If you haven't figured out that Greg Abbott(Gov), Dan Patrick(Lt. Gov), and Ken Paxton(State AG) are sociopathic scumbags by now you've not been looking at anything they've done over the past 12 months.
Greg Abbott is complicit in this, as are Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton. Their crusade against marginalized communities has been persistent and ongoing. You being ignorant of this doesn't change the facts.
Now I get that you are likely to be less informed about the leadership of Texas since you're not a resident of this state, but Abbott has been pushing some of this bullshit on national television as well, as have Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton.
To quote the republicans themselves"
"The cruelty is the point"
A generous assumption. It's not the only option however, when it comes to, as he said "specifics" of said line. It could be that someone disagrees with removing a suicide hotline for minorities, but would like to tweak, what was it, "specifics" of the assistance provided. Perhaps less towards preventative sort?
I don't really see productive discourse trying to argue with someone that believes x candidate and y party are sociopathic scumbags or supporters of sociopathic scumbags.
This goes for if you love Abbot and hate Dems (or Huffines etc) or love Beto and hate GOP (hell, I don't even know who the most loved Democratic politician in the state is...) ... or love Matthew Dowd, who popped out into national news running for Texas lieutenant governor.
I'm not a resident of Texas and I don't have to make the informed choice of whether to vote for him or not. It's entirely possible that if I were less ignorant of local Texas politics, I'd have a very different opinion. If I spent today and tomorrow reading up on Abbott's governorship through the years, and thought him a total scumbag afterwards, it wouldn't be the first nor the last Republican on whom I've come to that conclusion.
Dan Patrick and Ken Paxton are probably as well known to me as Rob Bonta and Eleni Kounalakis are to you. I don't really watch national cable news networks, I mostly read newspapers and articles on the national wires and online publications.
I can't post about all the inferences my critical thinking skills bring up, since this is a banned topic. I think you understand that big point, so I don't fully grasp why you're doing this "notary, verified in federal judge, inferences" song and dance."
I don't fully hate the mod rules in this forum on this topic due to the faction that says 1) there's nothing to discuss and 2) it's not up for opinion. What's there to discuss with someone that thinks there's nothing to discuss? Why share opinions with someone that thinks it's not up for opinion? To state the obvious, you're comfortable sharing your opinion that there's nothing to discuss and there's no real room for opinions. That's plenty for me to understand your viewpoint.
This might be a getting a tad bit off topic for a point I made abundantly clear, despite all the disagreement. But, you know when you see 8 notifications, you just have to try to give some responses to those who spent the time to quote and reply to my posts.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It’s crazy to me that this was done for political points. Like what kind of backwards country would this move give you more support?
Because it seems that otherwise, as long as it's only loudly implicitly stated that folks will take them at their word and avoid making the obvious connections given all the broader context about the GOP shitting on marginalized groups for political points with their base.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, this is precisely their stance.
So sorry to see that the mod thread warning is stifling the hatemongers ability to hatemonger.
/s