DonkeyCigars

I thought this was an interesting read and touches on AoC at the Met Gala. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/activism-now-fashion/620073/

Same. I've spent hours rewatching some oldies but goodies and being pleasantly surprised with some new clilps/videos. I've laughed out loud more than a few times. Rest in power, King!

No. For further reading, please see last page where I have laid out my position for you to review if you care and/or have the time. Brisket's contention is that my position is fundamentally wrong because of, among other political concerns, water/infrastructure concerns.

Here is the thing. I like you as a poster. You seem like an even better human being. So I took your advice and picked up some Jif Extra Crunchy during my weekly refill of JIF. I'm just not here for it. The crunch is weird. It's too much peanut, not enough butter. (Reminds me of this video "Larry loves butter and Larry loves scotch, but you'd never seen Larry loves Butterscotch"

@Brisketexan, tell me more about how issues with water and power in Texas are so different and worse than in utopia's like California and PNW and how people are leaving better weather and infrastructure situations in droves to a worse one. and the climate change and wildfires toothpaste ain't going back in the tube anytime soon.

Yea agreed, was being cheeky, sorry if you thought I was being serious.

What you are consistently failing to realize (or address) is the idea that, using your analogy, the grain bin is getting low but because the seeds were planted and fields are attractive, new farmers are emigrating from more liberal populations (CA, West Coast, etc.) to Texas to join in and add their seeds and livestock to the farm that's existing. It's necessarily, by almost certainty and physics, going to change the dynamic and the course that you are married to as the end result. The end of the play hasn't been written. Texas is amazing. And it can get better for your tastes! Or worse, if you are one of those who say "Don't California my Austin". And this is because we are a destination state. A city on a hill. A lighthouse. Because of our people and business/tax-friendly posture. Texit is stupid, something I think everyone on this thread agrees. Don't know how I wasted time arguing with Brisket when we agree. Briskettexan you should change your handle to Lokitexan or something; you are mischievous.

Also thanks for your answer, but the question is for @Brisketexan. Answer why you think it is that more people and businesses are moving to Texas than are leaving. Texas is growing and winning, despite of all the problems. Why Brisket?

What I think you are failing to consider in your forecast model built on emotion and faith in yourself as a prognosticator is the impact that the low regulation/low taxes mass influx will have. We already know that Texas is booming and growing and companies and people are pouring in. We also know the demography of the said populations and from where they are coming from. Maybe they come over here and there is something in the water and they take a hard right and change the political/personal beliefs and positions they had upon arrival. Maybe, and what I think is more likely, they come and bring their own flavors to the mixing pot and the stew tastes a little less anarcho-capitalistic, as you characterize it, and more tempered and muted and palatable to old, mediocre, out of touch narcissists like me yourself. But the bottom line is we agree on this: Texit is stupid. Right?

Absolutely. I've said more than three times now that Texit is stupid because of the exact sentence you just wrote. Brisket is trying to argue from a place of second-hand inside info, anecdote and emotion that the above sentence, along with the data and articles provided to corroborate that sentence as a thesis, is wrong. Despite admitting up and down this board that he is hopelessly wrong about everything because he's the smart one and everyone else are the stupid irrational ones (arguably he's right about that, depending on your stances).

Exactamundo.

First of all, you are grasping at straws. Not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China as it pertains to the conversation I thought we were having, but I guess I'll try to address it: If the upper middle class want to send their kids to public school, they should know what they are going to be getting themselves into. I'm the wrong guy to ask, my kids go to private school so I can't comment nor care about the FUD you are trying to introduce here for some reason, which again is a weird thing to introduce at this stage in the discussion. I mean, I think the data says you are wrong. More people and businesses are moving to Texas than are leaving. Texas is growing and winning, despite of all the problems. Why is that do you think? Answer honestly. I think it is because regardless of all the other garbage you cite (politics, weather, resources, powergrid, abortion, etc.) which I can see as garbage if I were in your or others political shoes, money talks and bullspit walks. A tale as old as time, as we are fond to say.

I understand your position, I just disagree. Also what's in disagreement is the aforementioned 237 relocation projects and expansions currently in the works. Not in the past, but forward-looking and being planned for future use. And I don't think either one of us can say for certain, but I think you are wrong on the distributed workforce dynamic. I think COVID-19 was the event needed to fundamentally change how and where we work (knowledge/white collar workers, that is) and that will be played out in the coming months/years to the benefit of those who would live and work from anywhere (e.g. work for a Silicon Valley HQ'd company but live in Florida for COL and tax purposes, etc.). Here is a read about how workers are fighting to normalize maintaining a NY or SF or DC adjusted salary even if you relocate to Omaha or Boise or Tulsa: In the pre-pandemic era, the following was a given with little-to-no debate: Work outside a major metro area and your salary will be adjusted accordingly. Now, remote work largely rules the business world, and workers are increasingly demanding equal pay for equal output, no matter where they log in from. One economist tells The Wall Street Journal firms will "eventually" have to pay these workers the same or face losing them. In other words, employee expectations have drastically changed, and employers must adapt. https://www.wsj.com/articles/workers-want-to-do-their-jobs-from-anywhere-and-keep-their-big-city-salaries-11631282375?mod=hp_lead_pos11 I'll say it again for you: Texit is STUPID We should be talking about Texas a PE firm, amassing port co's in order to grow our upper middle class. That is the winning story we should be telling.

You admit to be naive. A hopeless romantic, maybe. Maybe a "hope springs eternal" and "optimist to a fault". Wait, not the last one as your pessimism has become your online brand. Anyways, my point is, you seem to have come around to the idea that your way of thinking (e.g. "things OUGHT to be" and "things SHOULD be") is reasonable and rational but not practical because your way of thinking doesn't play out in the irrational and rowdy marketplace that is reality. You've owned that and I agree with you-- you are out of touch in that way. I say that to say, take your best instincts and logical thinking and any forecasting or opinions you arrive at from your best thinking...and tilt it like 90 degrees and flip it upside down, and you'll be closer to the target. I'm not saying you are wrong in your analysis here, I'm just saying that I think it's too early to be hinting that a power grid situation that's happened 2x in 20 years is going to a) register on the board level meetings and relo evaluations (and if they do, get weighted to matter) and b) is something you are going to be able to set your watch to. Ultimately, I think you are naive in that Tax-friendliness over every other thing is the top reason--no the top 1, 2 and 3 reasons-- that matter more than anything else. Nothing else, not ESB-friendly politics or Corp-B friendly values, not politics, not DEI, not water/electricity even compare (especially in a distributed workforce world-- one where employees are fighting to be paid the same no matter their COL tier based on zip codes). Texit is stupid. We should be talking about Texas a PE firm, amassing port co's in order to grow our upper middle class. That is the story.

From the same place I read the other stuff (not a link; a newsletter): There have been 179 attempts since 1913. But few have prompted an election and only six officials have actually been recalled. So you are right in that all of them have been attempted to be recalled, but to get this far down the line and get to a wasteful election, it seems as if a "French Laundry" event has to take place to tip the scales into action.

In all seriousness, I'm impressed with the breadth you two display in terms of the subgenre. I haven't even seen the rebooted IT and can barely walk through a PG-13 haunted house without having a melt down. I think the last horror movie I saw in a theatre was like Saw 3 and I can't even remember the last horror movie I've seen in the last 15 years.

What are you? Some kind of freakazoid? Same question to the OP

Texas rules as it is, no need to leave. A lot of good HQ's and businesses are coming here anyways and our property values and opportunities in the major DMA's are exploding. All the goodness of the rest of the country seem to want to Calexit or NYexit to come to Texas. This will be good for business, our individual pocketbooks and 401ks', and probably serve politically to mute a bit and temper some of the bright red (and speed up the purpling of the state!), which should be a win/win for you all here. The one knock about Texas from where I stand is the lack of even a roadmap or visibility to legal marijuana. The closest analogy I can think of to Texit would be like what's happened in Afghanistan. You'd have the US "pull out" of Texas and then immediately Texas is vulnerable to internal fighting/civil war and Mexico fueled with drug cartel war chest money that would come in and unofficially conquer everything up to San Antonio almost overnight. Within 6 months they would have infiltrated the GOP or Q or whoever takes Presidency of the US and Texas would be a drug trafficking state full of cryptomillionaires, like a Cyber Wild West where law and order would be very bleak. It actually sounds pretty fatalistic and exciting, in a devil-may-care sort of way, now that I've typed it out. A whole new frontier and wild west. Sounds like a lot of great opportunity for genius sociopaths to make a name for themselves and go from outhouse to penthouse in a single generation and/or lots of fun for cocaine-fueled bros in their 20's. Not a lot of value for old family men like me, which is why I guess there is truly no country for old men.

Like you all, I considered Norm MacDonald to be one of the GOATs of comedy. My favorite by far. Nothing to add to the previous pages, but thanks for the videos and clips and laughs and memories. He is one of the few celebrity inspirations with which I looked upon in awe and with the utmost respect. God bless this man.

Haha, okay.

What is the argument? That we shouldn't allow or have the function or legal recourse of a recall because they are too expensive? That we should add a rider to the language that stipulates "must show X% of polling in favor to move forward with it so we know it's not going to be a 15% loss?" or that we need a minimum threshold of forecasted voting outcomes to make it a viable outcome (and isn't that what all the signature gathering pre-recall is all about in vetting)? What is the argument?

I don't think that is accurate and I've linked at least two (non-republican slanted*) journalistic articles that have pointed to the French Laundry as doing the heavy lifting of taking a fledgling, niche movement and throwing gasoline and oxygen on the fire to bring it to legitimize it as a political gambit worthy of pursuing. You are speculating that "If not for French Laundry there would have been some other [fill in the blank] catalyst event" but I don't think that is an obvious outcome. *I think it's absurd that people assume Republicans can't enjoy and take journalism like New Yorker, Atlantic, Vanity Fair, etc. but have to be watching OAN and FoxNews for hours a day, but that's the absurd and binary and blinders-on world we live in with Democrats.

Exactly. And I guess we can't comment on tweets posted on the 5th page of the thread and do any backwards/lessons learned type autopsy without controversy lol

French Laundry, for a lack of a better analogy, was what made the Newsom recall go "viral" and gave it legitimacy with those who are not camped in the insane corners of politics and internet who were already frothy about it (as referenced by the surge in interest and money from more "mainstream" Republicans, business people, California tech bros, etc.) It was a $350 plate that ended up costing tax payers $400mm and Newsom/Democrats untold hundreds of millions of dollars (and untold opportunity cost in time, effort, energy, mental thoughtspace, distraction from governing and work and advancing politics and preparation for the next cycle, ec.) to defend a stupid, pointless political exercise.

Huckleberry beat me to it. @Captainant, @cactusflinthead, are you guys familiar with the pop-psychology term and application of the phrase "tipping point"? French Laundry seems to have been an assassination of Franz Ferdinand type catalyst that set off the powder keg of the other insane points you all have mentioned and gave us as the result the stupid, pointless recall. It's just an interesting piece of historical trivia or whatever and I was responding to the funny tweet, itself overly simplistic and reductive and distilled into a humorous twitter tincture, about how much that French Laundry dinner cost (the joke being, $400mm in tax payers and the many, many millions--I can't remember if it was 80 or 800--that Newsom had to raise to fight it. Not to mention the time of Biden and Harris and all the other political opportunity cost.