politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's not a vacation. He's there on a planned political trip.
I hate the defend the guy because he's an idiot, but this outrage as if this is like when cruz fles the state on an actual vacation to avoid a situation he helped cause doesn't make any sense.
But then again, it's not about making sense, it's about being the most outraged over this.
Until investment transparency exists in Texas (and elsewhere) to show who's pockets grow, it was a business trip worth billions. Texas is not his only business, and they are his top concern.
So your complaint is that the stated purpose of the trip is not actually the purpose of the trip. I can't disprove your conspiracy theory, but you're effectively agreeing with me that the outrage is misplaced.
If an on-call senior systems administrator has plans, but a server goes down, do they continue on with their plans? Or go work on it?
Governor is a job title. You place yourself where your priorities are. There is no conspiracy in that.
We've gone from it being a vacation, to a conspiracy theory, to now out of order priorities.
I agree that he should stay, but the ever shifting justification for the outrage, without any admission that the previous explanations were contrived, just kind of proves my point that this isn't about being reasonable, but outraged.
I haven't been on that ride with you. It's been about priorities for me since my first comment (for this particular episode, of which there are many).
Actually I take that back, I reread your comment and I misinterpreted it. My bad.
A hurricane has a serious impact on the people and infrastructure of a state. A governor unwilling to put an emergency among the people he was elected to represent ahead of a foreign investment trip deserves every drop of the outrage that he brings upon himself.
This is an example of when outrage is real and deserved rather than manufactured. Your hand waving is out of place.
Whether he deserves "every drop of outrage" is subjective, so hard to argue with you on that.
However, you're arguing here a case of priorities, one I agree with.
But the top level poster is claiming that he's going on vacation instead. Which is not reasonable. It's basically lying. Which is my point: it's not about being reasonable (in your case pointing out misplaced priorities), it's about being as outraged as possible (spinning it into a vacation).
You seem like a reasonable person, so don't defend this garbage.
I do try to remain reasonable.
I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I'm with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.
"It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip." can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.
You didn't just call out OP's bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.
That is what compelled my reply.
In my own defense, I did not imply it, you inferred it probably because you interpreted any defense of him, despite being couched in trepidation of defending him at all, as a defense of the trip.
I can see why explicitly not saying it I left this open to interpretation, so I don't consider myself blameless, but I certainly did not imply it.