Texas: Our Voting Laws Aren't Racist, Just Partisan

Yea a monarchy is exactly the type of big government nanny state we want to avoid.

Madness. Your courts are openly admitting that one of your political parties is rigging elections and it's no big deal.

In most other democracies that behaviour would at best get you barred from politics for life, at worst you'd do jail time.

Ryal Kane said:

Madness. Your courts are openly admitting that one of your political parties is rigging elections and it's no big deal.

In most other democracies that behaviour would at best get you barred from politics for life, at worst you'd do jail time.

Click to expand...

Yes. And imagine living here. I've lived, in this order, in TX, FL, and now NC. The feeling of powerlessness is overwhelming. But hope is not lost.

Protocol11 said:

That's why we should have cracked down on illegal immigration. We got people fleeing their countries coming and voting for the same who will implement the same policies they were running from in the first place. That's one reason I don't mind this gerrymandering. Its bad, it sucks, it corrupt and we still have to deal with some stupid republican bs, but its all preferable to dems taking over and bringing with them their big government, nanny state nonsense. God forbig we end up like California.

Click to expand...

Got any evidence for the part in bold or is this just "common knowledge"?

WalksWithChrist said:

Yes. And imagine living here. I've lived, in this order, in TX, FL, and now NC. The feeling of powerlessness is overwhelming. But hope is not lost.

Click to expand...

I know people are fighting hard against it but it is quite scary looking from the outside. Once you've lost judicial and democratic recourse, none of the options are pretty.

I'm sure if it was democrats pushing through laws that disadvataged Republicans there would be calls for '2nd amendment remedies' all over the place.

The reality is Texas is one of the big states and is being run better and more efficiently than the more liberal New York and California combined. In the end, without the fed gov NY and Cali will not survive, where as Texas could and would financially.

Big government is never the answer...period.

jpcedotal said:

The reality is Texas is one of the big states and is being run better and more efficiently than the more liberal New York and California combined. In the end, without the fed gov NY and Cali will not survive, where as Texas could and would financially.

Click to expand...

I guess you've missed all of those threads talking about how NY and CA are net contributors of tax money, too.

However, this hasn't been the case for TX for very long:

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see from the charts, the table is from 2007 data which shows TX to be a net contributor of federal tax revenue, while the cartogram below it uses 2004 data and shows TX to be a net recipient. Meanwhile, CA and NY were both contributors.

And if you drill down into NY state-specific taxes, you'll find (again) that the rich, liberal, big government areas downstate foot the bill for the conservative areas upstate: http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_Getting.pdf

So, IOW, you're wrong. Totally 100% wrong. Would you care to try again?

HorsieJuice said:

I guess you've missed all of those threads talking about how NY and CA are net contributors of tax money, too.

However, this hasn't been the case for TX for very long:

Federal taxation and spending by state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see from the charts, the table is from 2007 data which shows TX to be a net contributor of federal tax revenue, while the cartogram below it uses 2004 data and shows TX to be a net recipient. Meanwhile, CA and NY were both contributors.

And if you drill down into NY state-specific taxes, you'll find (again) that the rich, liberal, big government areas downstate foot the bill for the conservative areas upstate: http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/nys_government/2011-12-Giving_and_Getting.pdf

So, IOW, you're wrong. Totally 100% wrong. Would you care to try again?

Click to expand...

The charts don't mean much unless you can tell us what the expenditures were for

MachZer0 said:

The charts don't mean much unless you can tell us what the expenditures were for

Click to expand...

Um, no.

jpcedotal's comment was, "without the fed gov NY and Cali will not survive."

Whatever the federal money is spent on, all three states have the money to pay their own way. This has only been the case recently in TX, whereas it's been the case for much longer in CA and NY.

HorsieJuice said:

Um, no.

jpcedotal's comment was, "without the fed gov NY and Cali will not survive."

Whatever the federal money is spent on, all three states have the money to pay their own way. This has only been the case recently in TX, whereas it's been the case for much longer in CA and NY.

Click to expand...

Unless the expenditures are for federal installations and programs.

MachZer0 said:

Unless the expenditures are for federal installations and programs.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand.

Each of these states sends MORE to the federal government than they get back (and by "get back," I refer to the total federal outlays in that state including things like Medicare, highway funding, defense contracts, and military salaries). IOW, it doesn't matter how the federal government is spending the money - that outlay could be a check handed directly to the governor for all I care. The point is that these states are getting less back than they're sending to Washington.

Unless... You're trying to make some other point and you're just not bothering to explain yourself, again. In which case, please do so.

HorsieJuice said:

I don't think you understand.

Each of these states sends MORE to the federal government than they get back (and by "get back," I refer to the total federal outlays in that state including things like Medicare, highway funding, defense contracts, and military salaries). IOW, it doesn't matter how the federal government is spending the money - that outlay could be a check handed directly to the governor for all I care. The point is that these states are getting less back than they're sending to Washington.

Unless... You're trying to make some other point and you're just not bothering to explain yourself, again. In which case, please do so.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you would want to abolish the IRS ... so that California and New York can keep their money?

You can sign a petitition to that effect here ... Abolish the I.R.S. Now

NightHawkeye said:

Perhaps you would want to abolish the IRS ... so that California and New York can keep their money?

You can sign a petitition to that effect here ... Abolish the I.R.S. Now

Click to expand...

No, I think that's one of the more idiotic plans drawn up by the crazy right.

Protocol11 said:

That's why we should have cracked down on illegal immigration. We got people fleeing their countries coming and voting for the same who will implement the same policies they were running from in the first place. That's one reason I don't mind this gerrymandering. Its bad, it sucks, it corrupt and we still have to deal with some stupid republican bs, but its all preferable to dems taking over and bringing with them their big government, nanny state nonsense. God forbig we end up like California.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute; Last I remember Texas was part of Mexico until white immigration reached a point where they (whites) outnumbered the Mexicans and the rest is history. All they (Hispanics) are doing is what you did to them. Talk about hypocrisy

HorsieJuice said:

I don't think you understand.

Each of these states sends MORE to the federal government than they get back (and by "get back," I refer to the total federal outlays in that state including things like Medicare, highway funding, defense contracts, and military salaries). IOW, it doesn't matter how the federal government is spending the money - that outlay could be a check handed directly to the governor for all I care. The point is that these states are getting less back than they're sending to Washington.

Unless... You're trying to make some other point and you're just not bothering to explain yourself, again. In which case, please do so.

Click to expand...

Then the point is moot since a large of amount of that money goes for federal installations and operations

jpcedotal said:

The reality is Texas is one of the big states and is being run better and more efficiently than the more liberal New York and California combined. In the end, without the fed gov NY and Cali will not survive, where as Texas could and would financially.

Big government is never the answer...period.

Click to expand...

Garbage. Without the federal tax load California would be doing just fine.

California gets back only a fraction of the money that goes to the Feds.

mzungu said:

Wait a minute; Last I remember Texas was part of Mexico until white immigration reached a point where they (whites) outnumbered the Mexicans and the rest is history. All they (Hispanics) are doing is what you did to them. Talk about hypocrisy

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly the Texicans of Mexican blood were also revolting. Texas in general was treated as a stepchild. It wasn't just whites.

keith99 said:

Garbage. Without the federal tax load California would be doing just fine.

California gets back only a fraction of the money that goes to the Feds.

Click to expand...

Same for NY. Texas gets back more of their tax dollars than either on of the other two states. His comment had no basis in fact.

HorsieJuice said:

No, I think that's one of the more idiotic plans drawn up by the crazy right.

Click to expand...

LOL ... crazy?

You're the one concerned about the redistribution of wealth from California and New York to "Republican" states. Just offering you a chance to set that right.

mzungu said:

Wait a minute; Last I remember Texas was part of Mexico until white immigration reached a point where they (whites) outnumbered the Mexicans and the rest is history. All they (Hispanics) are doing is what you did to them. Talk about hypocrisy

Click to expand...

Mexico ASKED the white settlers to come because the Mexicans were tired of constantly battling the Indians from further north. The Mexicans had the whites act as a buffer for them. That immigration was 100% legal, and it was exactly what the Mexicans wanted.

Centuries later in the modern-day US, we want immigrants. The caveat is that we want an effective filter so that criminals and terrorists don't get in, while others can get in, get the proper documentation, and get on a path to citizenship. Contrary to whatever you may have heard, conservatives want immigration. We can't survive without it. We just want an effective program, and we don't want people bypassing the "filter".