Talk:California–Texas rivalry

Draft:Texas-California rivalry

Elli About 2 years ago I created, as an unregistered user, a draft article with the name Draft:Texas-California rivalry and it was deleted. There I compared the public higher education systems of the two states. Around that time, I created another draft article, Draft:Texas Research Initiatives, to detail what Texas is doing in order to catch up with California. Maybe you want to have a look at that article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.114.69 (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply - thanks - I'll take a look at both. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

I'm not sure if this article is notable enough to merit keeping it. Do we have any other pages on state-to-state rivalries? I only see sports rivalries such as Arkansas–Texas_A&M_football_rivalry. Moreover, doesn't this article just represent the larger Democratic-Republican rivalry? For example, with the logic of this article, one could create a "Florida-California rivalry" page because of the 'Don't DeSantis my California' slogan: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-california-recall-20210910-q7fxfzrqpvaizds6mbfrdpspve-story.html Llightex (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

literally no one ever has used that phrase lmao. on the other hand, don't California my Texas has rapidly become a part of the average Texan's vocabulary 2001:8F8:173D:3D04:392F:91A3:EA66:2EC4 (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

lmaooo Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There's more to the Texas-California thing than just Republican vs Democrat. It also has to do with the idea that lots of people moving out of CA to TX are increasing the problems of rapid population growth in TX (traffic, strain on infrastructure, urban sprawl/replacement of rural landscape with housing developments), not just fear of a political shift. (Though that's also definitely a factor.)

The same kind of attitude isn't really seen with other 'blue' states that are low population (such as neighboring NM) or just not seen as primary sources of migration to TX. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Bring back some of the old entries to this article

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=California%E2%80%93Texas_rivalry&type=revision&diff=1052356195&oldid=847230301 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.98.104.220 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Listed CA vs TX policies

There's been some back-and-forth on the phrasing of this section, (paragraph 3 of the Policies header) so it's high-time to open a talk page discussion. First off, thanks to @Becausewhynothuh? for adding some sources; that section was sorely lacking. I do think that the changed phrasing of

Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as being among 9 jurisdictions in the country with no state income tax...

is not as good as the more generic

Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as reducing taxes...

However, the piped link to an example of lower taxes does seem valuable to me. Therefore, I propose the following:

Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as reducing taxes,...

This way, it encompasses more than jus the lack of income tax but also refers to the low taxes in general. However, it also points to a particular example of the low taxes, i.e., no income tax.

A separate issue is whether to discuss minimum wage versus gun rights. I'm ambivalent between the two on principle, and as a practical matter, now that the gun rights has a source (and minimum wage did not) I lean towards keeping it as-is, mentioning gun rights as a conservative Texas policy.

I'd appreciate any community input on these thoughts, and thanks again to Becausewhynothuh? for adding the citations. EducatedRedneck (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for opening the discussion page!

I changed 'removing taxes' because I felt it was too vague of a statement to be included an article as short as this. Thus, mentioning it's status as of 8 states + DC i.e., one of 9 jurisdictions without a state income tax would be a more concrete statement + would mean more.

Secondly, I strongly lean towards gun rights statement for two reasons:

a) a proactive policy where the Texans actually do something of their own accord is a better policy example than simply not doing something the other side doesn't.

b) The issue of gun policy i.e. safeguarding gun rights in Conservative states vs having Strong Gun Laws in Liberal states is by far a more prominent policy point for a state on the forefront of the gun control debate such as texas. this isn't any other state like wyoming. it's texas, which is REPUTED for it's relation with Guns. Therefore, it's a much better idea to have that mention of gun rights Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Re: Gun Rights: I'm inclined to agree with you, though for point a) I'd point out that "gun rights" is almost exactly "not doing something the other side doesn't", specifically, it's declining to restrict access to firearms. However, I also acknowledge that it is far more common to pass a law which affirms firearm access than to pass a law that affirms an existing minimum wage (in my experience) so even then it indicates that gun laws are a better contrast vs CA than minimum wage.

Re: Taxes: I think the same argument you presented above seems to suggest that general tax reduction is a better figurehead for TX vs CA than a specific tax. Failing to have an income tax very much is "not doing something the other side doesn't", while reducing taxes comes off as a more deliberate action.

I also feel that we don't need to be overly specific; we're not pointing to a specific category of firearm Texas is affirming the right to carry, but firearms in general. Similarly, I think it's fair to say that reducing taxes in general is far more often a talking point than maintaining a 0% income tax, and the 0% income tax is included within the reducing taxes.

Perhaps another compromise would be useful. What about:

Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as reducing taxes (for example, having no state income tax)...

This keeps the high-level overview, but also points to the specific datapoint cited. Would this be acceptable? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

SORRY TO GET BACK TO YOU SO LATE

your first reply hit the nail on the head. Taking a proactive position on gun rights is more of a policy because 50 years ago, gun rights were heavily curtailed as compared to today. In fact, rather oddly, Texas was one of the strictest gun law states and thus mentioning texan protection of gun rights as a policy would be a natural followup to it history.

Regarding your second point, I would gladly agree with it if it weren't for the fact that the status quo is having a state income tax, and Texas not having one becomes a proactive policy as a result, as they're actively deciding to abolish the state income tax. but your compromise is excellent so i am in total agreement with you. I would just suggest making it :

" Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as reducing taxes (Texas has no state income tax)..."

I hope we can agree on this point. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries on the delay; after all, there are no deadlines here.

Thank you for your responses; I feel like we're really close to something we can all be happy with! I think we're agreed that we'll cite reducing taxes in general, and the no income tax in a parenthetical. Perhaps, for the sake of flow, we can use the fomulation:

Texas has adopted various conservative policies, such as reducing taxes (e.g., prohibiting an income tax)...

This would specifically mention it as a prime example of reducing taxes, and directly cite the source. Does that seem like it flows okay without causing any other issues? I don't want my desire to make the text flow to change what it's trying to say, after all! EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we can defo reach a conclusive agreement there🫱🏻‍🫲🏼 i think your revised edit satisfied both of our suggestions.

great discussion! Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Outstanding; I went ahead and implemented the proposed change. Thanks so much for workshopping this! EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

References