Texas Republican Party declares President Biden was "not legitimately elected"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,902
12,401
136
I wouldn't call this a bad move, even if so much else in the GOP platform is.

Dealerships are, frankly, pretty lousy. They artificially drive up the costs of cars and are often a pain for shoppers. No, I don't want to buy options I don't need just to get the ones I do. No, I don't need the extra rustproof coating. No, I don't want to pay $20,000 above MSRP just because you think you can squeeze some extra profit from that hot new sports car. And who the hell though it was a good idea to make haggling part of buying essential transportation?

Laws around car purchasing should protect consumers, not entrenched business models. I do think we need safeguards when we allow direct sales (service levels, try-before-you-buy options and the like), but it's 2022... you shouldn't be forced into negotiations at a retail shop when you can go online to buy the exact car you want, at the listed price, and have it delivered.
The laws don’t protect car buyers?

Let’s let that sink in for a second.

Capitalism only works well when you have a government that protects the consumers/workers. The less protection, the less capitalism works well.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,211
8,406
146
The laws don’t protect car buyers?

Let’s let that sink in for a second.

Capitalism only works well when you have a government that protects the consumers/workers. The less protection, the less capitalism works well.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
99% of advertisements work by exploiting human emotions and thought processes to extract money from people for things they don't need, and that's assuming the ad isn't an overt lie. We barely have protections from completely fraudulent advertisements, much less exploitation.

Capitalism works just fine as long as consumers are exploited evenly, and as long as protections are equally thin for all companies in a given industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,902
12,401
136
99% of advertisements work by exploiting human emotions and thought processes to extract money from people for things they don't need, and that's assuming the ad isn't an overt lie. We barely have protections from completely fraudulent advertisements, much less exploitation.

Capitalism works just fine as long as consumers are exploited evenly, and as long as protections are equally thin for all companies in a given industry.
So in other words, capitalism only works well when the government protects the consumer and worker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,211
8,406
146
So in other words, capitalism only works well when the government protects the consumer and worker.
Are you saying capitalism isn't working well in America? Cuz the people trying to make all the money are doing a great job of it.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,949
6,309
136
The laws don’t protect car buyers?

Let’s let that sink in for a second.

Capitalism only works well when you have a government that protects the consumers/workers. The less protection, the less capitalism works well.

I dare anyone to prove me wrong.
Laws that force you to buy through a frequently deceptive and extortionate business model aren't really protecting consumers, are they?

That's the thing — I'm not pushing for less protection against ripoffs, monopolies and other abuses. I'm just arguing that laws requiring the dealership model are themselves typically anti-consumer, since they generally do nothing to prevent arbitrary markups and other shady practices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FirNaTine

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,902
12,401
136
Are you saying capitalism isn't working well in America? Cuz the people trying to make all the money are doing a great job of it.
Lol yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Those with money and power have done a wonderful job of not only getting your average American to be against protecting consumers and workers but they’ve managed to get a large chunk of Americans to support those who are trying to tear down the institutions that protect us.

It’s like being a slave and being pro slavery. Oppression and the weakening of consumer/workers protections is the hot new trend and everyone wants some.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,902
12,401
136
Laws that force you to buy through a frequently deceptive and extortionate business model aren't really protecting consumers, are they?

That's the thing — I'm not pushing for less protection against ripoffs, monopolies and other abuses. I'm just arguing that laws requiring the dealership model are themselves typically anti-consumer, since they generally do nothing to prevent arbitrary markups and other deceptive practices.
That’s my whole point! Those laws aren’t protecting consumers! They are doing the opposite! When you have a government that puts more value on profits over the people not only do you have a dysfunctional government and a failing democracy, you get out of control capitalism.

In the days of the industrial Revolution we saw what unchecked capitalism did; slave like wages including being paid with company money that can only be used at the company store, horrid working conditions, child labor, wage theft, etc.

What changed that was the hand of government (yes some change may have initially come from uprisings but sweeping change came from the government). Government created minimum standards to protect the workers and the consumers and they reigned in the largest of corporations and forced them to split.

Now what does government do? From my vantage point it looks like it’s helping/enabling the businesses, not the people.

This imbalance does not lead to a good place.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
31,106
19,333
136
I do not want to be the devil's advocate, but I think you are mixing up the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the 1965 one. The 1965 one dealt with voting.... tower in the same document that is presented, they aparrently support the 1964 one which illegalises segregation.

They specifically mention they don't like the 1965 one bcause of the possible reimplementation of pre-required federal approval of the new redistricting map, and they claim they have enough election laws for equality at the ballot box.
It says the following. I think I have it right...
204. Religious Freedom for Business: We support the removal of laws and regulations that are used to 1121 force business owners and employees to violate their conscience, sincerely held beliefs, or core values. 1122 Property defining public accommodation as understood in the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
20,464
7,368
136
Baby, I'm boycotting Texas. Haven't stepped foot in Texas since I visited the Grassy Knowle ~2 months after JFK's assassination (on my way to east coast, drove through Texas, overnighted in El Paso).

I have stopped playing Texas' music on my radio show. My contempt for Cruz, Abbot and the vice-govna Dan Patrick, is very intense.

Texans are insane, which isn't saying much, so I'll say they are much more insane than most Americans, which IS saying something.
Maybe I should buy salsa that's made in New York city!
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,740
2,168
136
Can we give Texas back to Mexico? Yes I grew up in Houston.
Same here. Grew up in houston (which is mildly blue). Fully agree. Give 1 year for everyone who wants to get out with government assistance to do so. Then cut texas out of the union. Then they can be on their own as a territory as they so desire (they've basically been flouting the constitution on its face for sometime). I mean this resolution is about as close to treason as it comes.

I mean I'd love to see how the GOP would vote on it in congress if someone proposed such a resolution. They could support their team but would also kill any chance they have of controlling congress or winning a presidency again.
 
Last edited:

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
11,576
5,267
136
Lol yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Those with money and power have done a wonderful job of not only getting your average American to be against protecting consumers and workers but they’ve managed to get a large chunk of Americans to support those who are trying to tear down the institutions that protect us.

It’s like being a slave and being pro slavery. Oppression and the weakening of consumer/workers protections is the hot new trend and everyone wants some.
Well, it started in the seventies and was really embedded into government policy by Reagan. The lobbyist revolution came into full swing under Newt Gingrich. Momentum kept building for the wealthy and large corporations. Prosperity movements, driven forward by such luminaries as Charles Koch, began selling the proposition that only 'unrestrained capitalism' could save the middle class, and middle class values. During the great recession, the wealthy doubled down buying up assets and securities that were now 'cheap'. This solidified the positions of those at the top of society and left the middle class as pawns in a game of greed and corruption that simply looks inescapable at the present moment. Some democrats in government are fighting back with small stone carving hammers (ala the Shawshank Redemption). Those at the top have seen to it that the American people are so polarized that we have little power to create change from the bottom up.

So, unrestricted capitalism works super well for those with the most capital; and poorly for those without. We need a Teddy Roosevelt figure to upend this shit and another FDR to return favor to the bulk of the American people; worked before, could work again - maybe. The lies run terribly deep.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,902
12,401
136
Well, it started in the seventies and was really embedded into government policy by Reagan. The lobbyist revolution came into full swing under Newt Gingrich. Momentum kept building for the wealthy and large corporations. Prosperity movements, driven forward by such luminaries as Charles Koch, began selling the proposition that only 'unrestrained capitalism' could save the middle class, and middle class values. During the great recession, the wealthy doubled down buying up assets and securities that were now 'cheap'. This solidified the positions of those at the top of society and left the middle class as pawns in a game of greed and corruption that simply looks inescapable at the present moment. Some democrats in government are fighting back with small stone carving hammers (ala the Shawshank Redemption). Those at the top have seen to it that the American people are so polarized that we have little power to create change from the bottom up.

So, unrestricted capitalism works super well for those with the most capital; and poorly for those without. We need a Teddy Roosevelt figure to upend this shit and another FDR to return favor to the bulk of the American people; worked before, could work again - maybe. The lies run terribly deep.
More importantly, we need an electorate that’s willing to vote for an FDR and the congress needed to get shit done.

I don’t think finding a FDR type would be too hard, getting the American people to buy into AND giving them the tools (ie congress) to get the job done? That I’m not so sure about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,804
3,989
136
It says the following. I think I have it right...
You are exactly correct. And it’s the public accommodation section that drove conservatives in the South to abandon the Democrat party and become Rethuglicans in little more than one presidential voting cycle.

The cons have been aching to rid themselves of that section so they’ll no longer have to have them in the same store. The indignity of it all…..

Their heartburn began with Truman and were completely consumed with Johnson’s actions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
61,986
6,907
126
I pushed back on our vacation to Harry Potter theme park because Florida. Wife said “no” you’re not punishing the grandson because of DethSantis.

She wanted Tybee Island, GA for the return stop. I VETOED that shit and stuck to my guns.
I've got similar conflict in my house. Wife wants to take kids to Disney World & Universal. I don't want to set foot in that shithole state. Texas is on the list as well. I wouldn't willingly travel to South Dakota either (Noem is a hateful POS pulling similar crap) but had to compromise on that. Wife hasn't seen parents in years and they live there. Her Dad is sounding pretty rough. Where I spend my money seems to be one of the last rights available to me any more.
 
  • Love
Reactions: hal2kilo and iRONic

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,318
5,235
136
They're welcome to leave the union whenever they like.

The irony of it all is that they can't do that because the welfare states that they control rely too heavily on the rest of the nation to subsidize their many poverty stricken folks of whom in turn rail against the feds for interfering with their "freedom of choice" while gladly accepting the handouts they get from the gov't.

As absurd as that is, those conservatives in need can't and/or refuse to make the leap of logic that they are being forced into poverty by their aristocrat landlords so as to keep them under foot and receptive to their minds being made up for them via being preached to from their political leaders as well as their religious leaders who have the same aforementioned interests of keeping their flocks docile, obedient, ignorant and gullible.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
41,081
21,138
136
I've got similar conflict in my house. Wife wants to take kids to Disney World & Universal. I don't want to set foot in that shithole state. Texas is on the list as well. I wouldn't willingly travel to South Dakota either (Noem is a hateful POS pulling similar crap) but had to compromise on that. Wife hasn't seen parents in years and they live there. Her Dad is sounding pretty rough. Where I spend my money seems to be one of the last rights available to me any more.
Go to the California parks. They are closer as well.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,318
5,235
136
Too bad there aren't enough liberals of the Christian faith to tell the so called Christian Evangelicals that real Christianity is socialism pure and simple. But you could get laughed at by other liberals if you professed faith in one of the world's greatest religions.

Wouldn't want to risk being called naive gullible or stupid by people who reject Christianity because they themselves can't forgive.
It seems to me it's the evangelical right that cries out their victimhood the loudest yet does not represent the majority of those who belong to the Christian faith of whom do not wear their religiosity on their sleeves and do not complain about their "religious freedoms" being violated as does the activist evangelicals.

I found this Pew Research article interesting:

 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
4,467
482
126
You just can't make this stuff up. If you are so far to the right of Crenshaw that he it is to your left. You might be a NAZI.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/19/crewnshaw-traitor-eye-patch-mccain-hang-texas-republicans/50392127/

“Dan Crenshaw is a traitor!” shouted a man in a pro-Donald Trump hat. “He needs to be hung for treason!”

Crenshaw was quiet at the convention center but responded on Twitter.

“This is what happens when angry little boys like @alexstein99 don’t grow up and can’t get girlfriends,” he tweeted.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson came up with the “eyepatch McCain” joke while criticizing Crenshaw for supporting a bill to send money and weapons to Ukraine. Crenshaw lost his right eye to an improvised explosive device while serving as a Navy SEAL in Afghanistan.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,458
5,028
126
It seems to me it's the evangelical right that cries out their victimhood the loudest yet does not represent the majority of those who belong to the Christian faith of whom do not wear their religiosity on their sleeves and do not complain about their "religious freedoms" being violated as does the activist evangelicals.

I found this Pew Research article interesting:

That is interesting. Maybe it's time that the religiously modest start to take more interest in what the fanatics are doing to religion generally. The whole point of Christianity, in my opinion, is to create the inner joy of life that comes with little ego, but all that evil requires to win is for good people to do nothing, they say. Where is someone like Joseph Nye Welch to ask the religious right if it has no decency.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY