Dan Crenshaw, a totalitarian progressive elitist

#1

Dan Crenshaw, a totalitarian progressive elitist. This is why primary elections are incredibly important, so that elected members of congress can’t play sections of voters against each other, and end up not representing their actual distinct.

He is representing California’s 12th congressional district, instead of the Texans he is supposed to be representing. He must be defeated in his next primary election. The right to bear arms is not some minor point for the citizens of this nation, it is not a political football, and it certainly isn’t a non-concern for Texas’s 2nd congressional district.

Here is Kaitlyn’s Video,

4 Likes
Townhall For Crenshaw
#2

Going through his top donors right now and I’m finding it interesting how many of them gave the same dollar amounts, how many are from investment companies or real estate developers, and many aren’t even in Texas.

More digging…

1 Like
#3

I’ve responded to Term Limits Movement.

Vote Incumbents Out, nothing personal.

The swamp entanglement begins in early stages of Campaigns.

One short quick witted citizens needed for a get in and out flash bang approach.

You think once elected and Swamp Rats approach them with “Silver or Lead” options available to continue within the system. They are going to tell anybody?

No and not happening. Ergo constituents tactical approach is required until a cleansing is sufficient.

Ha haha

1 Like
#4

Not interested in term limits, we have an electoral process to determine who should be in or out. Progressives want term limits because they love the idea of politicians having to make their next boss happy, instead of serving their own constituents. They want to make the whole congress into Crenshaw’s, people who will be losing their job anyway.

I understand the appeal, It sounded like a great idea, until I really thought deeper about it… and learned that term limits are about increasing the power of special interests and reducing the power of constituent voters.

2 Likes
#5

When I first saw Crenshaw, I thought he was a cool veteran hero, but I realize that while he is a hero and I respect that, he’s not a great politician.

1 Like
#6

Hang on, hang on. She says how disappointed she was that Dan Crenshaw had not replied her on twitter and. even detailed the multiple tweets she sent him. Then, when he finally replies to her, at 7:49 she says, “I was so startled to have received this message and in complete shock that a sitting Congressman would message a 23 year old girl over her tweets.

???

2 Likes
#7

Are you only against him because of the Red Flag BS? He said only if they are in line with the Cato Institute’s requirements for Due Process. I think it was Cato…

1 Like
#8

I became very skeptical when he voiced his support. Once he came out and basically called us retards, well :fu::fu:

3 Likes
#9

Really? Who gives two shits what the Cato Institute says?

What matters is what the Constitution requires.

3 Likes
#10

I know but it’s better than just supporting them outright. At least he’s thought about it. I don’t know who to believe. Some say he Hates Trump while others say he supports him. I highly doubt he’s working with MDA, trying to take our guns. Just seems like people taking things about him out of context.

1 Like
#11

Writers like this that can’t search online apparently. They act like the Cato study doesn’t exist. Then they post a link that doesn’t support what they’re saying. Trump hasn’t come out against them. Cato is against them because they don’t have Due Process. Cato is Pro-Constitution… The study Crenshaw cited is too. To suggest he has some Evil ulterior motivate is ridiculous. Look at what he says, not some :clown_face: that doesn’t like him.

2 Likes
#12

Just saw this on Facebook. Used more than 700 times in Indianapolis alone since '04. Indiana is supposed to be lax on gun control. Need to hear about people this has happened to. How many cases were actually called for? Recent one with that kid’s Facebook posts that got his Dad’s guns taken away. Now that’s an example of what shouldn’t happen. I think it was Barnes that said something about having to spend thousands to get your guns back. I’d like to see an example of when that’s happened.

1 Like
#13

Cato Institute is well established Constitutional Think Tank and U.S. policy analysis group and educational resource.
Surprised seeing that comment from you.
Sincerely

Not Always Agreeable Supporter

1 Like
#14

Oh, I know who the Cato Institute is, have for years.

They are a private “think tank” that spews out their opinions in an effort to dictate Washington policies. They are no different from the CFR and several other “think tanks”. They do not operate with the interests of the US at heart, but their own interests and obligations.

Where do you think those think tanks get their funding? They don’t have bake sales!

Needless to say, I’m am totally opposed to such “think tanks”.

1 Like
#15

Actually this is part of the issue, this is the stench around him.

Koch brothers have interests that are not in alignment with the vast majority of American citizens, and most certainly not the citizens who vote for the GOP. There is nothing wrong with a think tank, or any policy group, what matters is which set of interests and citizens the group is representing.

Think about what the standard you laid out is, you’re saying if you can technically make something constitutional, that means you’re OK pursuing it. So what is missing? IDK, actually representing the citizenry in the policy process? Nobody will actually be saved because a bureaucratic process confiscated our weapons, the cost exceeds the extremely limited… almost nonexistent …benefit.

So who wants action in this direction? Our enemies? The people that didn’t even elect you as representatives? So who is representing us? How can we help you make something the citizenry could swallow? For example, if gun free zones were addressed with real teeth in a policy, then technically constitutional might indeed be good enough… do you see what I’m getting at here? What matters is the interests you’re representing, and not representing the citizenry is why we’re angry at Crenshaw.

You need to actually address the problem for us to ever consider a reform, you cannot just get a little bit of what our enemies want, that is called appeasement. Can that be done? No? Then nothing it is. Who is heartless? The progressives, for intentionally putting citizens in killing zones, so they can politically exploit mass shooting victims.

#16

I can understand what she meant, as in … She was surprised to see she was reached out to, because she didn’t get any response when she sent him stuff directly in the past.

#17

What did Crenshaw do or say that went against the citizenry? He can’t even have a conversation about Red Flags? They aren’t going to be a step closer to full confiscation. I mean c’mon, they’ve been around 15+ years. Why can’t Crenshaw suggest making sure they are Constitutional by providing Due Process?

I have no problem with guns being taken away from someone that’s a threat to themselves or others. So if there is a legitimate complaint from a Loved one. That complaint should be investigated by LE. & If they find the complaint wasn’t legitimate. They should charge that Loved one with making a false report.

How can you blame Progressives for GFZs? Private property rights don’t matter? Businesses, schools, & colleges shouldn’t be able to ban guns if they want? Some people don’t like guns. It’s their right if they want to keep them off their property. Mass Shootings wouldn’t stop happening if GFZs didn’t exist.

#18
  1. Countless gun free zones are on public property, accessible to the general public, yet are not actively defended in any way. You certainly have no excuse to avoid addressing them, if only in this limited scope.

  2. The rights assigned to private property are outlined in legislation whenever they conflict with the rights of the American citizenry. I’m comfortable limiting such power when private property is not a residence, but a place of commerce, open to the general public. We already legislate in this sphere presently, so I expect you to do so in our interests. If you cannot do so for ideological reasons, we need you to get out of office immediately, like a solder who refuses to take the life of an engaging enemy combatant.

  3. Limitations on reasonable deployment of a gun free zone, how defended it must be, and what the liability is for said guards failing to engage a shooter. This is something I expect anyone actually representing the citizenry to be demanding, because there is absolutely no reason to engage in a one sided reform process. Any reform must address the concerns of the citizenry, not just the concerns of the enemies of the citizenry. Privately owned publicly accessible establishments can choose to maintain a gun free zone where they provide defense with partial liability, or allow the citizenry to defend themselves, they must not be allowed to maintain an undefended killing field.

  4. What has Crenshaw done? He has not represented the citizenry, specifically his own constituency, yet has engaged in a reform process that excludes his own constituents. No reform should ever be conducted, when one of the sides is not actually representing any of our interests or concerns. We cannot control the entire world, we understand that, but you don’t get to engage in any political wheeling and dealing when you’re not representing any of us.

  5. Mass shootings wouldn’t stop if…? They wouldn’t stop if you confiscated weapons from the citizenry either, but somehow that hasn’t stopped you from feeling obligated to engage in this reform process. Let me take the moment to note this despicable example of bad faith and selective justice, as your holding us to a standard your not holding everyone else to, and you knew it when you wrote what you did.

#19

Who can we get to run against him in his district is the BIG QUESTION! That should be the focus.

#20

If you can get a primary that is fine, if you cannot, we still must vote for his opposition. Yes even if they are worse, because having our opposition dressed as us is worse than that, we will win on the next cycle.

However yes, investigating the best primary candidate would be a great idea now.