colourwheel

A political group is hardly attempting to move beyond race and gender politics when they push for anti-immigration legislation, denigrating women and womens rights as well as attacking the living poor in the country and pushing to shrink the electorate to make it harder for minority voters. Does this seem antithetical to social and political progress? In my opinion it's the Republican party that is mostly to blame regardless of the party trying to re-brand their party like repackaging left over food and putting it in a nice shiny box claiming it's something new. If anything I am trying to help the Republican party wake up to reality hoping that someone who actually matters politically will make people in power actually realize what their party is currently doing is only hurting themselves.

@Troaches You can think or believe what ever you want about race and gender in politics, the reality is that is part of politics and always has been. I am not saying I agree or like how targeting demographic groups are used to gain votes but the way things current work in our democracy I don't see anything ever changing anytime soon. I am sure you have heard the phase before "That's politics". Edit: Also It's ridiculous to believe anyone who speaks on news networks in politics loses credibility because anytime anyone publically speaks on TV or otherwise to any public audience pretty much get paid to do so.

I see no evidence of this being true. Move evidence that it is true than less. Unless you can think of any serious outreach The republican party has been doing to improve their base other than focusing on white voters. This cannot possibly be true. Why would "almost all political strategists" in the Republican party push a strategy that they feel is "on the wrong side of history"? More likely, when you say "political strategists" what you really mean is "political pundits" aka actors on cable news who pretend to be experts on the subject and have the gall to assume to speak on behalf of others. Just an example, Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt are both top Republican strategists. Both of them are very republican and happen to be pundits too. But being a pundit does not dissolve credibility. These guys kind of been doing this stuff their whole lives and even if I think sometimes some of them do idiotic things they actually do happen to know what they are talking about most the time.

Not according to the exit polls done after last election and definitely not enough for Republicans to only focus on getting "more" white voters to turn out for elections. Currently Republicans across the nation are relying on a strategy to get more white voters thinking the partys problem is not being extreme enough leaning to the right. The political strategy the party is using is only alienating demographic groups they desperately need to win national elections. Almost all political strategist on both side feel the Republican party is on the wrong side of history pushing the party to rely on pretty much only their base voters.

"Change overnight" is more of a figure of speech and Wendy Davis will be a beacon of hope for starters for the state to change for the better. If you look at the changing demographics in just the state of Texas alone, over 50% of the state will eventually be Latino within the next few election cycles. The state of Texas already has a marginal majority of females and the white population keeps shrinking every year. Currently Republicans still have this delusion that they can win in National and Local elections just focusing on White voters. When a political party gives up completely on any portion of demographics from women to minorities the party is doomed to fail. The modern Republican party has just become to much of a fringe party for any means of moderation to appeal to anything other than a majority of white voters in my opinion. Unless The republicans can broaden the base of their party where it is more appealing to other demographics of voters the party will remain a minority party for decades to come.

Just because I think how someone went about something as being cowardly doesn't mean I think what they did was or wasn't wrong. You seem to be assuming just because I think someone a coward means they are bad.

Just to make you happy Troaches yes in my opinion they were cowards too. :P

Last summer, a federal court ruled that Texas Republican lawmakers discriminated against minority voters while redrawing voting districts in 2011. U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith wrote that the 2011 redistricting map contained numerous irregularities and that Texas lawmakers drew the new boundaries “with discriminatory purpose.” and this is just one example.

@Troaches: Did Mark Felt or Daniel Ellsberg Flee the country seeking asylum after what they did? Did either of them leak other NSA secrets to use as leverage to not be touched? Mark Felt and Daniel Ellsberg are stories in themselves. You can't equate what Snowden has done compared to either of your examples in my opinion.

Have you ever wondered exactly the ratio of these voters over the states population according to the census? You will find the people in the state of Texas are being under represented due to legislation to block minority voters shrinking the states electorate each year making hundreds of thousands of voters to wait in line almost a full day just to vote. Leading to a majority of people who don't have the time to actually wait all day to not vote.

If Snowden was trying to be a real hero or patriot he would face "any" consequences and not flee. If Snowden "blew the whistle" and stayed in the U.S.A. to be tried in court for what he did this whole debate would be a completely different story. Even if you think Snowden did the right thing to inform the public what our government is really up to does not dissolve the fact of his actions after bringing the info to light. His actions after him "blowing the whistle" are more cowardly than heroic and hardly amount to being a person who is a patriot seeking asylum in countries where their governments could care less about civil liberties.

I think your missing the bigger picture. If Wendy takes over the governorship the states long history of redistricting will eventually come to an end in favor of republicans. The whole reason why the state of Texas has remained so Red since 1976 and the states legislature controlled by the republican party is because of gerrymandering. Once republicans in the state lose control of gerrymandering so many representatives it's inevitable so much of the unpopular legislation pushed through the state senate will be undone. federal government compared to individual states operate differently in a way where it is easier for a whole state to gain total control by one political party because of redistricting.

A poll was done across the nation recently where about 35% of the nation considers Snowden a traitor. Just because It is not a majority of the nation doesn't exclude the fact that a lot of people believe Snowden has committed treason. I personally do not think he has committed treason but also do not think Snowden is a patriot or a hero. Snowden is a coward. A true patriot does not flee the country in fear to be held accountable for their actions. Also a true hero would not hide and seek asylum in countries that have less civil liberties than the U.S.A. undermining Snowden's original cause. If Snowden was a true hero or patriot he would have accepted what he has done and face any consequences including imprisonment or worst if he truly believes what he did was right.

Not really now there is a strong progressive movement that has arised from forcing unpopular legislation in the state of Texas. Now that Rick Perry is not running for governor next election there is a strong chance according to many republican strategists that the state may turn blue within the next few cycles. If Wendy Davis runs for governor and wins a lot legislation that was passed from anti-abortion restrictions to violence against women and equity pay for women will eventually be reversed. Texas has become the most extreme anti-women state in all of the states in the union and I really hope for this to be reversed soon.

I have to disagree here.... Freeloaders? really now you think people who have spent time in the U.S. military who have come back wounded as free loaders? How about the elder, you think we should just let our elders die from starvation? How about people who have children who are working hard but still can't handle to make enough to support their children, you think our government should just let our children starve too? a majority of people who depend on food stamps are actually people who are not free loaders, they are American tax payers who have contribute to society just as much as people who do not need to depend on food stamps. People who are put on food stamps for the most part have good reason to be. Not just because they are lazy and choose not to work. 47% of the nation isn't just free loaders. Granted in any nation there will always be free loaders but it hardly equates to even a fraction of your perception of the entire U.S.A. who depend on government assistance. You have to ask yourself this... If you have family that is trying to make ends meet who currently depend on food stamps, would you consider them free loaders? What about people you know or friends would they be free loaders too if they needed food stamps too? food stamp program isn't a permanent thing for families and was never ment to be but by defunding these resources for families in need of them only undermines our society.

@HeyYou I agree. You look at comprehensive immigration reform to the sequester cuts and all you see is how much the people in congress really care about the people of the nation which is basically nothing. As much as a majority of congress is Republican They seem to not even care about trying to help fund their own states they fully control. Rick Scott governor of Florida and other heavily Republican controlled southern state governors try to put blame on Obama for the lack of the National guard present in their states this summer to prepare for hurricane season when the blame should be put on congress because of sequester cuts. Any bipartisan effort passed through the senate basically gets killed in the house of representatives like immigration reform. With current record of bills passed in congress it is very doubtful the Republicans in congress will pass a bill that does address funding for the food stamps program.

House Republicans successfully passed a Farm Bill Thursday but ripped apart funding for food stamps from federal agricultural policy. This is a new low for the Republicans in congress. The Bill they passed says nothing about funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. Historically a farm bill funds about 80% of the food stamps in America while giving direct subsidy payments to farmers. The bill has always been a bipartisan bill till now, a socialism bill that republicans always love. This bill passed with no democratic support and has started an outrage on capital hill. I don't know about you but I have relatives who are very conservative and have been republicans all their lives who depend on food stamps to help provide for their children because they don't make enough income from even working 2 jobs who actually got duped into voting for some of these heartless politicians in congress right now. Can anyone even think of a rational reason why the Republicans in congress are doing this? Did the Republican party just all of a sudden decide they want to be the party who does not care about 47% of Americans?

One thing I find interesting is people all over the place consider Edward Snowden a traitor as if he has committed treason. Which to my understanding the U.S.A. isn't officially at war with any nation. "Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason." Just one thing I found interesting when reading random articles on the web on Snowden.

For the record I never personally blamed Eisenhower for anything.

It's hopeless to argue with you Troaches. Even if you don't think a majority of groups were tea party groups. 3,357 political groups in 2012 is a lot to go through despite if you think it was handled unfairly or not. I personally just feel everyone should stop wasting time looking for someone to blame and fix the tax code if the IRS has been unfairly targeting groups and people for decades and decades all the way back to your claim of Jefferson Davis.

geez you can be so thick sometimes... http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/13/odonnell-the-real-irs-scandal-happened-in-1959/ “....there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status and many fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups, then it only makes mathematical sense that more questions would be directed at Tea Party applications.” - lawrence o'donnell Here’s how the activity breaks down for 501©(4) applications, the sort of tax-exempt group where political activity is allowed: 2009: 1,751 2010: 1,735 2011: 2,265 2012: 3,357 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/irs-bias-conservative-tax-status "During the 2012 election, many Tea Party groups applied for tax-exempt status under section 501 © (4) of the federal tax code, which grants tax-exempt status to social welfare groups. Unlike other charitable groups, these organisations are allowed to participate in political activities but their primary activity must be social welfare." "The number of groups filing for this tax-exempt status more than doubled from 2010 to 2012, to more than 3,400. To handle the influx, the IRS centralised its review of these applications in an office in Cincinnati." Unless you think lawrence O'Donnell and ezra klein are lying their asses off about "many" fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups and that an influx of tea party groups didn't happen since 2009 then it's hard not to believe that a huge majority of them to be tea party groups. Better yet TRoaches, you cite info proving that there was not a huge majority of tea party applications compared to liberal group applications since this whole outrage and "scandal" has been about how so many tea party groups were targeted to begin with.

Can you cite a source to back either of these claims? Fine, I'll do the research for you... ;D http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/10/irs-bias-conservative-tax-status It more than doubled to more than 3,400 you can probably do the math and see that's is a lot of tea party groups if the number of political parties who files for exempt status in 2012 was 3,357. That pretty much leaves just a hand full of liberal groups compared to the number Tea party groups that filed. Based on the Knowledge that a majority of the substantial amount of political groups that filed were in fact tea party groups. going back to this statement... “....there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status and many fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups, then it only makes mathematical sense that more questions would be directed at Tea Party applications.” Can you cite a source to back either of these claims? This one was not a claim I was just making an educated guess that makes "mathematical sense".

Are you forgetting that a substantial amount of political groups filed for applications for tax exempt status? 1,751 to be exact in 2009. A huge majority of them were Tea party groups that kept on growing over the past few years. Maybe the reason why tea party groups were flagged 1st was because of the overwhelming amount of them were trying to dodge from paying taxes even in 2009... Maybe it would be best to let other comment on this topic to decide for themselves. It is obvious you want the Obama administration to be blamed.

This claim has been proven false. The targeting was not a response to a rise in applications. The increase in application workload occurred from 2011-2012, well after the targeting began. source You completely disregard "if" in 2010... Who really care about the exact year when the flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status started. If I worked for the IRS then noticed there was a bunch of applications for exempt status from Tea Party groups then a flux of them started after that, I would probably start making a lists, looking for key words, and adding "special instructions" too. The people at the IRS are just doing their jobs and I highly doubt they really care who scrutinizes them because they know no one likes paying taxes. Even if the Inspector General’s audit shows that the selective treatment of groups based on their ties to the tea party movement began before any rise in the IRS workload still doesn't mean that liberal groups were not selectively flagged too. Also to my understanding rizon72 was just wanting answers in general. I was never attempting to specifically answer a question on "who made the lists". I guess I can make an educated guess that would probably make you happy though.... Just blame the Muslim dictator born in Kenya!!! /sarcasm ;D

OMG! The point I was trying to make was relatively rhetorical when pointing blame. The articles purpose was to help rizon72 understand and illustrate why "Tea party groups" were probably targeted in an unbalanced way over liberal groups with what Troaches would consider "special instructions". After all rizon72 was just wanting some answers. “if in 2010, there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status and many fewer applications for tax exempt status from liberal political groups, then it only makes mathematical sense that more questions would be directed at Tea Party applications.” If you feel Jefferson Davis is to ultimately blame that is your opinion, Troaches. Good luck trying to convince people to indite Jefferson Davis.