tvc184

0.03 Nederland at the line

Timeout Nederland 0.05 63-63

Timeout Angleton 0.09 Nederland 63-61

0:50 61-61

2:00 59-58 Angleton

2:20 Angleton 59-55

6:00 left, Angleton 50-46

I don’t think the governor has any say so in property taxes. Most of Texas tax problems are a lack of an income tax. Much of the public pays basically nothing in taxes if they don’t own property. Of course the argument is that property taxes are passed on somewhere down the line like if you rent a house, you are paying taxes to the owner because he is charging you extra. Does anyone believe that if we got rid of all property taxes next week, rent would go down $1? If all property taxes are passed on, why not just do away with all sales tax, gasoline tax, etc., and just raise our property taxes? Shouldn’t that be the rational solution if all property taxes are passed on to someone else? Of course not but for every dollar you do away with from property tax, you have to raise another dollar somewhere else. How is anyone going to help secure the border if: 1. The United States Constitution only allows the federal Congress to make rules for immigration enforcement? Arizona tried that and it was struck down by the Supreme Court. 2. Texas could put billions of dollars to put more fencing and personnel to at least turn the people crossing back toward federal authorities even though the State has no authority to take them into custody. That however will likely cause a huge increase in taxes. While the governor is a head executive of the state and technically is in charge of the military, he cannot spend money that is not authorized by the Texas Congress. If Prather for example says, I’m going to spend $2 billion next month securing the border, where is he going to get it? New property taxes? I honestly think that he would do a decent job and it certainly would not offend me if he or West or Huffines was the next governor. Out of the four major candidates, I trust Huffines the least because of his outrageous claims. I know he’s not telling the truth, he knows he’s not telling the truth but at least make it somewhat believable.

Yes, Robert E. Lee did “exactly” the same thing as George Washington. Washington was a colonel in the British army but then joined the rebels. He was a traitor to his country. Had the British won the Revolutionary War, would Washington be a villain or a hero to freedom lovers?

I don’t agree with but completely understand that the West hasn’t been here long enough argument. If that is what someone believes then that is a valid point. We aren’t required to justify our vote. By the same token I have seen comments in other forums that wish Ron DeSantis would leave Florida and become the Texas governor next week and he has never lived here. Apparently they are more concerned with political opinion than residency. I don’t agree with West’s opinion on his wife’s arrest but he was backing up his wife. Had the same exact situation happened but for somebody he did not know, he would likely made a statement like, let all the facts come out before we make an accusation. I have never agreed with any person including any politician’s opinion 100% of the time. If you can find such a person that agrees with me (not anyone else) 100% of the time, please let me know. I actually thought I might have been for a Huffines until I heard a couple of his radio commercials. I understand politics but geez…… he could have just as well said that he would make Texas secede from the union, declare everyone a millionaire at the state expense and nobody has to work again and we will all be eating that rainbow stew. Would those stupid claims make him a bad governor? Probably not but even I have my limit on how much a person can lie to my face. I believe 100% that Trump was going to build the wall if he could find the funding… and did. I equally felt with 100% certainty that Mexico was not going to pay for it. The first part was reality and the second part was political bravado. I always believe I can tell the difference.

I see comments similar to that repeated over and over in almost every thread and in every forum. And….. “both sides say it”. They are all crooks…. Their base supports them no matter what….. They are playing politics just like the other side…. My guy is stupid but so is yours…. That means what as far as a conversation or debate? As an example in the current politics of Texas, gun laws. In the last few legislatures and in particular this last one, the Republican party has pushed for much more gun rights. Virtually every Republican voted in favor of each of those bills and virtually every Democrat voted against them. Abbott who some Republicans claim is a rino, signed every one of them including one which would overturn federal law (which in itself is unlawful and unconstitutional) by making silencers legal without having to go through the federal process. People can call him whatever they wish but he signed every bill that I’m in favor of. So is there a point of noting that politics is politics? Both sides are playing on the same field but which outcome do you support?

I haven’t voted yet, probably today but will for West. Looking at people’s reactions however is what gives me little faith in Abbott being beaten in a runoff. West is a carpetbagger, Huffines is a used car salesman and Prather is a comedian doing it as a joke. For the most part, this appears to be the first and second choices of the people who would not be voting for Abbott in the primary. West supporters: West/Abbott Huffines supporters: Huffines/Abbott Pfather supporters: Prather/Abbott And honestly, I am not against Abbott. I just like West more. I would like my Chihuahua as a better option than Beto.

This is how I think the primary will go. Abbott will win with maybe 60% or more of the vote and it will be over. But as a possibility, the protest vote will be split 3 ways. That really does not matter in the primary election. There will be a runoff if Abbott gets 1 vote less than 50%. Abbott can get 49%, West can get 20%, Huffines 19% and Prather 12% and there will be a runoff between Abbott and West. Now if 100% of the protest vote goes for West, he likely wins. I just don’t see that happening however. Assuming roughly the same people vote in the runoff, West might get 75% of Huffines and Prather voters but he will not nearly overcome Abbott only needing a couple of points. I have seen too many comments and other forums such as, I am voting for a Prather/Huffines/West in the primary but if he is not in a runoff, I voting for Abbott. The only way that I see Abbott losing in the primary is if he only gets about 35% of the vote and is in a runoff. If 2/3 of the voters are not for him in the primary, he has a significant chance of losing. If he is in a runoff but gets over 45% in the current vote, I don’t see any other candidate overcoming the only 5% additional support he needs.

I think that Abbott will likely win the GOP primary because I think a substantial percentage of the population votes for whoever is there now. It takes a lot of angry people to vote out the incumbent in the primaries. I just don’t see it in this case. My personal preference would be West but I am sure in the general election I will gladly cast my ballot for Abbet over Beto.

True but either a Democrat or Republican will be left in charge. It might be a career Democrat or a career Republican but it will be one or the other. Would you vote for a Democrat because he/she is new but guaranteed to hurt causes that you support or a career Republican that will in most cases side with you? I am not against term limits but unless that ever becomes a law, in the general election I am stuck voting for the side that I mostly agree with and certainly on my hot button issues. In the primary? Absolutely go for who you think is the best candidate and vote against an incumbent. Once that dust settles however…….

I understand the “old” politics. More money for welfare services for Dems vs less from GOP perspective. In the same reasoning, less money for military or things like space exploration. Tax the rich….. More pro union….. The Affordable Care Act/Obamacare which made healthcare only affordable if you’re on public assistance……. Basically the sides argued in how much money to spend and where. But then we go to what I can’t figure out. I know, let’s allow men run against women in sports if they are feeling feminine….. oh, and can’t beat other males. That should be fair! It seems like Democrats somewhere got together in a smoke filled room and after a discussion said, the Republicans are probably adamantly against this so we will say it’s a good thing! Next up… defund the police. It will probably have little or no impact in the more middle class and affluent communities and might lead to a major increase in crime and deaths in the minority communities but hey, the Republicans are against it so we will say it’s a great thing! How about an abortion up to the point of birth like proposed in Virginia where a woman could be delivering a full term healthy baby and just as the child is about to be delivered, the doctor is allowed to kill it after its head is out but not the full body because the mother decided yesterday that she is mad at the father. Sounds like the GOP would be against that so let’s support it! A person cannot decide to buy alcohol until 21. Tobacco or vote until 18. But…. if a 10-year-old want to change his or her sex against their parents’ wishes, that seems OK because Republicans probably will definitely oppose it. I know, on taking office I will immediately close 93 million acres of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and shut off pipelines to shut down a major portion of our oil industry so it will push us toward Trillions of dollars in more taxes in the Green New Deal. That way it will turn over our energy needs to countries that hate us! That way gasoline will double (and soon to triple) in price which will be destructive on minorities but the Republicans are probably against it so…… Let’s have a multicultural center at a university with taxpayer money but exclude 2/3s of the population because they are the wrong color. Let’s have…… The list could go on but there just seems like there are issues that about 95% of the public should agree on but for the theory of political opposition, right now we are going through strange times where one side has determined that if the other side doesn’t like it, will support it no matter how wrong, unfair or deviant it is. Some things should be wrong no matter which side of the aisle a person is on. In the current woke and cancel culture climate, the more strange or deviant it appears, the more they will support it because it bothers the other side. Now, I don’t think that the people that consider themselves Democrats or liberals support most of what is happening and many are likely just as disgusted as the conservatives but they aren’t being listened to or are being silent so as not to oppose “their side”.

I have had a hard time the last three or four years figuring out how they still have much support. I know there are people on both sides who blindly follow anyone but geez…..

Never mind, just saw it in another thread… sophomore LHP.

Corcoran is a sophomore?

I don’t see a problem with being concerned with about 1% of the population. I compare that to never knowing a person who has died of the flu in my 66 years but have at least 10 friends or close acquaintances that have died of Covid. It is not nearly as significant as about 5% as was originally talked about two years ago when Covid was first discovered. That would tend to be horrific. Concern is only one thing however. The claimed two week lockdown to lower the curve, the not treating people until they were critically ill, the complete shutting down of businesses, schools and churches is a common completely different issue. That part now appears to be more political than medical. . Simply look at what is going on in Canada as evidence of what happens when a politician draws a line in the sand but is wrong. Being a politician he/she seems incapable of backing down and simply saying, I was wrong and retract my orders. NOPE, if you challenge me we are going to double down and punish you. You will fall in line or else!!! To put it short, I understand having concern. The political response does not justify the outcome however.

That sounds almost as ominous as Vlad the Impaler

Some of that is not butchering words by people in the UK but they just have different words for the same thing. Fillum…. is messing up words. Like the typical Texan “aw” instead of “ah” like in dawg, lawg, frawg…… Like most of the UK tends that be non-rhotic. In the movie Patton, it was Patton who was quoting Sir George Bernard Shaw Who is reported to have said something like, England and America are two countries separated by a common language. USA/UK Truck/Lorry Cookie/Biscuit Can/Tin etc. Which brings me to an old American and English joke. A man from England was visiting United States and came upon a farmer in Iowa. There were miles and miles of corn and the Englishman asked the farmer, what do y’all do with all that corn. To that the farmer replied, “We eat what we can and what we can’t, we can“. The Englishman busted out laughing. When he returned home he told everyone that he had heard the funniest joke in America and it went, “They have so much corn that they eat what they can and the rest they put in tins”.

Almost everyone butchers words. Speech patterns depends on the area, history, culture, ancestry…….

Maybe not mind change, just a good interview. 👍🏼

Retired May 2, 2021. I still teach at the academy….. voluntarily. 37 years, 4 months.