Need to give it a few days. Quite a few seem to be leaving his list and that may lead to others "clarifying" this was support before the caucus chose. But if you have a rep on this list reach and put and nicely ask them to support the Republican caucus choice for Speaker.
Texas Speaker GOP Caucus House Vote Saturday Dec. 7th
18,930 Views |
236 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by nortex97
Teslag said:Ag_of_08 said:
You represent your constituents, not your party.
The way some on this thread are talking is one step off something I'd expect in the politburo...
Many, if not most, of these reps come from deep red districts and don't want their rep cutting deals with democrats over party. So spare me the the constituents BS. They are cutting these deals for personal gain, not because it's what their constituents want. And if they don't want to embrace party unity on a speaker vote then don't run as member of the party and take their money.
The idea that a party can censure members because they don't vote the whip is terrifying. Noone should have ANY ability to.punish a rep for not voting the way they want.
That kind of nonsense is straight out of Mao's playbook.
Ag_of_08 said:Teslag said:Ag_of_08 said:
You represent your constituents, not your party.
The way some on this thread are talking is one step off something I'd expect in the politburo...
Many, if not most, of these reps come from deep red districts and don't want their rep cutting deals with democrats over party. So spare me the the constituents BS. They are cutting these deals for personal gain, not because it's what their constituents want. And if they don't want to embrace party unity on a speaker vote then don't run as member of the party and take their money.
The idea that a party can censure members because they don't vote the whip is terrifying. Noone should have ANY ability to.punish a rep for not voting the way they want.
That kind of nonsense is straight out of Mao's playbook.
It's about accountability. They should be able to do so and it has been done in the past. A vote against Cook is a vote for Democrats, which is why the option is on the table. It would not remove them from office but it would allow funds to educate voters in their district. At the extreme, it would keep a person off the Republican ballot, which is a very critical step if the party is actually going to have values and a cohesive philosophy.
Do you really think that Burrows was honest in his campaign to his constituents about killing school voucher and taxpayer-funded lobbying legislation that he offered to do to gain Democrat Speaker votes?Ag_of_08 said:Teslag said:Ag_of_08 said:
You represent your constituents, not your party.
The way some on this thread are talking is one step off something I'd expect in the politburo...
Many, if not most, of these reps come from deep red districts and don't want their rep cutting deals with democrats over party. So spare me the the constituents BS. They are cutting these deals for personal gain, not because it's what their constituents want. And if they don't want to embrace party unity on a speaker vote then don't run as member of the party and take their money.
The idea that a party can censure members because they don't vote the whip is terrifying. Noone should have ANY ability to.punish a rep for not voting the way they want.
That kind of nonsense is straight out of Mao's playbook.
We just had an election to replace 14 or more of the anti-voucher incumbents.
Do you think the Republican voters wanted their representatives to vote for a Speaker that would side with the Democrats and kill important legislation and directly oppose the State Party Legislative Priorities?
They campaigned as Republicans and should vote accordingly.
School vouchers are in the state party platform. If they are going to renege on that, what else are they are going renege on?
Why even put a policy platform out there if you aren't going to follow it? Why have voters answer these questions of what you want in the platform when it comes time to vote only to ignore voters?
The RINOs in this state are liars. And it looks like our guy is on that Burrows list now which pisses me off. I emailed him yesterday and I will be emailing him again.
Why even put a policy platform out there if you aren't going to follow it? Why have voters answer these questions of what you want in the platform when it comes time to vote only to ignore voters?
The RINOs in this state are liars. And it looks like our guy is on that Burrows list now which pisses me off. I emailed him yesterday and I will be emailing him again.
We are much better off than states where people willingly vote for this. It just means we need to get the word out on the true nature of their representatives. To pretend otherwise is idiotic.TexAgs91 said:aTmAg said:As does my point. Texas is still a red state.TexAgs91 said:aTmAg said:So they should get off their ass and actually research their vote for the primaries (like I finally did this time around). If they did, these RINOs would be gone.TexAgs91 said:And so it doesn't matter how red they are. Texas isn't governing like a red state. That is a fact.aTmAg said:Their constituents are red as hell. They just didn't pay attention to state races.TexAgs91 said:So not a red state.Rapier108 said:
A lot of those "Republicans" are really Democrats who just run in the GOP primary because they'd never win the general as a Democrat.
Obviously. My point still stands.
Not where it counts.
We're a representative democracy, not a democracy.
Do you even understand what the point of a political party is?Ag_of_08 said:
Why is a political party allowed to force an elected politician to vote a particular way? That's... scary.
Rather than have a bunch of individuals running and each getting 5% of the vote, the like minded people get together and vote on ONE person to represent their interests. It's a two way agreement: in exchange for gaining the full support of the party upon winning the nomination, each candidate is expect to provide their full support if they lose.
It is completely dishonest to participate if you only accept the benefits while secretly refusing the burden. Burrows (and the rest of the traitorous RINOs) only secretly agreed to the former, and lied about agreeing to the latter. Every single person who left, especially Burrows, has proven themselves to lack integrity.
aTmAg said:We are much better off than states where people willingly vote for this. It just means we need to get the word out on the true nature of their representatives. To pretend otherwise is idiotic.TexAgs91 said:aTmAg said:As does my point. Texas is still a red state.TexAgs91 said:aTmAg said:So they should get off their ass and actually research their vote for the primaries (like I finally did this time around). If they did, these RINOs would be gone.TexAgs91 said:And so it doesn't matter how red they are. Texas isn't governing like a red state. That is a fact.aTmAg said:Their constituents are red as hell. They just didn't pay attention to state races.TexAgs91 said:So not a red state.Rapier108 said:
A lot of those "Republicans" are really Democrats who just run in the GOP primary because they'd never win the general as a Democrat.
Obviously. My point still stands.
Not where it counts.
We're a representative democracy, not a democracy.
Yes, I agree with all that. We're much better off than blue states. I never said we weren't. But we are not the red state that we should be given the electorate we have.
"Freedom is never more than one election away from extinction"
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Fight! Fight! Fight!
It's much easier to inform conservatives of who they are voting for than to convert liberals into conservatives.
Ag_of_08 said:Teslag said:Ag_of_08 said:
You represent your constituents, not your party.
The way some on this thread are talking is one step off something I'd expect in the politburo...
Many, if not most, of these reps come from deep red districts and don't want their rep cutting deals with democrats over party. So spare me the the constituents BS. They are cutting these deals for personal gain, not because it's what their constituents want. And if they don't want to embrace party unity on a speaker vote then don't run as member of the party and take their money.
The idea that a party can censure members because they don't vote the whip is terrifying. Noone should have ANY ability to.punish a rep for not voting the way they want.
That kind of nonsense is straight out of Mao's playbook.
Then don't take their money and run as an independent.
Ag_of_08 said:Teslag said:Ag_of_08 said:
You represent your constituents, not your party.
The way some on this thread are talking is one step off something I'd expect in the politburo...
Many, if not most, of these reps come from deep red districts and don't want their rep cutting deals with democrats over party. So spare me the the constituents BS. They are cutting these deals for personal gain, not because it's what their constituents want. And if they don't want to embrace party unity on a speaker vote then don't run as member of the party and take their money.
The idea that a party can censure members because they don't vote the whip is terrifying. Noone should have ANY ability to.punish a rep for not voting the way they want.
That kind of nonsense is straight out of Mao's playbook.
If you are incapable of discussing the topic intelligently then please leave the thread. Go look at what the Democratic Caucus is telling their members what to do and not do.
He wrote an OPED in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal on 28 October that was VERY supportive of "school choice".
There are 252 positions within the State Republican Party Platform. I'm not sure you will get many that agree with all 252 positions. But that is what some currently expect. Example: the position on preventing campaign contributions from out of the state; i.e. the $6 million from the Pennsylvania billionaire (reference position 202). Our governor obviously doesn't agree with that Republican Party platform position. That doesn't make the Governor a RINO or "traitor" to the party and state. Every Republican may find a few positions they disagree with.
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
oldag941 said:
There are 252 positions within the State Republican Party Platform. I'm not sure you will get many that agree with all 252 positions. But that is what some currently expect. Example: the position on preventing campaign contributions from out of the state; i.e. the $6 million from the Pennsylvania billionaire (reference position 202). Our governor obviously doesn't agree with that Republican Party platform position. That doesn't make the Governor a RINO or "traitor" to the party and state. Every Republican may find a few positions they disagree with.
It's not about marching in lockstep. It's about unity in the major issues the party has agreed upon by thousands of citizens across the state who became delegates to determine the Party platform. The platform is created from the grass roots up through delegates from each precinct and county in the state.
Siding with the Democrats on the choice for Speaker betrays the party and the people they represent. The party must have some influence over these legislators or it means nothing to be a Republican.
"The party must have some influence over these legislators or it means nothing to be a Republican." I agree. And I doubt anyone would argue that the party doesn't have "some influence" over all of the republican legislators. The question seems to be does it have ENOUGH influence. And that's arguable as seen on this Texags discussion and prior ones. Some want 100% purity. Some want at least lock-step in the major issues (defined differently among republicans but may need to be tied to the priorities laid out by the Gov or LT Gov).
The Governor, LT Gov and AG have been partly responsible for causing this fracture in the Republican party. I believe (and hope) that it's been unintended. But they are complicit, as are some of the legislators themselves. Some of this was self-corrected in the primaries. But we have some like Burrows whom the Gov, LT Gov and AG tried to primary and Burrow's constituents supported him by a large majority.
So there is what the state party wants. There is what the state executive leaders want. There is what the constituents want. Those 3 frequently align, but sometimes don't. In that instance, the argument becomes who trumps who?
The Governor, LT Gov and AG have been partly responsible for causing this fracture in the Republican party. I believe (and hope) that it's been unintended. But they are complicit, as are some of the legislators themselves. Some of this was self-corrected in the primaries. But we have some like Burrows whom the Gov, LT Gov and AG tried to primary and Burrow's constituents supported him by a large majority.
So there is what the state party wants. There is what the state executive leaders want. There is what the constituents want. Those 3 frequently align, but sometimes don't. In that instance, the argument becomes who trumps who?
Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
The Republican Party of Texas Rules require 3 actions opposing core principles or legislative priorities for a censure, so the bar isn't that low.
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RPT-General-Rules-As-Amended-2024-05-24.pdf
Quote:
Rule 44 a-> Process: A County or District Executive Committee may, after no less than seven (7) days' notice and invitation to the Officeholder to appear and be provided time to speak before a County or District Executive Committee, by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of those constituent Executive Committee Precinct Chairs present and voting, but in no case by less than a majority of the County Executive Committee (CEC) in full, adopt a resolution censuring a Republican public Officeholder representing all or a portion of that County or District for three (3) or more actions taken during the Officeholder's current term in opposition to the core principles of the Republican Party of Texas defined in the Preamble of the Party Platform as described in Rule No. 43A or to the Legislative Priorities adopted at the most recent State Convention as described in Rule No. 34(c). Any resolution of censure that does not meet those criteria shall be subject to challenge by a point of order.
Here is an example for Dade Phelan citing 5 violations resulting in party funding to republish the censure to educate voters in his district:
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Dade-Phelan-SREC-Resolution.pdf
Another option added to the 2024 rules is to prevent them from filing as a Republican on the ballot which will likely be taken to court.
Yes, a political party should have a way to censure those who repeatedly violate the core principles of the party and keep them from using the party name. There are 10 Core Principles in the 2024 Platform:
https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-RPT-Platform.pdf
These are not the 252 other planks.
The Legislative Priorities can be found by clicking the tab at:
https://texasgop.org/official-documents/
Burrows wrote an OPED supporting school choice in his campaign and now wants to bargain it away for Democrat votes, so he flat out LIED to constituents.
Opposing the GOP Caucus nominee is considered a censurable offense.
No Democrat Chairs is part of the Legislative Priorities
Banning Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying is another Legislative Priority which is another bargaining chip offered by Burrows to the Democrats for votes.
Any Republican supporting Burrows for Speaker would be flirting with a Censure as well.
They aren't censuring them because they aren't "towing the party line". They are censuring them because they LIED. They went to a caucus under the guise that they would support whoever was elected, just to turn around and backstab the winner because THEY weren't elected. That's the ENTIRE PURPOSE of being in a political party in the first place.Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Again, if you don't want to support the party in something as major as choosing a speaker then don't take their money and run as an independent. Or change parties. In your world what the **** is even the point of a party helping support and finance its members?
Unfortunately my representative is Marc Veasey. He is firmly entrenched in the anti Constitutional rule of law and is opposed to freedom and liberty. Where I live in Arlington has been gerrymandered in with South Dallas & Oak Cliff.DD88 said:
Contact your Representative or every undeclared member if you are tired of Democrats and RINO Speakers obstructing Texas legislation and ask them to support David Cook as the next Speaker of the Texas House.
…,,,
(Deleted to save space)
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Others have already slapped you down for this ridiculous take and I have already pointed out that it's obvious that you aren't interested/capable of intelligent discussion on this but I will just say that I'm very curious what you think censure is if you truly believe that it is either unconstitutional or scary.
chap said:Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Others have already slapped you down for this ridiculous take and I have already pointed out that it's obvious that you aren't interested/capable of intelligent discussion on this but I will just say that I'm very curious what you think censure is if you truly believe that it is either unconstitutional or scary.
Slapped down...ok
Nobody forced them to run as republicans. They chose to run as member of a party, and along the way agreed to abide by the rules of that party, among which is voting for the speaker elected by the republican caucus. If they choose not to do that now, the honorable thing to do is go ahead and renounce their party affiliation so that everybody knows who they are and won't mistakenly vote for them in the next republican primary. Stop pretending to be Rs and then voting with the Ds.Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Ag_of_08 said:chap said:Ag_of_08 said:
Youre not listening to yourselves on this because you're on the "right" side of the argument in your head.
Having apolitical PARTY be able to control its members, and censure them if they don't tow the party line is... anti-constitutional, and pretty damned scary tbh. If you didn't want the outcome that would result from this situation you'd agree eith me..
Others have already slapped you down for this ridiculous take and I have already pointed out that it's obvious that you aren't interested/capable of intelligent discussion on this but I will just say that I'm very curious what you think censure is if you truly believe that it is either unconstitutional or scary.
Slapped down...ok
As I said. Not interested in intelligent dialogue.
Sure I am. That response was not seeking discussions.
I would encourage you all to attend the next state convention, or at least watch the platform debates online if you think the platform is some holy document that must be fully embraced by every single Republican. I've seen platform meetings go into the wee hours debating such profound constitutional issues as weight & age standards for child car seats.
I also suspect some people are vastly over-estimating how much financial support RPT provides to candidates. Most campaigns would not be materially affected by the SREC putting them on the naughty list. TLR and other donors are more important the what the RPT puts into downballot campaigns, and the donors will still go around the party mechanisms to support the candidates they want.
I also suspect some people are vastly over-estimating how much financial support RPT provides to candidates. Most campaigns would not be materially affected by the SREC putting them on the naughty list. TLR and other donors are more important the what the RPT puts into downballot campaigns, and the donors will still go around the party mechanisms to support the candidates they want.
That is the most serious threat, and I agree it would likely get the party taken to court, since amending party rules does not have the effect of changing state election law.Quote:
Another option added to the 2024 rules is to prevent them from filing as a Republican on the ballot which will likely be taken to court.
Mine was. And you've blown it off twice.Ag_of_08 said:
Sure I am. That response was not seeking discussions.
He is ignoring the serious responses to his assertion. I'd suggest ignoring his continued antics in return.aTmAg said:Mine was. And you've blown it off twice.Ag_of_08 said:
Sure I am. That response was not seeking discussions.
txags92 said:He is ignoring the serious responses to his assertion. I'd suggest ignoring his continued antics in return.aTmAg said:Mine was. And you've blown it off twice.Ag_of_08 said:
Sure I am. That response was not seeking discussions.
That's kind of his MO. Never wants to address direct questions at all.
Hilarious how he then objects to the fact that he's been "slapped down". Pretty easy case for that to be made when he ignores responses he finds inconvenient to his "argument".txags92 said:He is ignoring the serious responses to his assertion. I'd suggest ignoring his continued antics in return.aTmAg said:Mine was. And you've blown it off twice.Ag_of_08 said:
Sure I am. That response was not seeking discussions.
I guess this is the 'good' candidate for conservatives?
I will never walk out on the people of Texas. I will show up with integrity every day to get the job done.
— David Cook (@DavidCookTexas) December 9, 2024
Dustin Burrows walked out on the Caucus Nominee election to avoid a vote that he expected to lose.
What kind of leader do you want? #txlege
Correct. Not sure why you put good in quotes, though.nortex97 said:
I guess this is the 'good' candidate for conservatives?I will never walk out on the people of Texas. I will show up with integrity every day to get the job done.
— David Cook (@DavidCookTexas) December 9, 2024
Dustin Burrows walked out on the Caucus Nominee election to avoid a vote that he expected to lose.
What kind of leader do you want? #txlege
I dont know what you want me to say. I hold that the idea an elected representative can be punished/censured/influenced by a party in any way for choosing to vote in a manner they deemed appropriate is dangerous.
You don't, especially in this instance.
You don't, especially in this instance.
His argument is that being censured by the political party you're a member of is the equivalent of Mao-ism so its not like he's on a sturdy branch…
Let's pull out the crayons for you.. Do you recognize that these two cases are fundamentally different:Ag_of_08 said:
I dont know what you want me to say. I hold that the idea an elected representative can be punished/censured/influenced by a party in any way for choosing to vote in a manner they deemed appropriate is dangerous.
You don't, especially in this instance.
1) Ted Cruz voting against the rest of the GOP on some future spending bill.
2) Ted Cruz running as an independent because he lost his primary causing democrat to win.
Featured Stories
See All
Presenting Texas Aggies United's 'Battle At Reed' Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
35:25
5h ago
1.7k
The TexAgs Tailgate: Texas A&M vs. Southern California
by Richard Zane
35:16
14h ago
3.6k
Yesterday
LIVE from Allegiant Stadium: Texas A&M vs. USC (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
41
SidetrackAg
LIVE from Allegiant Stadium: Texas A&M vs. USC (2024 Las Vegas Bowl)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30