Calolfornia

[Make Angels Great Again]

Just now, Adam said:

Gavin has to win right? 

 

It's as certain as Pujols at cleanup.

[gotbeer]

2 minutes ago, Adam said:

Gavin has to win right? 

He may win.  But he could lose in November.  

That's the other interesting thing about this.  Gavin's strategy is to get a Republican to run against.  Instead of another democrat.  But say between now and then, someone brings out more dirt, or a percentage goes Bernie and doesn't vote Democrat.  Then you could lose it when it counts.  

[Adam]

I don't know anything about that Cox guy but I've seen people saying he's anti-gay marriage. The repcons should really give that shit up and focus on taxation. Plenty of lefties who like business and feel like taxes are out of hand in this State.

[Make Angels Great Again]

7 minutes ago, Adam said:

I don't know anything about that Cox guy but I've seen people saying he's anti-gay marriage. The repcons should really give that shit up and focus on taxation. Plenty of lefties who like business and feel like taxes are out of hand in this State.

 

There are no good choices in California for Republicans, that much is for sure. John Cox made some wacky statements back in 2007 about gay people. This stuff was more acceptable 11 years ago, but now it seems pretty radical.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/john-cox-california-governor-lgbt-gay-rights/

When asked at the Values Voter Presidential Debate in September 2007 what he would do to “counteract the homosexual agenda,” Cox said Republicans should “stand up for the proper behavior” and “talk about the fact that we can’t open the floodgates to polygamy and bestiality and all kinds of other things.” He noted, “we also have this problem with transvestites who want to be school teachers,” arguing that the Republican Party should support school choice and home-schooling so “we won’t have to deal with that.”

According to a transcript of the debate, Cox also answered several yes-or-no questions about LGBT rights, replying that he would “veto any so-called hate crimes legislation” and “support legislation ensuring that schools forfeit federal funding if they expose our children to homosexual propaganda.” He also said he would veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — a bill prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — as well as “any other legislation that would add the phrase ‘sexual orientation’ into federal law.”

[Adam]

2 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

There are no good choices in California for Republicans, that much is for sure. John Cox made some wacky statements back in 2007 about gay people. This stuff was more acceptable 11 years ago, but now it seems pretty radical.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/12/john-cox-california-governor-lgbt-gay-rights/

When asked at the Values Voter Presidential Debate in September 2007 what he would do to “counteract the homosexual agenda,” Cox said Republicans should “stand up for the proper behavior” and “talk about the fact that we can’t open the floodgates to polygamy and bestiality and all kinds of other things.” He noted, “we also have this problem with transvestites who want to be school teachers,” arguing that the Republican Party should support school choice and home-schooling so “we won’t have to deal with that.”

According to a transcript of the debate, Cox also answered several yes-or-no questions about LGBT rights, replying that he would “veto any so-called hate crimes legislation” and “support legislation ensuring that schools forfeit federal funding if they expose our children to homosexual propaganda.” He also said he would veto the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — a bill prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — as well as “any other legislation that would add the phrase ‘sexual orientation’ into federal law.”

Yeah. Unelectable 

[mtangelsfan]

As usual, the Republicans put out great candidates in California.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, red321 said:

It was your assertion that solely running on the platform that you would hold trump accountable is a bad thing, I tend to agree with that point but at the same time I think it's a perfectly reasonable platform when the current congress has abdicated any responsibility for doing so.

I would also point you to the discussion earlier in the thread that highlighted the "free healthcare for illegals" was an incorrect assertion. Subsidized...yes, in some cases free depending on income, yes...the same rules and parameters set out for anyone who is part of the Medi-cal program. Again, not sure I agree with that, but if you want to discuss it stop trying to obamaphone it.

So free. 

This is the problem with your argument is that it misses the point entirely. It's not whether there are restrictions in part. That there are too many avenues to public spending going to subsidize illigal immigrant healthcare. It really doesn't matter where you want to move the numbers to, it is still dollars spent.

[red321]

Republicans in California on a statewide level will continue to be irrelevant until they move away from the social conservatives and repair the damage initiatives like prop 187 did to their party.

[Make Angels Great Again]

In the case of Illegal Immigrants the majority of Medi-cal recipients in that group will be free of charge I believe. Reason being is that the majority of them have income levels below the poverty line, which I believe is the threshold for free care.

[Make Angels Great Again]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

Republicans in California on a statewide level will continue to be irrelevant until they move away from the social conservatives and repair the damage initiatives like prop 187 did to their party.

 

Dude, you're hilarious. California Democrats could make being a Republican illegal and you'd barely blink an eye.

[red321]

Just now, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

Dude, you're hilarious. California Democrats could make being a Republican illegal and you'd barely blink an eye.

So, you are saying Republicans in California are relevant right now on a statewide level?

 

While your reading comprehension failure is amusing...Democrats don't need to make being a Republican illegal...Republicans have done it well enough on their own (see below)

8 minutes ago, red321 said:

Republicans in California on a statewide level will continue to be irrelevant until they move away from the social conservatives and repair the damage initiatives like prop 187 did to their party.

 

[Thomas]

Being a Republican in a state-wide position California other than governor has to be the cushiest job ever. They don't have to be accountable for what happens in Sacramento since their party has no influence. They say a few fringe soundbites to appease their base and go about their day.

[Make Angels Great Again]

5 minutes ago, red321 said:

 So, you are saying Republicans in California are relevant right now on a statewide level?

  

While your reading comprehension failure is amusing...Democrats don't need to make being a Republican illegal...Republicans have done it well enough on their own (see below)

  

 

I'm not saying anything, just making an observation.

[Adam]

8 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Being a Republican in a state-wide position California other than governor has to be the cushiest job ever. They don't have to be accountable for what happens in Sacramento since their party has no influence. They say a few fringe soundbites to appease their base and go about their day.

I went to a lobbying lunch a year ago with 3 State Senators (all republicans - 2 asian broads and an old white guy). It was the most disgusting thing I've ever been to in my life. And I've been to after hours establishments in Tijuana. 

[Adam]

I guess I hope you guys vote for the chinese guy

[floplag]

3 hours ago, red321 said:

They came to an agreement on multiple issues...only to have the administration back out. In one instance they offered Trump full funding of his wall...and he backed out.

 

And seriously...your complaint was they wouldn't meet with him...they did...but now your complaint is they did meet with him...but not really...because they didn't mean it (even though on multiple occasions they actually had agreements or in other instances agreements to move forward).

Where are you going to move the line next? 

 

And this isn't me saying the Democrats have been perfect, far from it...your argument is just silly though.

it doesnt matter where the line it, youll justify it.  
bottom line virtually nothing is getting done, but im sure somehow thats all on trump 

[Make Angels Great Again]

14 minutes ago, Adam said:

I guess I hope you guys vote for the chinese guy

 

I had already mailed in my Ballot with Cox as the guy. I had zero idea about these statements, I did a small amount of research into his policies and saw he wants lower taxes, less regulation, wants to ditch the sanctuary state law and secure the border. All sounded good to me, I don't have the time or energy to look into the dark history of every candidate for the purposes of my vote.

Shit happens I guess.

[Lhalo]

"Shit happens" should be imprinted on the California state seal.

[gotbeer]

41 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

 

I had already mailed in my Ballot with Cox as the guy. I had zero idea about these statements, I did a small amount of research into his policies and saw he wants lower taxes, less regulation, wants to ditch the sanctuary state law and secure the border. All sounded good to me, I don't have the time or energy to look into the dark history of every candidate for the purposes of my vote.

Shit happens I guess.

I care more about money than the LGBT, homeless, illegals, and education.  So lower taxes and less regulation will trump all.  And if those supporting the LGBT, homeless, illegals and education don't like it.  They can all write me a sizable donation, and I'll vote however they want.  But until then, I'll vote the way that will keep as much money in my pockets as possible.

[Taylor]

44 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

I care more about money than the LGBT, homeless, illegals, and education.  So lower taxes and less regulation will trump all.  And if those supporting the LGBT, homeless, illegals and education don't like it.  They can all write me a sizable donation, and I'll vote however they want.  But until then, I'll vote the way that will keep as much money in my pockets as possible.

The American dream right here, folks.

[Adam]

45 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

I care more about money than the LGBT, homeless, illegals, and education.  So lower taxes and less regulation will trump all.  And if those supporting the LGBT, homeless, illegals and education don't like it.  They can all write me a sizable donation, and I'll vote however they want.  But until then, I'll vote the way that will keep as much money in my pockets as possible.

Completely agree but I still don't see any value in voting. 

[Jason]

3 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

As usual, the Republicans put out great candidates in California.

I'm not sure we have Republicans in the state

[Jason]

2 hours ago, red321 said:

Republicans in California on a statewide level will continue to be irrelevant until they move away from the social conservatives and repair the damage initiatives like prop 187 did to their party.

California is run by Los Angeles and San Francisco. They are, overwhelmingly, Democrat. The rest of the state's views are not relevant. 

[Jason]

1 hour ago, LHalo said:

"Shit happens" "mierda sucede" should be imprinted on the California state seal.

 

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

The American dream right here, folks.

You would prefer the government take more of our money I guess.

the socialist dream?