Mr. Mayor to begin with. But what would those people say if their candidate, the one they voted for based on their stances, just declares that he can no longer support Trump and therefore he now switches to the democrats. I'd wager most voters will not be cool about that.
And none of those few republicans that actually left the GOP over Trump, that critizise him harshly and perceive him as dangerous, be it Flake or Kinzinger or Cheney, did that. Amash turned libertarian. No one turned democrat. One could sure lecture them on the realities of the system they're operating in and tell them that this is the one move they have. Switch to the democrats as only viable party to oppose Trump, tell folks that the country needs democrats, give them majorities and influence etc. to fight Trump more effectively. But they did not go there, none of them, and I figure it's because the ideological gap was just too far, for them and their voters. Imho, same goes for democrats and theirs.

(09-28-2023, 05:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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?

That is difficult for me to say really. If the republican machinery supports her, then sure. If Trump does not forgive her past transgressions and sends a negative tweet or whatever its called on his social truth thingy or calls her names in rallyes, then probably not. I'm not sure reelection chances make it the right thing to do, however, even if their ambitions might be served. I mean, for all I care Sinema or Manchin also could simply stay democrats and keep criticizing them from within. It might possibly achieve more than just joining with the enemy, so to speak.
Now maybe this opposing policies from within option, or being an independent like Sanders or Angus King option, is indeed not possible for a Dallas mayor on a practical level (leaving reelections aside, for that is a different angle altogether). Again, if that is indeed so and he has no other viable choice to achieve his goals on fighting crime, then I understand the man.


Yup, ceterum censeo, two party system, real culprit once again.

[GreenDragon]

(09-28-2023, 05:41 PM)basballguy Wrote: You can’t possibly believe this.  If you do, I got no words and you’re beyond reasoning with.  

God bless the ignore feature

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

Republicans want to take away peoples' right to VOTE. 




Do I believe those two statements are BAD? YES. How can you not? 
If you're for a small government, what someone does with their body is none of your concern. But Republicans/Conservatives only CLAIM to be for a small government. They WANT laws against abortion and gay marriage - things that a small government would not concern itself with. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-28-2023, 08:49 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Republicans want to take away women's rights to reproductive healthcare. 

Republicans want to take away peoples' right to VOTE. 




Do I believe those two statements are BAD? YES. How can you not? 
If you're for a small government, what someone does with their body is none of your concern. But Republicans/Conservatives only CLAIM to be for a small government. They WANT laws against abortion and gay marriage - things that a small government would not concern itself with. 

I don't think there's a lot of support for being against same sex marriage.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx

The GOP support for it is at 49%.  I really don't think this is a huge issue for most conservative voters, which obviously includes some independents.  Abortion is far trickier, as people genuinely believe, not without some justification, that such an act is murdering a child.  I understand that you don't believe that, neither do I, but I can absolutely see how someone gets there logically.

[GreenDragon]

(09-28-2023, 09:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think there's a lot of support for being against same sex marriage.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/506636/sex-marriage-support-holds-high.aspx

The GOP support for it is at 49%.  I really don't think this is a huge issue for most conservative voters, which obviously includes some independents.  Abortion is far trickier, as people genuinely believe, not without some justification, that such an act is murdering a child.  I understand that you don't believe that, neither do I, but I can absolutely see how someone gets there logically.

You can BELIEVE whatever you want. But taking away someone's reproductive health care is NOT your right. Period. 

George Carlin nailed "conservatives" more than 20 years ago. 

"Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ******. Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you're just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it? They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women. They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state."


(113) George Carlin: pro-life, abortation & the sanctity of life... - YouTube

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 09:09 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: You can BELIEVE whatever you want. But taking away someone's reproductive health care is NOT your right. Period. 

George Carlin nailed "conservatives" more than 20 years ago. 

So, first off, I agree with you. So, in no way do I take the opposite stance when throwing in that a) Carlin imho is best be seen as a clever, witty, exaggerating agitator rather than a truth-teller - because what he says is not the truth. And b) SSF did not take the opposite stance either, but like him I can sincerely understand the opposing position. For most people, it is not about hating women or taking away her rights, it is just about killing a human life. Period. I do not share this stance, but it is not a scapegoat, not entirely bogus and what moves most people, that they see it as murder. Trying to put them in different, unflattering boxes like misogyny, like Carlin does, is a bit too easy for me as a serious stance. One can at least try to understand where people are actually coming from.

[GreenDragon]

(09-28-2023, 09:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: So, first off, I agree with you. So, in no way do I take the opposite stance when throwing in that a) Carlin imho is best be seen as a clever, witty, exaggerating agitator rather than a truth-teller - because what he says is not the truth. And b) SSF did not take the opposite stance either, but like him I can sincerely understand the opposing position. For most people, it is not about hating women or taking away her rights, it is just about killing a human life. Period. I do not share this stance, but it is not a scapegoat, not entirely bogus and what moves most people, that they see it as murder. Trying to put them in different, unflattering boxes like misogyny, like Carlin does, is a bit too easy for me as a serious stance. One can at least try to understand where people are actually coming from.

I understand where "pro life" people are coming from - they want to control a woman's body. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-28-2023, 09:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: So, first off, I agree with you. So, in no way do I take the opposite stance when throwing in that a) Carlin imho is best be seen as a clever, witty, exaggerating agitator rather than a truth-teller - because what he says is not the truth. And b) SSF did not take the opposite stance either, but like him I can sincerely understand the opposing position. For most people, it is not about hating women or taking away her rights, it is just about killing a human life. Period. I do not share this stance, but it is not a scapegoat, not entirely bogus and what moves most people, that they see it as murder. Trying to put them in different, unflattering boxes like misogyny, like Carlin does, is a bit too easy for me as a serious stance. One can at least try to understand where people are actually coming from.

I sincerely appreciate you saving me the effort.  Could not have said it better.

(09-28-2023, 09:41 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I understand where "pro life" people are coming from - they want to control a woman's body. 

Extremists of both stripe are unappealing.  You mirror what you hate far more than you know.

[hollodero]

(09-28-2023, 09:41 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I understand where "pro life" people are coming from - they want to control a woman's body. 

Oh, alright then. Your sophisticated, elaborated counter-point convinced me. Such douchebags.

[GreenDragon]

(09-28-2023, 09:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I sincerely appreciate you saving me the effort.  Could not have said it better.


Extremists of both stripe are unappealing.  You mirror what you hate far more than you know.

I mirror hate by wanting women to be able to have control over their reproductive rights? Make that make sense. 

[GreenDragon]

(09-28-2023, 09:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh, alright then. Your sophisticated, elaborated counter-point convinced me. Such douchebags.

Prove me wrong. Show me that being anti abortion is NOT about controlling women. Please. 

[GreenDragon]

Republicans are out there literally burning books. Think about that. Someone PLEASE tell me why that's okay.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-28-2023, 10:42 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: I mirror hate by wanting women to be able to have control over their reproductive rights? Make that make sense. 

(09-28-2023, 10:43 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Prove me wrong. Show me that being anti abortion is NOT about controlling women. Please. 

(09-28-2023, 10:54 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Republicans are out there literally burning books. Think about that. Someone PLEASE tell me why that's okay.

Because you are just as hardline in your stance as they are in theirs and not open to anything else and you appear as a Pro-Life hater. 

First, Straight from Science (not religion) the Life Cycle of a Human Being starts at the Fertilization of the Embryo's Conception.

Both sides try to play the goal post game on that, but it's never going to happen. (IE when it feels pain or can respond to outside stimuli, for the right When it gets a soul etc).

Now I am personally against it, but being a middle person, I can understand both sides. My Compromise is no abortions allowed after first trimester (which almost all occur in that time frame anyways). This would shut up the idiots running around yelling, "they can have an abortion up to the day they deliver!" and since most occur in the first trimester, then women's rights are still just fine.

One thing I don't agree with is removing BC from Health Insurance options, that's a personal choice not something i think Religion should have anything to do with. That to me is an over reach.

My view has nothing to do with "controlling women" it has to do with the RIGHT to LIFE in general. 

But as i said, i'm willing to compromise so both sides can get a piece of what they want. Are you willing to compromise? 

PS The book burning is stupid and not even remotely done by all Republicans, just a few hardliners again and you stereo typing ALL Republicans.

[GreenDragon]

(09-29-2023, 01:38 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Because you are just as hardline in your stance as they are in theirs and not open to anything else and you appear as a Pro-Life hater. 

First, Straight from Science (not religion) the Life Cycle of a Human Being starts at the Fertilization of the Embryo's Conception.

Both sides try to play the goal post game on that, but it's never going to happen. (IE when it feels pain or can respond to outside stimuli, for the right When it gets a soul etc).

Now I am personally against it, but being a middle person, I can understand both sides. My Compromise is no abortions allowed after first trimester (which almost all occur in that time frame anyways). This would shut up the idiots running around yelling, "they can have an abortion up to the day they deliver!" and since most occur in the first trimester, then women's rights are still just fine.

One thing I don't agree with is removing BC from Health Insurance options, that's a personal choice not something i think Religion should have anything to do with. That to me is an over reach.

My view has nothing to do with "controlling women" it has to do with the RIGHT to LIFE in general. 

But as i said, i'm willing to compromise so both sides can get a piece of what they want. Are you willing to compromise? 

PS The book burning is stupid and not even remotely done by all Republicans, just a few hardliners again and you stereo typing ALL Republicans.

"Because you are just as hardline in your stance as they are in theirs and not open to anything else and you appear as a Pro-Life hater. "


What I hate is hypocrisy. "Pro life" people are against any program providing anything a kid might need after its born - SNAP, welfare, etc. That's not "pro LIFE" that's pro fetus. 

"First, Straight from Science (not religion) the Life Cycle of a Human Being starts at the Fertilization of the Embryo's Conception."

It's funny that Christian conservatives in this country (I'll add the caviat of "Christian" here because they're the vast majority of "conservatives" in this country) like to use science when it suits them. They'll deny the facts of evolution and climate change all day long. But the life cycle of an animal will get brought up. 

"when it gets a soul" - what's a soul? 

"My view has nothing to do with "controlling women" it has to do with the RIGHT to LIFE in general. "
That's YOUR view. Not the view of the majority of the people in the movement or the people at the top of the movement. 

Compromise? 

Here's a compromise: keep government out of women's bodies. Period. 

You don't support abortion? DON'T GET ONE.

Republicans used to be about small government. That is no more. The modern Republican party WANTS big government especially when it pertains to your personal life. 


Boook burning - I didn't say ALL Republicans. Go back. If you don't support it speak out against it, otherwise, you are part of the problem. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-01-2023, 01:41 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: "Because you are just as hardline in your stance as they are in theirs and not open to anything else and you appear as a Pro-Life hater. "


What I hate is hypocrisy. "Pro life" people are against any program providing anything a kid might need after its born - SNAP, welfare, etc. That's not "pro LIFE" that's pro fetus. 

"First, Straight from Science (not religion) the Life Cycle of a Human Being starts at the Fertilization of the Embryo's Conception."

It's funny that Christian conservatives in this country (I'll add the caviat of "Christian" here because they're the vast majority of "conservatives" in this country) like to use science when it suits them. They'll deny the facts of evolution and climate change all day long. But the life cycle of an animal will get brought up. 

"when it gets a soul" - what's a soul? 

"My view has nothing to do with "controlling women" it has to do with the RIGHT to LIFE in general. "
That's YOUR view. Not the view of the majority of the people in the movement or the people at the top of the movement. 

Compromise? 

Here's a compromise: keep government out of women's bodies. Period. 

You don't support abortion? DON'T GET ONE.

Republicans used to be about small government. That is no more. The modern Republican party WANTS big government especially when it pertains to your personal life. 


Boook burning - I didn't say ALL Republicans. Go back. If you don't support it speak out against it, otherwise, you are part of the problem. 

Boy you got me figured out, stereo typed and all. 
I am against using Christianity to make Laws. They are separate for a reason.
Now some are common sense as well, such as thou shall not kill, obviously that is also a Law with consequences.

Who said I was against SNAP? In fact, i think kids attending schools should all get free breakfast and lunch. To insure they get food 2x per day while in school.
Also I don't like some of the current adoption laws. I really hate it when people adopt outside the country but i understand why.

Apparently you've never seen many of my Arguments, i will use Science not Religion.  I respect those that are religious but it's not for me. What i don't respect is those that say use Prayer when their kid had a busted Appendix. It's not gonna work, they need medical intervention. I don't give a flying-**** what your Religion says, that's over the line and is basically Murder in my eyes. 

And Yes i am Pro-Life so what of it? I also respect those that aren't and gave a compromise, which you ignored altogether. 
And i think you are wrong. 1 in 5 thinks it should be legal with no restrictions, 1 in 5 think it should be illegal under all circumstances and the rest believe it should be legal but with restrictions which is the majority and what my compromise was about. Legal in the first tri-mester then it needs to be extreme circumstances to be legal after that.  It's a win-win Lose-lose for both extreme sides but is what the majority wants. If you can't understand that, then you are that 1 in 5 and there's no more point in talking about it with you, as you will never be happy unless the laws reflect "YOUR VIEW". 

[GreenDragon]

(10-02-2023, 04:07 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Boy you got me figured out, stereo typed and all. 

When did I say YOU? 

[GreenDragon]

(10-02-2023, 04:07 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And Yes i am Pro-Life so what of it? I also respect those that aren't and gave a compromise, which you ignored altogether. 
And i think you are wrong. 1 in 5 thinks it should be legal with no restrictions, 1 in 5 think it should be illegal under all circumstances and the rest believe it should be legal but with restrictions which is the majority and what my compromise was about. Legal in the first tri-mester then it needs to be extreme circumstances to be legal after that.  It's a win-win Lose-lose for both extreme sides but is what the majority wants. If you can't understand that, then you are that 1 in 5 and there's no more point in talking about it with you, as you will never be happy unless the laws reflect "YOUR VIEW". 

Your "compromise" still takes away a woman's right to choose. Period. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-02-2023, 01:27 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Your "compromise" still takes away a woman's right to choose. Period. 

So YOUR VIEW is the only one that matters right?

[Bengalion]

Pro choice people are hypocrites. They support the women's right to choose, but why didn't these unhappy pregnant women order/ask their husband/boyfriend to use condom before having sex? Where's all these empowered women who stand up for their rights and fight against the patriarchy? If you're strong enough to stand up for your rights then you should be able to ask your partner to make safe sex, be honest and talk about it as two civilized people. Just tell your partner you're not making it if he refuses to use condom. Abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive method, tell these women life comes with responsabilities. Of course there's rape cases, and in my opinion rape should be recognized as a legal ground for access to safe abortion service provided by the government (I'm not a communist, but in that case I think the government should provide the basics for rape victims). Also there's some cases where the fetus can really kill a woman by issues related to the pregnancy so there's that too.

[hollodero]

(10-02-2023, 04:07 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Legal in the first tri-mester then it needs to be extreme circumstances to be legal after that.  It's a win-win Lose-lose for both extreme sides but is what the majority wants.

That's basically what my country does and pretty much everyone accepts that by now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2023, 06:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: That's basically what my country does and pretty much everyone accepts that by now.

That's the vast majority of Europe.  The problem is our abortion laws here were extreme in their permissiveness prior to the Dobbs ruling.  So to the pro-choice side anything less than they previously had is an unacceptable limit on female reproductive choice.  Both sides are extreme in their own way and neither is willing to compromise an inch.  I think the two of us and Mike would absolutely agree to the limits he advanced, but must pro-choice people would view us as mysoginist tyrants.