SEE IT: Texas Republican tells town hall attendee to ‘shut up’
nydailynews.com/news/politics/texas-republica...
nydailynews.comPosted Mar 15, 2017, 2:05 PM UTC
47250
nydailynews.comWas that directed at the person yelling "You represent your constituents in Texas!"? If so that is the most extremely idiotic thing he could have done.
39
They aren't used to being called out. They don't like it. They're buckling under the pressure. We have to keep it up! Keep hounding them! Our calls and emails and attending town halls and protests are working!
37
"It's an issue for the states" was always their go-to answer to duck controversy on shitty votes. It sounds good because local control makes a sort of intuitive sense, but of course there are right answers to a lot of things that should apply to all states.
People are finally starting to call them out for using that line.
6
Wouldn't surprise me if they're scared of becoming a swing state.
They lost their largest city, Houston, in 2016, when Dems won every county-level race in Harris County. Harris County has more people in it than 25 states (individually, not together). Hillary won the county by 160,000 votes, and the mayor of Houston was already an Obama-endorsed Democrat.
Austin, the state capitol, has long been liberal.
El Paso and San Antonio are Democratic.
Fort Worth and Dallas (our rival city) might still be Republican, but if so, they're barely Republican. I know Fort Worth was one of 2 or 3 cities Romney won in 2012, with the other definite Romney win being Salt Lake City in Utah.
Trump is turning Texas's relatively conservative Hispanic population away from the GOP, and California is our biggest source of new Texans. We have a higher proportion of educated whites then any other GOP state. And a federal court just ordered Texas to redraw three racially-gerrymandered House districts.
28
Me in Southtown San Antonio and my fellow constituents on the east side of Austin are shocked at these gerrymandering claims. We meet each week to discuss it. 40 min drive for both of us going 80 mph (legal speed) to meet in the middle.
9
[removed]
1
Republican snowflake.
18
Whoops, bad move.
10
Joe Barton is a nasty, little pig.
He reflects poorly on the people of Texas.
5
this is what people voted for so i don't feel sorry for them. until shit hits YOU and YOURS, maybe that's when people will wake up.
4
I doubt the people in the video voted for him
7
[deleted]
1
You sir, are rude as hell.
1
[removed]
-1
I don't know if is more common, but since men are typically more muscular than women and, in traditional families, men are more likely to play the breadwinner role, they are therefore better able to coerce and control a woman.
However, domestic violence against men is a serious issue that needs more attention. Abused men face their own unique problems, such as less sympathy and fewer resources.
3
[removed]
-1
OK, so they were both wrong. Both should be chastised for it.
Unless you arguing that because someone else did it, it's now the norm and should be tolerated.
1
It's a bot copying content from other comments to create commenting history.
2
[removed]
-1†
I'm not sure this l what this whataboutism is supposed to contribute. Democrats overwhelmingly rejected Sanders, in part because of his inability to control himself.
6
[removed]
-1†
Whataboutism is when you say, "look at this thing someone else did" instead of arguing the topic.
It was you who presented no argument until pressed. If your argument was "telling constituents to shut up isn't news." You should have led with that.
7
[removed]
-1
[removed]
-1
Why not just outlaw violence against everyone? Equal rights am I not correct? I am sick and tired of people trying to cause divide instead of uniting together for the greater good. We don't need more pointless laws, if violence against everyone is illegal then why do we need a special law to specifically include a certain label of people. Lets just protect all people with the same set of rules, that would seem equal, less complicated and I don't see how someone could argue with that but if I am wrong please educate me. Thanks
-2
In a perfect world, this would work, but it is not a perfect world. I don't know the specifics of the legislation being discussed in this video, but if we acknowledge that violence against women is statistically more common than violence against men in the same context (say, spousal abuse), then we have a specific problem that calls for a specific solution.
5
Is domestic violence against women more common? I wasn't sure, so I looked at NCADV's stats and they seem to indicate that men and women are victims of domestic violence in roughly equal terms.
1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
There's a small difference there, but we're not talking about a hugely unequal level of victimization. I seem to recall a study indicating that domestic abuse also tends to be reciprocal.
2
1/3 and 1/4 = 8.33% difference, or women are 4/3 (133.33%) as likely as men to be victims
1/4 and 1/7 = 10.71% difference, or women are 7/4 (175%) as likely as men to be victims
I'd say these look like pretty statistically significant differences worth considering and perhaps addressing, assuming the sample size was reasonable.
They look smaller when you use the 1 in X format but keep in mind that (1/N - 1/(N+1)) doesn't scale linearly as a function of N.
4
I can think of a number of reasons why that difference might exist, such as women being more likely to report DV than men. I guess my question is, does that ~10% difference in DV victimization justify creating special protections for women? Are those special protections going to make a difference, or will we just feel better about the situation thinking we've done something?
Would it not be preferable to try to reduce DV in general by trying to address the issues that cause it in the first place? I just looked up that study I mentioned in my prior comment, and their results are enlightening:
Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).
According to this study, reciprocal violence makes up half of all DV, and women are disproportionately the perpetrators, especially when it's reciprocal. By addressing that women can be abusers too, we might curb DV in general.
1
You fuckin liberals with your math and facts.
1
I too am unaware of the contents of said law but if something is already illegal then why make it more illegal? That is just plain stupid and only provides extra protection to a certain "type" of person which is even more appalling. Special laws for special people means the non special people get fucked over. For example your spousal abuse example, a special law protecting just women will make it more difficult for the men who are abused to be taken seriously or helped. It is like taking a step backwards and segregating everything based on race, religion or sex. Just causing more divide imo.
0
Yeah, they were shouting him down when he was answering their question. They didn't like his answer, but he was answering them politely. Dude did need to shut up.
-4†
There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with that type of person.
9
Wow. That is amazing. I hate political theater, it's amazing to watch a politician candidly and humanly handle it.
4
Agreed. The congressman definitely should not have said it so bluntly though. Either way I am worried many Dems are becoming the obnoxious, mindless, rhetoric shouting type that I despise in the Republican Party. No problem with protesting and stuff but you asked the man a damn question and don't want to hear his answer?
5
Either way I am worried many Dems are becoming the obnoxious, mindless, rhetoric shouting type that I despise in the Republican Party.
This has been troubling me as well.
1
We need a few Democrats with stones.
1
We could do with that, too.
1
Yeah, Barton could have handled that way better, but I can understand his frustration. He was trying to respond to an important question, but couldn't. Has Texas become a place where people become incensed and clutch their pearls when they hear the phrase "shut up"?
4
So if you're a Democratic senator and you win the state let's say by a landslide of 70 to 30%. Then when you have your town hall meetings a large group of Republicans shows up to your meetings making a scene and demanding that you vote in accordance with their wishes rather than the wishes of those who voted you into office. What do you do?
-6†
Representatives are supposed to not violate the constitution or civil rights no matter what the majority of their constituents want. That's literally why we have representatives instead of direct democracy: to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. In theory our representatives were supposed to be respectable people who would protect the minorities in their district while still enacting the views favored by the majorities in their district.
And in that scenario, no matter which side is which, this sort of mass protest doesn't happen every day. It only happens once in a while when shit is hitting the fan. So the representative is supposed to listen and address their concerns. Not tell them to shut up.
20
Commend them on their solid organization, step up your game, and try to contain them to the best of your ability- i.e., not create scenes that make the news.
9
You seem to think Senators are only there to represent the people that voted for them.
That's not true.
7
But dems are still supposed to compromise. Fuck him. Fuck the republican party.
so much for the tolerant left
^^^^/s
If you won't tolerate intolerance, how can you call yourself tolerant?
[removed]