Matthew McConaughey Truly Considering Run for Governor

[washparkhorn 9935]

This MM iteration will not work. It's unserious. It may be as simple as a styling change to show people what he would look like when standing up with other Governors.

cool serious guy>serious cool guy (in a race for a Governor of Texas). He's either burying his strengths . . . or his policy shop is not ready for primetime.

TLDR: wrong vibe (he needs to lose the outfits in the early courtship of voters). Time to be serious. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

But it's damn good he got the attention he got.

And it's even better that the marketing touched many voters positively.

He has potential. 

[Blotto 23434]

Is he cultivating a david koresh vibe with those glasses? Here's a screenshot from a recent Austin fc video

I've always thought the guy is a bit of a self-absorbed weirdo, although a charismatic one. Fine for an actor or our minister of culture, but not what I'm looking for in a governor. Would I rather have MM in office than Abbot? Sure....but that also applies to the pile of shit somebody's dog left on my lawn the other day. Maybe I'm wrong, but he strikes me as the kind of guy whose primary concern in office would be crafting his image/brand. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

8 hours ago, Satchel said:

From the latest UT/TT Poll:

Overall, 59% of Texas voters oppose unlicensed, or “constitutional,” carry of handguns in public spaces. The poll also found that the share of Republicans who support background checks on all gun purchases (64%) is larger than the share who support unlicensed carry (56%).

Our politicians make us appear more gun crazy than we actually are. There are millions of Texas who don’t like or own guns.

This is great and all, but we sure as hell don't vote that way; so....kinda moot point. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

10 hours ago, Satchel said:

From the latest UT/TT Poll:

Overall, 59% of Texas voters oppose unlicensed, or “constitutional,” carry of handguns in public spaces. The poll also found that the share of Republicans who support background checks on all gun purchases (64%) is larger than the share who support unlicensed carry (56%).

Our politicians make us appear more gun crazy than we actually are. There are millions of Texas who don’t like or own guns.

There is a large number of younger gun owners and enthusiasts who support universal background checks as long as they are free and unburdensome and don't deprive anyone of their civil rights without due process. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party believes that they should be burdensome and costly, as evidenced by legislation they have attempted to pass. These younger folks see those policies as just as racist as any policy such as a poll tax or voter ID law that disproportionately deprives minorities of their civil rights. So citing a statistic that a majority of voters from any party supports universal background checks does not mean that they support the racist version (because that is what it is) pushed by the Democratic Party. 

As far as MM goes, he is a charismatic actor who seems to be able to embody the Texan everyman. When he starts to take positions on issues that will probably change. In a normal simulation it would be tough for him to be worse than Abbott, but we live in a post Trump world where that actually isn't so tough anymore and Abbott actually seems to be a moderating force at times.

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There is a large number of younger gun owners and enthusiasts who support universal background checks as long as they are free and unburdensome and don't deprive anyone of their civil rights without due process. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party believes that they should be burdensome and costly, as evidenced by legislation they have attempted to pass. These younger folks see those policies as just as racist as any policy such as a poll tax or voter ID law that disproportionately deprives minorities of their civil rights. So citing a statistic that a majority of voters from any party supports universal background checks does not mean that they support the racist version (because that is what it is) pushed by the Democratic Party. 

As far as MM goes, he is a charismatic actor who seems to be able to embody the Texan everyman. When he starts to take positions on issues that will probably change. In a normal simulation it would be tough for him to be worse than Abbott, but we live in a post Trump world where that actually isn't so tough anymore and Abbott actually seems to be a moderating force at times.

How are they racists?  First I've heard of this and, I'm assuming, you're saying they're racist towards whites.  

I mean as a white dude, I'm really sick of having all these roadblocks in my way.  🙄

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

How is a poll tax or voter ID law racist? Gun control has been racially motivated for most of our history. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

8 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

How is a poll tax or voter ID law racist? Gun control has been racially motivated for most of our history. 

Maybe if white people would stop shooting up the schools, wal-marts and churches it wouldn't be.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

How is a poll tax or voter ID law racist?

They disproportionately affect black people. Duh. That’s the whole point. 

[Beau Vine 54003]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

How is a poll tax or voter ID law racist? Gun control has been racially motivated for most of our history. 

Jesus Christ...

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

33 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

They disproportionately affect black people. Duh. That’s the whole point. 

And laws that do the same for other civil rights aren't? Is that your position?

[tantric superman 4667]

 

11 hours ago, immamac said:

I'm super unaware that this is the gun and beto o'rourke thread. Should I change the thread title? 

How about you all stop fucking derailing threads and talk about relevant shit in relevant threads.

If talking about Beto O'Rourke's recent statewide race and the reason he lost is wrong in a thread about the next governor's race, I don't want to be right.

Edited July 6, 2021 by tantric superman
posting is hard

[Js1 85110]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

 

If talking about Beto O'Rourke's recent statewide race and the reason he lost is wrong in a thread about the next governor's race, I don't want to be right.

Yeah @immamac, Beto/guns is relevant to the governor race - I'd change this thread title to "2022 Texas Governor's Race" or just "2022 Dem Gov Primary" or something, since the Abbott thread has (right or wrong) become the GOP primary thread for 2022. 

[tantric superman 4667]

"2022 Wheels Off Texas Governor's Race Thread".

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Can't even say Dem race at this point. For all we know he could enter as an independent or Libertarian. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Just now, tantric superman said:

"2022 Wheels Off Texas Governor's Race Thread".

That would include the Republican primary, though, which is a bit more off topic.

[Pig Bellmont 8692]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

And laws that do the same for other civil rights aren't? Is that your position?

Is it *your* position that laws that make it more difficult for people of color to vote and laws that protect minorities’ rights (like the 1964 Civil Rights Act) are comparably “racist”? 
 

Because this quoted quip makes you seem like an idiot

[hayden_horn 11360]

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

How is a poll tax or voter ID law racist? Gun control has been racially motivated for most of our history. 

how is a poll tax racist?

let's let that one marinate for a little while.

jesus, do some of yall think before you post?

oh, wait, if i tie a poll tax to a voter id law, then both are totally okay!

wait...

fucking hell.

[horn4life 3755]

Alright, Alright, Alright! It's time for a change!

 

I would love to hear Matthew simply state, "it's odd to me, that a man who got a huge insurance settlement for a tree limb falling on him, hates OTHER PEOPLE getting the same type settlements the Governor did?  I don't understand how it was not bad for the Guv, but it's now bad for other folks?  It would be something I would love to hear Governor Abbott explain.

or = "Why do we need to wait for $100 million from the federal government to fix our electrical grid, but Governor Abbott can find $250 million overnight to build a border wall? I mean why is OK to overcharge Texas $15 billion in a day and half, but they can't come up with a dime to fix a problem specifically of the Governor's making.  I would love to hear him explain that?

Just good old folksy question asking of a hypocrite...

Edited July 6, 2021 by horn4life

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y’all gonna fall for stinky stoner Trump aren’t y’all?

A wealthy narcissist who SEEMS liberal with zero government experience is every bit as bad as a wealthy conservative narcissist with zero government experience.

Y’all have perfect wifey material sitting right there in a ball cap but y’all are going to elope to Vegas with the gal who breaks shit and keys cars but gets to hang around because she can always get weed.

[Guest]

How is a poll tax constitutional?

The reasons a poll tax is wrong isn't limited at all to racial implications.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

59 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Is it *your* position that laws that make it more difficult for people of color to vote and laws that protect minorities’ rights (like the 1964 Civil Rights Act) are comparably “racist”? 
 

Because this quoted quip makes you seem like an idiot

Any law that disproportionately has a negative effect on minorities is racist. Especially one that requires them to pay money or otherwise unnecessarily inconveniences them in order to exercise their civil rights. If a voter ID law was coupled with the creation of a government task force who's mission it was to seek the disadvantaged populations and provide them with an ID at no cost to them and without otherwise interrupting their life and ability to provide a living, I could entertain the possibility of it's neutrality. But it would have to be pretty iron clad to prevent abuse.

[WBT 20422]

I was starting to feel like I was taking crazy pills but I did in fact read the background checks are racist post correctly.  No idea how y'all read him as saying they were racist against whites.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Background checks by themselves aren't a problem so much as having to go out of your way and pay for them. And the last version of the UBC bill that I took the time to read specifically stated that there would be no cap on the charge for them, so if there is only one FFL around they can charge whatever they want. There is no reason other than suppression of civil rights to write the law like when alternatives exist that do not create any real burden.

[bolverk 29401]

11 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Background checks by themselves aren't a problem so much as having to go out of your way and pay for them. And the last version of the UBC bill that I took the time to read specifically stated that there would be no cap on the charge for them, so if there is only one FFL around they can charge whatever they want. There is no reason other than suppression of civil rights to write the law like when alternatives exist that do not create any real burden.

As a non-gun owner, I had no idea that there was a (proposed?/existing?) charge for background checks on gun purchases. How much is the fee? 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

Depends on the FFL. Nowadays you can expect to pay at least $30. We have the technology to do backgrounds checks at no cost for private sales. There is no reason to make them go through an FFL and pay whatever fee they choose to charge you.

[F250 28691]

1 hour ago, horn4life said:

Alright, Alright, Alright! It's time for a change!

 

I would love to hear Matthew simply state, "it's odd to me, that a man who got a huge insurance settlement for a tree limb falling on him, hates OTHER PEOPLE getting the same type settlements the Governor did?  I don't understand how it was not bad for the Guv, but it's now bad for other folks?  It would be something I would love to hear Governor Abbott explain.

or = "Why do we need to wait for $100 million from the federal government to fix our electrical grid, but Governor Abbott can find $250 million overnight to build a border wall? I mean why is OK to overcharge Texas $15 billion in a day and half, but they can't come up with a dime to fix a problem specifically of the Governor's making.  I would love to hear him explain that?

Just good old folksy question asking of a hypocrite...

 

[Satchel 6908]

10 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

This is great and all, but we sure as hell don't vote that way; so....kinda moot point. 

Until recently, we haven’t been that big on voting much at all.

[Satchel 6908]

4 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Background checks by themselves aren't a problem so much as having to go out of your way and pay for them. And the last version of the UBC bill that I took the time to read specifically stated that there would be no cap on the charge for them, so if there is only one FFL around they can charge whatever they want. There is no reason other than suppression of civil rights to write the law like when alternatives exist that do not create any real burden.

“ A real burden” is a mere inconvenience, according to Gorsuch who wrote the majority opinion in the AZ voting law case.

[Sawbonz 27436]

Holy shit this primary is going to be wild

I take back what I said earlier.  If either of these clowns gets the nomination Beto wins

 

[Continental Op 3934]

If I am going to vote for a UT grad who is involved in the entertainment industry for governor it's going to be Wes Anderson because then our state will be more whimsical and everything will be perfectly symmetrical. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21065]

All I know, is I'm voting for the Republican nominee's opponent.   Probably a lost cause. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, Continental Op said:

If I am going to vote for a UT grad who is involved in the entertainment industry for governor it's going to be Wes Anderson because then our state will be more whimsical and everything will be perfectly symmetrical. 

I like this idea.  I've always felt Texas' color-palate needed an update as well.  And more talking animals.  

Also, there's not enough violence in Wes' movies.  But I'd like to see something where Dan Patrick is violently removed from office by his own supporters and ends up with some whimsical instrument (to use your terms) impaled down his throat.  Like a glockenspiel or some other percussion instrument made by a progressive hipster craftsman---played by Jason Schwartmann. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

14 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

There is a large number of younger gun owners and enthusiasts who support universal background checks as long as they are free and unburdensome and don't deprive anyone of their civil rights without due process. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party believes that they should be burdensome and costly, as evidenced by legislation they have attempted to pass. These younger folks see those policies as just as racist as any policy such as a poll tax or voter ID law that disproportionately deprives minorities of their civil rights. So citing a statistic that a majority of voters from any party supports universal background checks does not mean that they support the racist version (because that is what it is) pushed by the Democratic Party. 

As far as MM goes, he is a charismatic actor who seems to be able to embody the Texan everyman. When he starts to take positions on issues that will probably change. In a normal simulation it would be tough for him to be worse than Abbott, but we live in a post Trump world where that actually isn't so tough anymore and Abbott actually seems to be a moderating force at times.

Do you have the years and numbers for these different pieces of legislation you are referring to?

[Continental Op 3934]

39 minutes ago, Lobo said:

I like this idea.  I've always felt Texas' color-palate needed an update as well.  And more talking animals.  

Also, there's not enough violence in Wes' movies.  But I'd like to see something where Dan Patrick is violently removed from office by his own supporters and ends up with some whimsical instrument (to use your terms) impaled down his throat.  Like a glockenspiel or some other percussion instrument made by a progressive hipster craftsman---played by Jason Schwartmann. 

Based on previews I think this might actually be pretty close to one of the vignettes in French Dispatch. 

[Guest Lobo]

My god, I had completely forgotten about that movie.  We had plans to make it our first movie out since the youngest was born.  Shit, I think we even had tickets for it from Drafthouse.  But then that thing happened.  I hadn't given it a thought in 10 months or so.  thanks for the tip, off to see about showtimes later this summer.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4968]

3 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Do you have the years and numbers for these different pieces of legislation you are referring to?

Here is the text for the current on passed by the house. Sorry for not formatting it if it shows up all fubarred. I've spoilered my crappy analysis of it just because this proba ly isn't the proper thread to dig into these issues.

Quote

117th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 8

AN ACT

To require a background check for every firearm sale.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021”.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun purchase or possession are not able to obtain firearms.

SEC. 3. FIREARMS TRANSFERS.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) (1) (A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (t).

“(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm under subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensee to the unlicensed transferee.

“(C) If a transfer of a firearm described in subparagraph (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee takes possession of the firearm (including because the transfer of the firearm to, or receipt of the firearm by, the transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the firearm to the transferor by the licensee shall not constitute the transfer of a firearm for purposes of this chapter.

“(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties;

“(B) a transfer or exchange (which, for purposes of this subsection, means an in-kind transfer of a firearm of the same type or value) that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;

“(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person;

“(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, family, household members, or others, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm, including harm to self, and the harm of domestic violence, dating partner violence, sexual assault, stalking, and domestic abuse;

“(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or

“(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively—

“(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting;

“(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, pest control on a farm or ranch, or fishing, if the transferor—

“(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and

“(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, pest control on a farm or ranch, or fishing; or

“(iii) while in the presence of the transferor.

“(3) It shall be unlawful for a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer possession of, or title to, a firearm to another person who is not so licensed unless the importer, manufacturer, or dealer has provided such other person with a notice of the prohibition under paragraph (1), and such other person has certified that such other person has been provided with this notice on a form prescribed by the Attorney General.

“(4) The Attorney General shall make available to any person licensed under this chapter both Spanish and English versions of the form required for the conduct of a background check under subsection (t) and this subsection, and the notice and form required under paragraph (3) of this subsection.”.

(b) Amendment To Section 924(a).—Section 924(a)(5) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking “(s) or (t)” and inserting “(s), (t), or (aa)”.

(c) Rules Of Interpretation.—Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to—

(1) authorize the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a national firearms registry; or

(2) interfere with the authority of a State, under section 927 of title 18, United States Code, to enact a law on the same subject matter as this Act.

(d) Effective Date.—The amendment made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11, 2021.

Attest:




 

Clerk.  

117th CONGRESS
     1st Session

H. R. 8

AN ACT

To require a background check for every firearm sale.

Spoiler

So, it looks like they've removed the part that explicitly stated that there was no cap on the fee that an FFL could charge for a transfer. If I had to guess I would bet they scratched that part because it was the most likely bit to get the whole thing thrown out with the current supreme court. Why risk that when it really isn't necessary. The only difference is that I guess states or other local governments can now set limits on what you have to pay a third party to exercise your civil liberties.

Another thing I would like to point out, and any lawyers please correct me if I am wrong, the whole temporary transfer situation they want to codify into law is completely screwed up from the perspective of anybody who actually participates in any sort of shooting sports. It appears that if my cousin knew I had a gun he was interested in, say a nice over under shotgun, but wasn't sure if it would be a good fit and wanted to try it out for a match (competition where you try and shoot little clay frisbees for those who don't know) on a weekend I was going to be out of town, we would have to both travel to the nearest federally licensed firearm dealer, fill out some paperwork, and pay however much the dealer feels like charging just to do so. But wait, the real kick in the balls is if the cousin has his license to carry. To get one of those you have to go through much more stringent background checks in Texas, the the FFL doesn't even have to run the background check. They get to charge you however much they can get away with just to make you fill out some paperwork and hang on to it for a while.

Now, if your balls aren't already sore, you have to do the whole process in reverse just to get your shotgun back.

 

Anybody who thinks that sort of process is acceptable for a civil right should pretty much just lube up their asshole, because if the government decides it is fine for one, then it is fine for everything else. 

 

If you support this, then at least be honest and say you support it because you don't think the second amendment should be a thing/civil right. It's intellectually honest and a respectable position.

 

[tantric superman 4667]

17 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all have perfect wifey material sitting right there in a ball cap but y’all are going to elope to Vegas with the gal who breaks shit and keys cars but gets to hang around because she can always get weed.

That stupid ball cap has always made me ragey...

[horn4life 3755]

19 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all gonna fall for stinky stoner Trump aren’t y’all?

A wealthy narcissist who SEEMS liberal with zero government experience is every bit as bad as a wealthy conservative narcissist with zero government experience.

Y’all have perfect wifey material sitting right there in a ball cap but y’all are going to elope to Vegas with the gal who breaks shit and keys cars but gets to hang around because she can always get weed.

I disagree.  Simply because no matter how stoned, or stinking or uninformed. One of them cares about people and the other does not. One takes into account factual information on important things like Power grid collapses.  The other does not.

Look at Abbott's attacking renewable energy this week.  The failure of the power grid was nearly ENTIRELY related to expected capacity that was NOT available from natural gas fueled power.  Think about that. The biggest problem we have ever faced is now being not solved, but used to create a lie to reinforce a false narrative.  I don't care how fucking stoned or stinky you are, you can do better than that.

In fact anyone that gave a shit about people or remotely cared about factual information would be far better than the hypocrite we have in office right now.  With of course his feloniously charged Attorney General at his side lending support at every turn.  How can this stinky stoner really do any worse than what we have now?

[AnTiM 1659]

Hard for me to imagine anyone could be worse for the office than the backstabbing pos currently holding it, or any other republican.

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

5 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

Hard for me to imagine anyone could be worse for the office than the backstabbing pos currently holding it, or any other republican.

When it comes to the Republicans, it can always get worse. There is no bottom. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Not a political position, but there it is: