- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1328094
Texas state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, since news outlets have a phobia of putting the damn name in the title
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/1328094
Texas state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, since news outlets have a phobia of putting the damn name in the title
Please don’t pull another “Beto”
He fucking killed his campaign with one sentence. If he was running in California, he might have been able to survive. I have no doubt that Beto would be a fine governor, but the DNC should have never even considered running him in TX.
Ribbit
What sentence are you referring to?
Gutierrez voted to make Texas a sanctuary state for oil and gas companies. Just another “lesser of two evils”.
Source: https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/106951/roland-gutierrez
Unfortunately, many democrats still love thier oil money.
Which you can add on to the list of reasons why two party systems are bullshit.
I vote for people and not against people, though. Corrupt politicians are not politicians I want to vote for.
Would you want to vote for a corrupt politician, or a corrupt and fascist politician? Yep, that’s your choice in the land of the free.
This is how you get voter disenfranchisement. Voter shaming isn’t a good way to get out the vote en masse; inspiring voters is how you do it.
FDR got elected president 4 times consecutively, with some of the biggest numbers in US history. Republicans had to make term limits to make sure that doesn’t happen again because he was so popular.
On the other hand, we got a fascist as president for 4 years because Hillary didn’t inspire people (and the DNC rigged the primary against Bernie).
I’m not voter shaming, I’m just stating the facts. Yes Biden is a shitty choice (imo), but still, I will for vote for his shitty ass anyways. Better than a fascist any day. I’m criticizing the 2-party system, not the voters.
Hence “lesser of two evils”.
For every voter who begrudgingly votes, there are 4-5 who stay home.
What was wrong with Beto? Am I out of the loop?
He would have been a fine governor, but the reason he fucked up was because he told TX citizens that he’d take their guns away. That’s the easiest way to kill a campaign in TX
“Hell yes we’re going to take your guns” is not the best slogan when running for governor of Texas.
Ahh, thank you for the clarity.
He’s being very anti-gun in a state where there is a strong gun culture. He could’ve said something like “We need to stop criminals from getting guns”, instead, he said something along the lines of “We’re coming for all your guns!”
People seem to just be assuming the gun control comments were an insurmountable anchor around his neck, but after Uvalde polling put him just down 4 points (43-47) for trust on gun issues. There’s a lot more wiggle room in the gun debate, even in Texas, than people think.
Yeah, but didn’t Uvalde vote overwhelmingly for Abbott?
Texas just isn’t purple yet
I have no idea and don’t see why that would be relevant to gun control being a viable issue in Texas.
When someone comes and murders your children in their school, WITH GUNS, and the governor barely responds with anything but thoughts and prayers, and you and the rest of your murdered children town vote thoughts and prayers guy back in, it’s a pretty good reflection of how the town as a whole feels about guns. You like them. Since the children weren’t still in the womb it’s okay if they’re getting murdered. At school. With guns.
A town’s feeling on the subject has little to do with the state as a whole. It was red before the shooting and still red after, that doesn’t mean there wasn’t movement or that the rest of Texas, that trusted “gun-grabbing” Beto at 43% on guns, isn’t more conflicted on the issue.
He is to politics as a glass of milk is to beverages.
Unironically a great analogy because milk rehydrates you much better than water (and chocolate milk is even better) but it’s fucking impossible to drink when you’re really thirsty.