The Race for the South

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedPolitics

2018 saw a new wave of Democratic candidates coming out of southern states. Alabama ushered in a surprise wave of excitement at the end of 2017 with the special election of U.S. Senator Doug Jones. However, that Alabama excitement did not spread into southern states for the 2018 midterms. States like Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi and Florida all had big races at the U.S. Senate or gubernatorial levels. The top tickets Democrats in those states lost.

Some lost by small margins while others were a gap large enough to consider it a landslide.  

Candidates like Stacy Abrams of Georgia and Beto O’Rouke of Texas tapped into new voters through the excitement surrounding their campaigns, but ultimately failed to secure the victory.  In Abrams case, voter suppression played a major role. As the first African American female to secure the Democratic nomination for governor – ever – she fought against the state’s Republican Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, who refused to resign even as he administered over the electoral process while running competing against Abrams in the race.

O’Rouke narrowly lost – 48.3% to 50.9% – to Republican incumbent Ted Cruz who saw his lead tightening closer to election day. Having served as the congressman for Texas’ 16th district, O’Rouke ran a campaign that didn’t rely on the traditional polling to advise him.  He pledged not to accept PAC contributions and raised nearly $2 million in the first three months through small donations.

Florida also held a gubernatorial election where Democratic nominee Andrew Gillum fought hard against the Republican nominee Ron DeSantis, falling by less than a percentage point.  Gillum was the first Black nominee for governor in the state of Florida in a racially tinged campaign. And down in Tennessee and Mississippi, U.S. Senate races were top ticket competitive races, but both Democratic nominees lost to their respective Republican candidates.

So, what happened? Voters were energized by the Democratic slate, but failed short to secure the top ticket seats. Conversely, these competitive races did usher in a new wave of Democratic talent for down ticket races. In Texas, Republican judges lost control of the Third Court of Appeals and the Fifth Court of Appeals.  In Tennessee, a wave of twenty African-American women were elected to local and state seats in Shelby County. Alabama had 55 women run for state-level offices. Gun violence advocate, Lucy McBath, won her congressional seat in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

While the larger races did not turn out how Democratic voters in the respective states might have hoped, they did help bring change in other down-ballot races and energize new voters. 2019 is here and now campaign teams are gearing up for 2020. Looking to the past, candidates can only hope for a better future. 

The Turkey Is Almost Done

by with No Comment Diversity & InclusionFeaturedPolitics

Democrats were hoping for a “blue wave” in this weeks Midterms elections. Though the “blue wave” failed to make shore for nationally followed races such as Beto in Texas, he lost by the thinnest of margin which is encouraging by any standard. The other nationally followed races for Governor in both Georgia and Florida are still too close to call and on the verge of a runoff election. Some Democrats were looking for more than a wave, rather a Tsunami. Polls regarding the approval of the Trump administration have been historically low, and the midterm elections were seen as the chance for said Democratic wave to begin the drowning of Trump’s influence through Congress, which would build momentum for a hopeful defeat of Trump in 2020. Though the wave wasn’t a big enough splash in certain places, the blue wave did swallow up enough seats to take over the House of Representatives.

So a Tsunami didn’t happen, but historic waves did make landfall, and the waves were dominated by women. Surfing to shore were the following:

Two Muslim women to Congress, both equally being the first to do so.

The first Native American woman to Congress…

The first lesbian mother to Congress… 

The youngest woman ever elected to Congress… 

The first Black woman ever elected as the Attorney General of New York… 

Also, the first every openly gay man was elected Governor of Colorado.

In my opinion, that’s a splash to be proud of. 

In addition to people, major progress was made nationwide regarding policies. Marijuana is now legal in Michigan, and medically legal in Utah and Missouri. The unsung victory from the midterm elections was without question Amendment 4 passing in Florida, which now grants voting rights to nearly 1.5 million Floridians who were former felons. (I’ll stress that importance in a little bit.) 

Twenty years ago (1998), there was no such thing as legalized Marijuana, and gay marriage was still illegal! We now have an openly gay Governor and legal Marijuana of any usage in ten states. That’s important.

Here in Texas, Hillary Clinton lost by 9% to Trump in the 2016 Presidential election. Two years later, Beto O’ Rourke lost by less than 3% to the well-funded incumbent in Republican Senator Ted Cruz (in the largest red state in the country). The fact that Beto realistically only had a punchers chance against Cruz and almost come away with a victory, is a victory. Here’s why the “moral victories” in Texas are a sign of possible change. For Republicans, big states in which they depend on like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, can have blue tendencies. Not Texas. Texas is counted on to hold down the GOP fort, due to its 38 electoral votes, second to only California’s 55. The next pure red states with as many electoral votes are Georgia with 16, North Carolina with 15, and Arizona, Indiana, Tennessee each with 11. I think it’s important to note that the unaspiring candidate in Hillary Clinton only lost by nine points in Texas with very little effort in campaigning, and Beto who actually campaigned barely lost. Such improvement in only two years should awaken the Democrat brass to start putting more money and effort into Texas for maybe not a blue wave, but a good ole Texas blue twister to stir things up. 

The way Andrew Gillum destroyed his Republican opponent Ron DeSantis, sparred with Trump via twitter, performed extremely well in the gubernatorial debates, and considering the changes in demographics… Gillium should have won by double digits. Gillum is down by less than .5 percent, which means they’re likely headed towards a recount. Is it not a fair assumption that the 1.5 million formerly convicted felons who just had their voting rights restored could’ve helped him out? 

I know Democrats and Progressives didn’t win every seat they wanted to; however, the numbers are increasing in the right direction in this nation. It’s like hearing “still not done” being yelled by grandma in the kitchen on Thanksgiving regarding the Turkey and her famous side dishes you’ve been patiently waiting for all day. The food isn’t done but you can smell how close it is. You can even see the plates coming out the cabinet. And that’s okay, long as you stay in your chair and don’t get up. No one can take your spot and you’ll be sure to get first dibs on whatever you. 

Texas Church Shooting, I Disagree With Trump

by with No Comment Uncategorized

President Trump claims more would have died were there stricter gun laws—insisting the gunman would not have been taken down by a “brave civilian” if that were the case. As a member of a Southern Baptist Church in Texas, and whose father and brother are both Baptist Ministers, I still cannot agree with POTUS. There absolutely should be a ban on assault-style weapons in the United States such as the firearm used by the gunman to kill 26 people and injure 20 others. Even with oversight by the U.S. Air Force to upload the gunman’s past domestic offenses in their database, civilians should never be able to possess weapons designed to be used in war. 

However, not isolating this incident and considering all of the senseless shootings that have taken place, my stance is not a commentary on the Second Amendment giving civilians the right to bear arms. I do not advocate for a gun-free society, but I do believe stricter laws should be enforced and types of firearms should be evaluated. There are firearms such as the one used by the “brave civilian” that are meant for recreation and defense. While they still can cause bodily harm, they should not be banned. However, in the case of assault-style weapons which are meant for combat situations—to kill as many people as possible in the least amount of time—they should not be accessible to civilians.

Looting… Crime or Survival? The LCR Weighs In…

by with One Comment Uncategorized

In the past few weeks, the Caribbean has experienced devastating hurricanes, which has caused millions to lose electricity and access to necessities like food and gas. Do you think looting, particularly stealing food, in the aftermath of such extreme weather, should be considered a crime?

We asked several of our contributors from across the political spectrum this very question, and this is what they had to say…

“Islands in the Caribbean are facing a major humanitarian disaster in the wake of the recent spate of hurricanes. This has forced some residents to loot and steal food and other necessities in order to survive. When you have no food or water your government has forgotten about you, and you have no other options – it is no longer looting, it’s self preservation. It’s the job of the government to ensure that its citizens don’t have to resort to such measures. If the government is unable to do so on its own then the international community has a responsibility to assist them.” – Center Left College Student  

“Post-disaster looting is often polarizing: it’s an either-or scenario: loose morals versus survival instincts. I have personally witnessed firsthand three major hurricanes on the Texas Coast: Rita, Ike and Harvey. If coastal cities such as Houston are not adequately prepared for natural storms given their geographic location and flat lands, at or below sea-level, then they should be prepared for citizens’ survival instincts to kick in. Food banks and shelters should be stocked and ready, given the cities flood-prone nature. It’s important to distinguish between taking resources for survival and non-essential luxury goods. With normal life disrupted, and no way to pay for the goods, people may just take what they need to keep living. We can debate whether or not that is really stealing, but if it were me, I would take cheese and bread if I could not get to a shelter. A Rolex; however, is a different story.” – Right Southern Female 

“In the aftermath of a natural disaster, the looting of basic, immediate necessities (food, water, clothes, supplies, and shelter) can be condoned and possibly forgiven. It’s the looters’ pursuit of long term gains (high priced, non-essential luxury items) at the expense of citizens and businesses that should be treated as crimes, just as if the disaster had not occurred.” – Unaffiliated Humanist Musician 

“If you think of looting in a very narrow sense, I assume that one would call it a criminal act. Although the word “loot” has such a simple definition, in devastating situations such as in Puerto Rico currently, the act of looting to survive is not so cut and dry. People need to live. Plain and simple. And although a systematic distribution process would be the best way to ensure that everyone would receive what they need to survive, human instinct will not allow calm and rationalization in such an extreme crisis. Taking items such as food or medical supplies to assist your family should not be considered a crime under these circumstances; however, if it is shown that these scarce resources were stolen for any other reason, then criminal penalties should apply.” – Apolitical Elected Official

“The Caribbean is a collection of islands where the majority of residents are living well below the poverty line. Most of these people cannot afford a moral dilemma. I liken it to poaching the king’s deer in a medieval forest or even stealing a loaf of bread in eighteenth century Europe. Les Miserables, anyone?”  – Registered Independent Voter 

“When people are suddenly hit with a major weather disaster, resources become scarce. Those effected are compelled to rely on assistance from other sources, which is where the governmental should step in. However, the government isn’t perfect. With that being said, whenever the government fails to respond adequately there should be leniency on the people. If there isn’t any assistance following a major disaster in a reasonable time, looting for food in particular should not be a crime.” – Detroit Democrat Male 

What are your thoughts?

Want to read similar content from the Left, Center, Right? SUBSCRIBE for only $2/month.

Your Opinion, Please LEAVE Home Without It

by with No Comment Uncategorized

On June 26, 2015, my birthday by the way (shameless plug I know), the United States Supreme Court decided to amend the US Constitution and grant same-sex couples the right to marry. I think it’s important to note that this decision was made despite the United States Supreme Court being headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was a George W Bush appointee and very conservative. Even if a particular state did not have gay marriage, all states had to recognize gay marriage. In its aftermath, contrary to the opposition belief, civilization and traditional marriage hasn’t faltered in the two years since the Supreme Court decision. Despite the world turning out just fine, some people’s opinion on the idea of legalized same sex marriage is an issue that must take precedence over stuff that actually matters. Unfortunately, those same people have real power and influence.  

On Friday June 30, a mere two years and a few days removed from the watershed Supreme Court decision, the nine-member Texas Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court’s ruling favoring the city of Houston’s decision to extend health and life insurance benefits to the spouses of city employees in same-sex marriages. The court ordered the case sent back to the trial court in Houston. In summary, the Texas Supreme Court said that while same-sex marriage is legal, the reach and ramifications of the rights of gay couples have yet to be determined. Whatever that means. Here’s the thing, if the United States Supreme Court states same-sex couples have the right to marry, that would mean there aren’t any contingencies. Right? So what is the issue?

I can tell you. Sexual orientation and the opposition to it in any fashion is usually wrapped in someone’s “faith”. I really don’t buy that, I think its pure bigotry, but I’ll go with “faith” for the sake of argument. Even still, that’s your opinion. Your faith is your own theological taking, not the worlds. More importantly, no one should suffer or have their life altered because of your faith, especially when those alterations come via the hands of the government. There are real world consequences when someone’s benefits are altered.

A common phrase people throw around when stating off the wall political references is “well it’s just my opinion”. No it’s not just an opinion. An opinion is Pepsi or Coke. LeBron or Jordan. Nas or Jay Z. A political opinion is a DECISION, its impactful, it’s alerting. A kneejerk political opinion has real world consequences. In our country, political opinions have gone unchecked, more extreme, polarizing, and caused national issues to become stagnate.  

A viewpoint and an opinion is worthless when a same sex couple walks into a doctor’s office in Houston next week and unbeknownst to them, their coverage is frozen and they have to pay out of pocket. That $250 out of pocket cost now causes them to be able to get a part on their car fix, and have to only use one car. And then and then and then (in my “Dude where’s my car” voice), but in all seriousness, one unneeded decision on the part of the Texas Supreme Court alters countless lives. For what? There’s nothing wrong with having an ideology, we all have them. From taxes to foreign aid, we must have different viewpoints to have lively debates and discussions. There’s something very dangerous when that ideology becomes fixated on stances that are non-secular, separatist, denies access to services, and quite frankly wastes time.