TexasCHLforum.com

A mediocre pol pretending to be big time.

For C. it's just a job.

Is his time up?

Depends on the suckers...er, voters who continue to vote for him and his mediocrity.

I too will take Cornyn over a democrat. But we had better have a very good primary choice as we do not need what happened in Missouri and Alabama to happen here. If Cornyn is primaried out by someone with a lot of baggage or other issues it will enable a Democrat to get elected.

Don't forget, we got Ann Richards as Governor because of the stupidity and gaffes of Clayton Williams in 1990. It's been too long ago to remember, but we should have had a better GOP candidate.

anygunanywhere wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.

If you were there how would you do it without more senators? As long as it takes 60 votes we are dead. Tax relief passed because it didn't take 60 votes. We all complain but technically how can we pass anything when all of the dems vote no?

Trump and the GOP managed to eliminate the individual mandate. Barely.

The GOP needs to stop promising the moon during election time and then deliver only "crumbs" during congressional time.

It continues to amaze me how the progs can ram through so much crap and the GOP cannot. The GOP turns tail and runs at the slightest provocation from the progs. Heck, look at the bloated budget they passed. Even Chucky Schumer was laughing at all he got.

I would like to know how one can deliver more than crumbs without 60 votes in the senate. Tell me how to do it without compromising every thing I believe in as a conservative. We have a majority but not enough of a majority to get anything done. The senate rules where a senator from a sparsely populated state has the same vote as a person from a huge state plus the fact that they need 60 votes to get anything done make it impossible to get anything done. On the other hand when they do pass laws they are usually detrimental and not good for the country. Yes, they all promise the moon and deliver a few crumbs of cheese.

allisji wrote:

rotor wrote:What specific things are people critical of? 1 vote senate majority and takes 60 to pass something. What do you expect Cornyn to pass? I see no better candidate out there.

I am curious as well. Here are some things that I have questions on about him.

1. he voiced support of a bump-stock ban
2. he separated fix NICs from National Reciprocity to pass fix NICs because he knew he couldn't pass Reciprocity.
3. Has he ever tried to reduce government spending?
4. Has he ever pushed to end US involvement in a foreign war?
5. Has he ever voted to defund Planned Parenthood?
6. Has he ever taken serious actions to stop illegal immigration and reduce US residency for refugees/asylum seekers/etc.

If the answers to the last 4 points are all "No" then he definitely needs to go. Though it is wise to weigh the cost of defeating him in a primary against the likelihood of losing the senate seat to a democrat.

60 votes is a Senate rule, not the law. As best I can tell it’s a convenient excuse for both sides to not accomplish anything.
The Republicans in Washington are, for the most part with a few exceptions, spineless weasels looking out for their bank accounts and re-election chances. Remember what they said, “we need the House,” and nothing got done. Then they said “we need the Senate,” and nothing got done. Finally they said “we have to have the White House too,” and what’s getting done? Oh yeah, they now say they have to have 60 Senate seats in order to get anything done. See yet where this is going? Let me tell you, give the Republicans 60 seats in November and you’ll have some of them voting with the Democrats all the time instead of only when it least affects them (see: McCain, Graham and Flake). Then they’ll be saying that they have to have 65 seats to accomplish anything, as America continues to swirl around the bowl.

rotor wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.

If you were there how would you do it without more senators? As long as it takes 60 votes we are dead. Tax relief passed because it didn't take 60 votes. We all complain but technically how can we pass anything when all of the dems vote no?

Trump and the GOP managed to eliminate the individual mandate. Barely.

The GOP needs to stop promising the moon during election time and then deliver only "crumbs" during congressional time.

It continues to amaze me how the progs can ram through so much crap and the GOP cannot. The GOP turns tail and runs at the slightest provocation from the progs. Heck, look at the bloated budget they passed. Even Chucky Schumer was laughing at all he got.

I would like to know how one can deliver more than crumbs without 60 votes in the senate. Tell me how to do it without compromising every thing I believe in as a conservative. We have a majority but not enough of a majority to get anything done. The senate rules where a senator from a sparsely populated state has the same vote as a person from a huge state plus the fact that they need 60 votes to get anything done make it impossible to get anything done. On the other hand when they do pass laws they are usually detrimental and not good for the country. Yes, they all promise the moon and deliver a few crumbs of cheese.

What bblhd672 posted in the next post.

IF the GOP actually stuck together on EVERYTHING they claim to stand for as ONE VOICE ALL THE TIME like the PROGS DO then maybe we could actually be happy about what they do. When you have RINOs like McCain, Flake, and all the other LOSERS doing their best to derail Trump's agenda it grows difficult to be supportive of the GOP.

When the RINOs start their shenanigans, then we have to put up with their crap along with what the progs are throwing at us.

bblhd672 wrote:

allisji wrote:

rotor wrote:What specific things are people critical of? 1 vote senate majority and takes 60 to pass something. What do you expect Cornyn to pass? I see no better candidate out there.

I am curious as well. Here are some things that I have questions on about him.

1. he voiced support of a bump-stock ban
2. he separated fix NICs from National Reciprocity to pass fix NICs because he knew he couldn't pass Reciprocity.
3. Has he ever tried to reduce government spending?
4. Has he ever pushed to end US involvement in a foreign war?
5. Has he ever voted to defund Planned Parenthood?
6. Has he ever taken serious actions to stop illegal immigration and reduce US residency for refugees/asylum seekers/etc.

If the answers to the last 4 points are all "No" then he definitely needs to go. Though it is wise to weigh the cost of defeating him in a primary against the likelihood of losing the senate seat to a democrat.

60 votes is a Senate rule, not the law. As best I can tell it’s a convenient excuse for both sides to not accomplish anything.
The Republicans in Washington are, for the most part with a few exceptions, spineless weasels looking out for their bank accounts and re-election chances. Remember what they said, “we need the House,” and nothing got done. Then they said “we need the Senate,” and nothing got done. Finally they said “we have to have the White House too,” and what’s getting done? Oh yeah, they now say they have to have 60 Senate seats in order to get anything done. See yet where this is going? Let me tell you, give the Republicans 60 seats in November and you’ll have some of them voting with the Democrats all the time instead of only when it least affects them (see: McCain, Graham and Flake). Then they’ll be saying that they have to have 65 seats to accomplish anything, as America continues to swirl around the bowl.

You act like this is a Republican issue. It's both sides. I don't have an easy answer. In general, I believe we need less laws, not more. Anytime these idiots start "legislating" I don't believe we do better. The issue was Cornyn. Voting for an issue means nothing when you know it won't pass. The house voted to kill obamacare so many times but it meant nothing. So, we are stuck with a lesser evil and that means a Republican over a democrat. One has to assume that the worst Republican is still better than the best democrat. The one thing the democrats do have over the republicans is that they almost NEVER break ranks. The Republicans all vote their "conscience" and manage to kill bills that should pass. Sometimes I believe a monarchy might be better with a King Solomon in charge. Sometimes.

allisji wrote:

rotor wrote:What specific things are people critical of? 1 vote senate majority and takes 60 to pass something. What do you expect Cornyn to pass? I see no better candidate out there.

I am curious as well. Here are some things that I have questions on about him.

1. he voiced support of a bump-stock ban
2. he separated fix NICs from National Reciprocity to pass fix NICs because he knew he couldn't pass Reciprocity.
3. Has he ever tried to reduce government spending?
4. Has he ever pushed to end US involvement in a foreign war?
5. Has he ever voted to defund Planned Parenthood?
6. Has he ever taken serious actions to stop illegal immigration and reduce US residency for refugees/asylum seekers/etc.

If the answers to the last 4 points are all "No" then he definitely needs to go. Though it is wise to weigh the cost of defeating him in a primary against the likelihood of losing the senate seat to a democrat.

He should definitely be primaried. But if he wins, I’m not going to vote Democrat or stay home (see: cut off nose to spite face). Maybe after Robert the Irish-Mexican loses to Rafael Jr he may try to run against Cronyn (my spell check did it but it seemed apropos).

Funny story for “Beto” supporters. My maternal grandmother was actually Mexican. I think her family immigrated (legally) one step ahead of Pancho Villa. While the “getting” was good they kept on getting all the way to Ithaca, NY. Ethnically great grandmother was Irish and her husband was Mexican mestizo with a decent amount of Aztec. Anyway my grandmother remained a Mexican national until about WWII when apparently it made a difference, and she got naturalized. All very funny for a person of pallor such as myself (and Beto!)...when I hear the La Raza crowd doesn’t like Cruz. I guess the Mexicans and Cubans are like the Irish and Italians...share a religious affiliation, but otherwise only the kids mix after they become Americanized. Ahhh the great heritage of our great country. We have much greater tolerance than the places of our ancestors.

I always wondered why grammie had a Spanish accent and darker skin than Dad’s side. I don’t think I really learned the whole story till I asked my Mom for the details when filling out my Navy security clearance application.

People who don't keep their promises often have excuses.

Especially if they never intended to keep their promises.

Just saying.

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.

I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

rotor wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

strogg wrote:

BBYC wrote:The way things are going, I know a few people who may not self-identify as Republicans in 2020.

On paper or reality? .

Reality.

They didn't repeal Obamacare. They didn't eliminate any Federal anti-Bill-of-Rights zones like USPS or COE wetlands. They didn't pass national reciprocity. They did support further restrictions on civilian arms. They did pass legislation that will increase the national debt. They didn't make any meaningful progress, if any, to "drain the swamp."

If they continue to pander to the progs, I think they will lose more votes than they gain. If the Republican politicians choose that path, they shouldn't complain where that path takes them on election day.

If you were there how would you do it without more senators? As long as it takes 60 votes we are dead. Tax relief passed because it didn't take 60 votes. We all complain but technically how can we pass anything when all of the dems vote no?

Trump and the GOP managed to eliminate the individual mandate. Barely.

The GOP needs to stop promising the moon during election time and then deliver only "crumbs" during congressional time.

It continues to amaze me how the progs can ram through so much crap and the GOP cannot. The GOP turns tail and runs at the slightest provocation from the progs. Heck, look at the bloated budget they passed. Even Chucky Schumer was laughing at all he got.

I would like to know how one can deliver more than crumbs without 60 votes in the senate. Tell me how to do it without compromising every thing I believe in as a conservative. We have a majority but not enough of a majority to get anything done.

When I vote Republican I get excuses. I'm tired of excuses. I think I'll do something different this November.

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

Cornyn is up for election in 2020, not this year.

"When I vote Republican I get excuses. I'm tired of excuses. I think I'll do something different this November."
What do you plan on doing? Vote for a democrat?

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

Cornyn is up for election in 2020, not this year.

"When I vote Republican I get excuses. I'm tired of excuses. I think I'll do something different this November."
What do you plan on doing? Vote for a democrat?

Maybe I should wait until 2020 to answer you.

BBYC wrote:

rotor wrote:

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

Cornyn is up for election in 2020, not this year.

"When I vote Republican I get excuses. I'm tired of excuses. I think I'll do something different this November."
What do you plan on doing? Vote for a democrat?

Maybe I should wait until 2020 to answer you.

I will mark it on my calendar.

BBYC wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:I honestly don’t think Cronyn is pandering to progressives. He is pandering to middle-of-the-road soccer moms and suburbanites. He doesn’t need and will never get progressive votes. So the real issue is do soccer moms and suburbanites give a hoot about national reciprocity, etc. ? If they dont, then that is your/our problem, not Cornyn’s.

If he loses in November, then that is Cornyn's problem, not mine.

Yes, of course. But if he loses in November of 2020, it will be for a lack of votes in the half dozen major urban counties -- where 80% of Texans live. Those are the votes that matter most to any statewide politician.