Dan Crenshaw

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2659]

17 minutes ago, Stringer said:

Hey man, I live at 2222 and Mopac.  My rep is Michael McCaul, whose district takes a sliver of central Austin, then fans out east to catch La Grange, Brenham, etc and goes all the way to Katy.  How is someone supposed to serve the interests of Central Austin AND the good people of Columbus, TX.?  Not a whole lot of overlap there.

Same. Vote for Siegel, he has a non-trivial shot.

[Bozo_Casanova 26299]

19 minutes ago, Stringer said:

Hey man, I live at 2222 and Mopac.  My rep is Michael McCaul, whose district takes a sliver of central Austin, then fans out east to catch La Grange, Brenham, etc and goes all the way to Katy.  How is someone supposed to serve the interests of Central Austin AND the good people of Columbus, TX.?  Not a whole lot of overlap there.

@Ag with kids thinks this is no big deal, and that it is far more important for the congressional delegation to reflect the state's partisan preferences in presidential election than to represent the diverse interests of the people who live in different communities in Texas, like Columbus. Wharton gets shorted, but "schools of thought"  are advanced or something. 

No, seriously. Despite being a smart, thoughtful guy, he actually thinks that. 

[Ag with kids 581]

48 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Ag with kids thinks this is no big deal, and that it is far more important for the congressional delegation to reflect the state's partisan preferences in presidential election than to represent the diverse interests of the people who live in different communities in Texas, like Columbus. Wharton gets shorted, but "schools of thought"  are advanced or something. 

No, seriously. Despite being a smart, thoughtful guy, he actually thinks that. 

@Bozo_Casanova While I appreciate your efforts to suck me back into the cluster fuck known as Politics here, I have never advocated nor supported what you quoted, nor do I think it's a good idea.  In fact, in our last exchange, I'm pretty sure I explained that point.

I do agree that if a state votes mostly X party, then their state and federal Representatives should reflect that.

In Texas, the state votes mostly GOP.  All statewide offices are headed by GOP officials.  Both Senators are GOP.  The state votes GOP for POTUS.  Why wouldn't the state and federal representatives also reflect that? [EDIT:  In fact, this issue came up in 2000-2001 due to the DEMOCRATS' previous gerrymandering so much that the GOP was underrepresented in Congress and the State House]

I'm sure there's a better process than what we use today.  But, this is the process that's been in place for a LONG time in Texas.

I also understand that gerrymandering in Texas is now a HUGE issue to the left now that the 120 years of Democrat gerrymandering has been over since 2001, though...

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ag with kids

[Huckleberry 32707]

1 minute ago, Ag with kids said:

I also understand that gerrymandering in Texas is now a HUGE issue to the left now that the 120 years of Democrat gerrymandering has been over since 2001, though...

What a dumb argument every time it's used by anyone. The converse is obviously true as well. Have a spine, some principles, and a moral compass. Is gerrymandering bad or not? 

The answer is obvious if you're not a GO TEAM GO simpleton. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26299]

10 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

@Bozo_Casanova While I appreciate your efforts to suck me back into the cluster fuck known as Politics here, I have never advocated nor supported what you quoted, nor do I think it's a good idea.  In fact, in our last exchange, I'm pretty sure I explained that point.

I do agree that if a state votes mostly X party, then their state and federal Representatives should reflect that.

In Texas, the state votes mostly GOP.  All statewide offices are headed by GOP officials.  Both Senators are GOP.  The state votes GOP for POTUS.  Why wouldn't the state and federal representatives also reflect that? [EDIT:  In fact, this issue came up in 2000-2001 due to the DEMOCRATS' previous gerrymandering so much that the GOP was underrepresented in Congress and the State House]

I'm sure there's a better process than what we use today.  But, this is the process that's been in place for a LONG time in Texas.

I also understand that gerrymandering in Texas is now a HUGE issue to the left now that the 120 years of Democrat gerrymandering has been over since 2001, though...

This isn't complicated.
You support partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering comes at a cost of local community and local interest representation. End of story.  

[Ag with kids 581]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

What a dumb argument every time it's used by anyone. The converse is obviously true as well. Have a spine, some principles, and a moral compass. Is gerrymandering bad or not? 

The answer is obvious if you're not a GO TEAM GO simpleton. 

Hah.  Ok.  I understand that when your team is losing, changing the rules to your benefit sounds awesome.  I just find it funny that gerrymandering in TX was NEVER a problem until 2001.

I have no problem with making districts in a state that end up representing the statewide voting results.  I also think the districts should reflect the people in the district.  Part of the problem is the federal mandate that states have to have X number of majority minority districts.  THAT is one of the biggest problems that forces these stupid district lines...

[Ag with kids 581]

4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This isn't complicated.
You support partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering comes at a cost of local community and local interest representation. End of story.  

It's more complicated than you're stating and you know it...

[tx 3 putt 76422]

[Huckleberry 32707]

7 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Hah.  Ok.  I understand that when your team is losing, changing the rules to your benefit sounds awesome.  I just find it funny that gerrymandering in TX was NEVER a problem until 2001.

 

You've been away a while so I'll be generous and assume it's a bad memory and not GO TEAM GO simplicity that made you incorrectly assume I'm a Democrat. 

[Ag with kids 581]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You've been away a while so I'll be generous and assume it's a bad memory and not GO TEAM GO simplicity that made you incorrectly assume I'm a Democrat. 

I wasn't assuming you're a Democrat.  I assumed you were the same Huckleberry from Hornfans.  IIRC, you're a center slightly right guy (I didn't assume the wrong gender, did I, if so, I'd genuflect to you, well, nah, not really).

I was just emphasizing my earlier point.  The bitching about gerrymandering started back then...

My position hasn't changed since the late 90s (and @Bozo_Casanova) has been there so he knows (even though he's bastardizing my position now).

[Bozo_Casanova 26299]

18 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

It's more complicated than you're stating and you know it...

Nope. My position is the same as it has been. Communities of interest matter and party outcomes are irrelevant. 

[Ag with kids 581]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Nope. My position is the same as it has been. Communities of interest matter and party outcomes are irrelevant. 

My point is that BOTH matter...

Your community may have local goals that most people agree on.  But, that same community may not agree politically.  Why should you impose one standard on them at the state and federal level when most of their day to day issues are local?

[StassneyHorn 6540]

538 had a pretty good gerrymandering podcast a couple years back that was only 6 episodes. Linking an episode on majority minority districts that made me think deeper on the subject than I had been. Also has a good one on how Arizona is the only state with the requirement to be “competitive. The California episode hits on communities of interest. The Wisconsin episode takes on partisan gerrymanders and you get to listen to it knowing the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-gerrymandering-project/id1336743759?i=1000400095923

Edited July 4, 2020 by StassneyHorn

[Huckleberry 32707]

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

My point is that BOTH matter...

Your community may have local goals that most people agree on.  But, that same community may not agree politically.  Why should you impose one standard on them at the state and federal level when most of their day to day issues are local?

Your entire approach to the subject assumes that political parties are the most important part of public service or even all that matters. That's absurd. Political parties are a necessary evil in order for like-minded citizens to pool their resources to influence public policy in ways that are either their preference or as close as they can get to their preference.

Neutrally drawn districts are also a way for local citizens who necessarily share interests by virtue of living in the same local community to exert the most direct influence over public policy possible via an elected representative. But you have it completely twisted to where the necessary evil ranks more heavily in your mind than actual local interests.

You are brainwashed into this R versus D mindset and don't even realize it.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13417]

Call me crazy but I bet Crenshaw is in for a tough fight in November.  He won by 7% in ‘18 but trumps net approval in Texas has dropped by 5 since that time.

not to mention that so many people have been waiting to vote directly against trump. The anti-trump vote will have long coattails for the Dems. 

[Ted Lange 16054]

3 hours ago, Ag with kids said:

I do agree that if a state votes mostly X party, then their state and federal Representatives should reflect that.

So not a fan of the electoral college.  Agree. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

To be fair he is only looking at the left side of the graph

[Sawbonz 27445]

[elfenix 34184]

From the comments

[SydneyCarton 47920]

On 7/3/2020 at 8:55 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Call me crazy but I bet Crenshaw is in for a tough fight in November.  He won by 7% in ‘18 but trumps net approval in Texas has dropped by 5 since that time.

not to mention that so many people have been waiting to vote directly against trump. The anti-trump vote will have long coattails for the Dems. 

 

6 hours ago, elfenix said:

From the comments

See above, Eddie, as to exactly why he’ll be re-elected. 

[PsychMike 1539]

11 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

To be fair he is only looking at the left side of the graph

"But I thought there was only one peak, sir."

"Well, that'll save a bit of time. Well done. Now the object of this expedition is to see if we can find any traces of last year's expedition."

[Post Oak 20188]

13 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

 

He's such an aggy.  Celebrating a victory over Covid at halftime

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23363]

 

[Gap03 3287]

Crenshaw calls cancellation of Texas GOP convention 'prudent,' Patrick blasts Turner for move

Spoiler

Two prominent Texas Republicans took opposing stances Wednesday in response to Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner’s decision to cancel next week’s in-person Texas Republican Convention.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, in an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, called the episode “nothing but a political hack job by Mayor Turner.” His comments came hours after U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Houston, tweeted that Turner made “a prudent move for public health.”

“I’m glad Mayor Turner finally stepped in to make this call, which also means the TX GOP will not be on the hook for half a million dollars for cancelling the event — as they would have been if asked to cancel it themselves,” Crenshaw said in his tweet Wednesday.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/patrick-turner-crenshaw-texas-gop-convention-react-15396462.php

 

[elfenix 34184]

i wonder if a 7 point swing is possible in this district with people seeing crenshaw's covid shittiness?

[StassneyHorn 6540]

In less than one hour, Dan’s opponent, Sima  Ladjevardian, will be doing a Facebook Live town hall. Starts at 430

https://m.facebook.com/TexasDemocraticParty/live_videos/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0

[Beau Vine 54009]

This guy is such an assclown:

Quote

Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas suggested to an online audience this week that Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois agreed with “the destruction of America,” adding his voice to a chorus of Republicans who have questioned the Democrat’s values since she suggested that protesters who opposed monuments to some of the Founding Fathers should be listened to.

“I think a general message that the left stands for the destruction of America, and the right doesn’t, probably works pretty well with veterans, even liberal ones,” Crenshaw said in a Wednesday night “MAGA meetup” organized by the Trump campaign. “Because even liberal veterans probably don’t agree with that, unless you’re Tammy Duckworth.” The Washington Post obtained a video of the U.S. congressman’s remarks.

In a statement, Crenshaw defended his remarks, saying his disagreement with the U.S. senator was political and not personal. Duckworth, in a Sunday interview with CNN, had said Americans needed to “have a national dialogue” about whether statues of George Washington should come down, kicking off days of criticism from Republicans.

AD

ADVERTISING

“Calling for a ‘national dialogue’ to tear down statues of our Founders is certainly worthy of criticism, and can be reasonably described as the ideological destruction of our country,” Crenshaw said in the statement.

 

[wildcat09 29267]

These people are figuratively putting a gun to the heads of every American and ordering them to get back to normal during a pandemic, solely to buoy the stock market and their own reelection chances. Knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American citizens. By the time we're through this, the 2016-2020 Republican Party will be responsible for more American deaths than any enemy our nation has ever faced in war. And they have the fucking gall to accuse anyone else of wanting the destruction of America because we want to prioritize American lives over the fucking pockets of their biggest donors. Fuck Dan Crenshaw for eternity.

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Just donated to Sima again, as a resident of the district it is my job to make sure that Crenshaw serves the same number of terms in Congress as eyes he has in his head. 

[SizzleChest 8275]

9 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Just donated to Sima again, as a resident of the district it is my job to make sure that Crenshaw serves the same number of terms in Congress as eyes he has in his head. 

As a resident of that district, you should also consider launching a device thrusting campaign into the brown eye in his pants. Sans lube, of course.  Just to make double sure he won't be able to continue talking out of his ass.

[elfenix 34184]

Quote

“I think a general message that the left stands for the destruction of America, and the right doesn’t, probably works pretty well with veterans, even liberal ones,” Crenshaw said in a Wednesday night “MAGA meetup” organized by the Trump campaign. “Because even liberal veterans probably don’t agree with that, unless you’re Tammy Duckworth.”

i'm sure we'll have another emaw video about cancel culture castigating dan crenshaw shortly. 

[tx 3 putt 76422]

Thankfully I live one district over and I’m not neighbors with hank 

Viva Shelia !

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Elizabeth Warren just endorsed Sima

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Pic from Team Sima

.5, 2, .5

[Hugo Stiglitz 23363]

 

[Brisketexan 104670]

Death.

Cult.

[Wulaw Horn 18984]

On 7/6/2020 at 4:25 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

So hold the fucking phone- now he’s in trouble for saying on March 7 not for the regular people to mask up?  That was what the wizards of smart were saying at the beginning of this thing. Regular people wearing makes were treated like idiots or pariah’s for taking them from first responders who needed them most. This is chicken shit to the highest degree using that as some sort of bullshit gotcha. As he said in the reply... The surgeon general says.... isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing- listening to the experts?  He was doing that, at the time, using best available evidence. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23363]

23 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

So hold the fucking phone- now he’s in trouble for saying on March 7 not for the regular people to mask up?  That was what the wizards of smart were saying at the beginning of this thing. Regular people wearing makes were treated like idiots or pariah’s for taking them from first responders who needed them most. This is chicken shit to the highest degree using that as some sort of bullshit gotcha. As he said in the reply... The surgeon general says.... isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing- listening to the experts?  He was doing that, at the time, using best available evidence. 

 

 

[GreenspointTexas 9568]

Owned

[Wulaw Horn 18984]

6 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

Owned

That’s different than the tweet I responded to. That tweet was on keeping with the standards of that day. 

[Hank Scorpio 17723]

Just completely fucking owned. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

With respect to March 2020, I believe Wulaw is correct. The following is from a 60 minutes interview. However, Dan Crenshaw is still full of crap in my not so humble opinion.
 

Quote

 

In the March 2020 clip, Fauci said: “Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks … You should think of healthcare providers who are needing them and the people who are ill.” 

Since at least April 2020, the CDC recommended that everyone wear cloth masks in public to help slow the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation changed because of studies that found even people without coronavirus symptoms, but who may still have the disease, could transmit the virus through close interactions with others, especially through speaking, coughing, and sneezing: 

In light of this new evidence, CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies) … 

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33845]

On 7/10/2020 at 2:01 PM, Hank Scorpio said:

Just donated to Sima again, as a resident of the district it is my job to make sure that Crenshaw serves the same number of terms in Congress as eyes he has in his head. 

[Ag with kids 581]

On 7/3/2020 at 6:06 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

This isn't complicated.
You support partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering comes at a cost of local community and local interest representation. End of story.  

Somehow I got sucked back into this thread...

But, I've pondered this question a few times since the last time I was here.

Explain to me in detail exactly the cost it has.  Explain how that cost is related to and not related to partisanship.   Also explain how local community and local interest representation is completely different than anything partisan.  Additional points if you can describe how districts can be drawn that don't have any partisan influence. Be sure to allow for laws that require a certain number of majority minority districts, which, not surprisingly, are completely partisan and will be hard to reconcile with the overall plan.

Then, describe how these districts can be drawn IN REALITY, NOT IN THEORY taking into account the limited amount of representatives seats in state legislatures and the HoR as well as population.

[Born to Run 6568]

Somehow I got sucked back into this thread...
But, I've pondered this question a few times since the last time I was here.
Explain to me in detail exactly the cost it has.  Explain how that cost is related to and not related to partisanship.   Also explain how local community and local interest representation is completely different than anything partisan.  Additional points if you can describe how districts can be drawn that don't have any partisan influence. Be sure to allow for laws that require a certain number of majority minority districts, which, not surprisingly, are completely partisan and will be hard to reconcile with the overall plan.
Then, describe how these districts can be drawn IN REALITY, NOT IN THEORY taking into account the limited amount of representatives seats in state legislatures and the HoR as well as population.

You are asking someone to write a treatise on why extreme Gerrymandering shouldn't exist? Look at a map and have some common sense to start with. Maybe read a book.

[elfenix 34184]

is it that hard to draw rural districts that don't dilute suburban areas?  is a farmer in giddings better represented by someone whose offices are in suburban austin and houston, or by a district drawn to represent the rural area?  are ranchers south of I10 better served by having a districts not drawn to break up the valley?  is it really that hard to figure out?

if we're as concerned about rural areas losing their voice then maybe we shouldn't be using them to dilute urban areas.  just a thought.

[Ag with kids 581]

5 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

1 hour ago, Ag with kids said:

Somehow I got sucked back into this thread...
But, I've pondered this question a few times since the last time I was here.
Explain to me in detail exactly the cost it has.  Explain how that cost is related to and not related to partisanship.   Also explain how local community and local interest representation is completely different than anything partisan.  Additional points if you can describe how districts can be drawn that don't have any partisan influence. Be sure to allow for laws that require a certain number of majority minority districts, which, not surprisingly, are completely partisan and will be hard to reconcile with the overall plan.
Then, describe how these districts can be drawn IN REALITY, NOT IN THEORY taking into account the limited amount of representatives seats in state legislatures and the HoR as well as population.

Read more  

You are asking someone to write a treatise on why extreme Gerrymandering shouldn't exist? Look at a map and have some common sense to start with. Maybe read a book.

No.  I'm asking @Bozo_Casanova to explain this.  He's called me out twice here.

And we both used to have actual civil discourse on the subject...which is why I didn't make my post an attack or an ad hominem.  I have a lot of respect for him.

Maybe I'm trying (and I know I'll fail) to raise the level of discourse here...

[Ag with kids 581]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

is it that hard to draw rural districts that don't dilute suburban areas?  is a farmer in giddings better represented by someone whose offices are in suburban austin and houston, or by a district drawn to represent the rural area?  are ranchers south of I10 better served by having a districts not drawn to break up the valley?  is it really that hard to figure out?

if we're as concerned about rural areas losing their voice then maybe we shouldn't be using them to dilute urban areas.  just a thought.

I don't disagree with you, at least on some levels.

But, should Oak Cliff and South Oak Cliff in Dallas be combined, merely because geography is better?

Is Austin monolithic?  Dallas?  Houston?  San Antonio?

That's why I want to a better explanation of communities of interest...