Can Beto O’Rourke really beat Ted Cruz?

[Lena]

If your referring to me Lena in my cutting horse mare, A Quarter Horse. I am Dennis.

[philip964]

Beto superhero mural pops up in Austin.

http://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/ ... ast-austin

If or when he loses, clearly he needs to move to CA and run forPres in 2020.

[K.Mooneyham]

Lots of discussion about why to vote for someone or why not to vote for someone. The primary focus of this forum is firearms. The primary focus of how I vote is firearms, specifically if a candidate is pro-or-anti Second Amendment, and not simply offering lip service about hunting, etc. If a politician doesn't believe that I, an honorably "retired" USAF veteran with ZERO criminal record, can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me how they see me...as a subject to be ruled over. If a politician does believe that I can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me they see me as a citizen with inherent rights enumerated in our Constitution, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Everything else, for me, flows from that viewpoint. In the here and now, the politicians that tend to respect my right to keep and bear arms are generally in the Republican Party. I understand that Libertarians also generally respect that right, as well, but they just cannot seem to build up an organization that can win. I like some of their ideas, but those ideas are useless if they cannot attain office, and all they end up doing is "helping" an anti-2A Democrat to take a particular office. With those factors in mind, I will be voting for Senator Cruz.

[bblhd672]

[Abraham]

I'm not interested in watching some sleazebag dem on YT...

[Paladin]

[Middle Age Russ]

I'm not interested in watching some sleazebag dem on YT...

This one is satire -- she is not really a democrat. If you enjoy satire, it is pretty good.

[Pawpaw]

I'm not interested in watching some sleazebag dem on YT...

This one is satire -- she is not really a democrat. If you enjoy satire, it is pretty good.

That's for sure. I don't know how she said all that with a straight face!

[flechero]

Beto superhero mural pops up in Austin.

http://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/austin/ ... ast-austin

If or when he loses, clearly he needs to move to CA and run forPres in 2020.

from the link...

The mural is located between Cesar Chavez and East 2nd Street in an alley behind Waller Street.

So appropriately located!!!!!!!

We need a dog poop emoji! I'm going to start referring to my pooper scooper as my beto.

[flechero]

Hahaha!!!! I will be sharing this with others!

[jason812]

Lots of discussion about why to vote for someone or why not to vote for someone. The primary focus of this forum is firearms. The primary focus of how I vote is firearms, specifically if a candidate is pro-or-anti Second Amendment, and not simply offering lip service about hunting, etc. If a politician doesn't believe that I, an honorably "retired" USAF veteran with ZERO criminal record, can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me how they see me...as a subject to be ruled over. If a politician does believe that I can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me they see me as a citizen with inherent rights enumerated in our Constitution, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Everything else, for me, flows from that viewpoint. In the here and now, the politicians that tend to respect my right to keep and bear arms are generally in the Republican Party. I understand that Libertarians also generally respect that right, as well, but they just cannot seem to build up an organization that can win. I like some of their ideas, but those ideas are useless if they cannot attain office, and all they end up doing is "helping" an anti-2A Democrat to take a particular office. With those factors in mind, I will be voting for Senator Cruz.

The other problem with the Libertarian party is, they are full of nuts. The candidates at the top of the Libertarian ticket in the past are a very poor representation of the population that want's government out of their lives. Also, they are very bad about expressing what the Libertarian party is about.

Maybe we just need a Constitution Party. Reel the federal government back into what was laid out in the Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, it's up to the individual states to pass laws.

[Soccerdad1995]

Lots of discussion about why to vote for someone or why not to vote for someone. The primary focus of this forum is firearms. The primary focus of how I vote is firearms, specifically if a candidate is pro-or-anti Second Amendment, and not simply offering lip service about hunting, etc. If a politician doesn't believe that I, an honorably "retired" USAF veteran with ZERO criminal record, can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me how they see me...as a subject to be ruled over. If a politician does believe that I can own whatever firearms I so choose to own, then that tells me they see me as a citizen with inherent rights enumerated in our Constitution, in this case the right to keep and bear arms. Everything else, for me, flows from that viewpoint. In the here and now, the politicians that tend to respect my right to keep and bear arms are generally in the Republican Party. I understand that Libertarians also generally respect that right, as well, but they just cannot seem to build up an organization that can win. I like some of their ideas, but those ideas are useless if they cannot attain office, and all they end up doing is "helping" an anti-2A Democrat to take a particular office. With those factors in mind, I will be voting for Senator Cruz.

The other problem with the Libertarian party is, they are full of nuts. The candidates at the top of the Libertarian ticket in the past are a very poor representation of the population that want's government out of their lives. Also, they are very bad about expressing what the Libertarian party is about.

Maybe we just need a Constitution Party. Reel the federal government back into what was laid out in the Constitution. If it's not in the Constitution, it's up to the individual states to pass laws.

Except that I would only encourage the states to pass laws if there is a COMPELLLING need for a law in the first place. Well over half of all laws have no compelling need to exist. Laws restrict freedoms and rights, by definition. So we should be able to demonstrate that the absence of a law would do significant harm to a large portion of the population before it is ever enacted.

[Abraham]

Wow, was I ever wrong about the YT video: "New Democrat Campaign "Ad"

I thought it was just another creepy dem video and that's what I get for assuming...

It's fantastically witty and ...yes, perfectly describes dems and all their insanity.

It's worth it's weight in gold!

[Redneck_Buddha]

Yeah at first I was like "par for the course".

[Soccerdad1995]

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and they are free to act on those beliefs however they choose, as long as they don't harm anyone or infringe on the rights of others. Period. That should be the standard that we hold everyone to, whether they share our beliefs or not.

I'm not in favor of anyone trying to force others to believe as they think people should believe. We see this from all sides of the spectrum, but mostly from the left. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is morally wrong, by definition. It is really a child-like state of mind, where they refuse to even acknowledge and consider opposing viewpoints. This is then extended to trying to shut down the expression of any ideas one finds "offensive", just like a child might stick their fingers in their ears and throw a tantrum when faced with words they don't like. In the real world, we have to accept that other people have different ideas, even some ideas that might "offend" us. We don't get to force them to our view of the world. And we don't get to shout them down or use violence to intimidate them into silence. We have to be adults, and realize that words are just words. Even words we disagree with.

This is what the left does not understand. They are stuck in a child like state where someone must protect them from any harm, including the "harm" of being offended by opposing ideas. They refuse to view the world as adults, because doing so would mean that they would have to face the reality that everyone is responsible for their own well being. As adults, we should not look to others to take care of our every need and to keep us safe from all possible harm.