Talarico vs Paxton

113,885 Views | 1348 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by boognish_bear
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frank Galvin • 3:35p, 9/26/26
Frank Galvin said:
GrowlTowel said:
HuMcK said:
Again with yet another screed on trans issues, I swear I hear more about trans people from Republican mouths than literally any other source.

The better question is why can't a democrat run for office without first adopting the full LGBTQ agenda? If it is the Republicans always mentioning it, why not respond with "not me"?

There in lies your answer as to which party makes it a campaign issue.

Anyone who favors transkids is not fit for office. That level of depravity and wickedness has no room in public discourse.


Politicians ought to be for every kid, trans or not.


Being for every kid, and being for every kid's destructive choices are two very different things.
Reply Quote
6
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 3:45p, 9/26/26
… especially when they have been influenced or brainwashed by pedos and groomers
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
3
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:57p, 9/26/26
whiterock said:


She may not be going what's good for the nation
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 4:00p, 9/26/26
Mothra said:
Frank Galvin said:
GrowlTowel said:
HuMcK said:
Again with yet another screed on trans issues, I swear I hear more about trans people from Republican mouths than literally any other source.

The better question is why can't a democrat run for office without first adopting the full LGBTQ agenda? If it is the Republicans always mentioning it, why not respond with "not me"?

There in lies your answer as to which party makes it a campaign issue.

Anyone who favors transkids is not fit for office. That level of depravity and wickedness has no room in public discourse.


Politicians ought to be for every kid, trans or not.


Being for every kid, and being for every kid's destructive choices are two very different things.


Well said
Reply Quote
2
Danielsjackson114
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 4:05p, 9/26/26
Facts over feelings

We know liberal clowns like you struggle with that. Good on her to not give into DEI wokeness
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:12p, 9/26/26
Reply Quote
3
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 7:46p, 9/26/26
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:


She may not be going what's good for the nation


The fact that she supports her ex husband despite his scumbaggery says she does. She understands what's at stake when we elect wokesters whose liberal policy positions affect everyday Texans.

She's pragmatic, like many of us who may not like Paxton, but understand we aren't electing a pastor or role model. Instead we are voting for a governmental actor whose policy will have repercussions for our families.

So I'd submit she's well aware of what's best for the nation, but more importantly Texans. We should not allow perfect to be the enemy of good.
Reply Quote
5
4 edits
Keyser Soze
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:21p, 9/26/26
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
whiterock said:


She may not be going what's good for the nation


The fact that she supports her ex husband despite his scumbaggery says she does. She understands what's at stake when we elect wokesters whose liberal policy positions affect everyday Texans.

She's pragmatic, like many of us who may not like Paxton, but understand we aren't electing a pastor or role model. Instead we are voting for a governmental actor whose policy will have repercussions for our families.

So I'd submit she's well aware of what's best for the nation, but more importantly Texans. We should not allow perfect to be the enemy of good.


I don't completely disagree, but the main driver is she is a Republican Senator at the State level. Party line is a must, and she is holding her nose.
Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:22a, 9/27/26
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54a, 9/27/26
Solid analysis in these posts.
Reply Quote
1
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:46a, 9/27/26
A Wednesday update from the Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan election analysis site, described control of the Senate as "a true coin flip, with viable paths for both parties to win or keep a majority." Some other analysts have concluded the map is even more favorable to Democrats.
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:06p, 9/27/26
#Repeal19rh
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:39p, 9/27/26


amazing -- Karl Rove lists Ken Paxton's scandals: "You've got a guy who has multiple girlfriends and $200,000 worth of home improvements from a corrupt business guy for whom he does favors. My personal favorite is the Uber account in the name of David P. Since he drives around in a car that has [state] license plates, it made it a little difficult to have assignations with one of his mistresses, so the corrupt business guy gives him a fake Uber account and the records of that are now in his impeachment proceedings, so we know how often he went to have sex with Laura Olsen. I mean, can you make this **** up?"
Reply Quote
1
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 1:52p, 9/27/26
Harrison Bergeron said:
#Repeal19rh

Better to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
EatMoreSalmon
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to HuMcK • 2:03p, 9/27/26
HuMcK said:
"I'm asking what specifically we're measuring when we say the economy is objectively worse."

That's actually not what your original question was, the objective measures language comes from my response and is a different ask. You were originally asking for details about why the GOP don't have a response on economic issues right now. I generally answered that (tariffs, Iran, Paxton's lackluster economic platform, etc).

For objective measures: inflation is higher now than it was when he took over (and getting worse), employment rate is holding but job creation is way below the Biden era (and not just the initial COVID boom either), federal deficit is more than it was when he took over, GDP is lackluster (far below what was explicitly promised by this admin). Really only the stock indexes are doing somewhat well, but observers are all watching with trepidation because everything is so precarious.

You say you aren't defending anyone, the classic "just asking questions" line. Ok, what's the point you're trying to arrive at then?



https://www.macrotrends.net/3591/us-gasoline-prices

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Why should your party have the economic reins again?
There's not a good reason from these charts at all.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
TechDawgMc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:13p, 9/27/26
I don't want the Democrats to have control of Congress. I don't think much of Talarico.

But if we lose a Texas GOP Senate seat, it will be the fault of people who voted for Paxton in the primaries. We had two options who would have won handily. Instead we have this nonsense. I don't care if you don't like Cornyn. He wasn't anywhere near the easy target that Paxton is.
Reply Quote
6
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TechDawgMc • 2:34p, 9/27/26
Tell yourself what you need, so you can sleep at night.
Reply Quote
4
BUDOS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 2:53p, 9/27/26
If more voters thought about and spent more effort on researching their candidates and ballot proposals perhaps they could sleep more comfortably with a clearer conscious. Unfortunately too many don't seem to have that problem.
Reply Quote
1
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TechDawgMc • 3:54p, 9/27/26
TechDawgMc said:
I don't want the Democrats to have control of Congress. I don't think much of Talarico.

But if we lose a Texas GOP Senate seat, it will be the fault of people who voted for Paxton in the primaries. We had two options who would have won handily. Instead we have this nonsense. I don't care if you don't like Cornyn. He wasn't anywhere near the easy target that Paxton is.


No, it will be Cornyn's fault. He is the reason people voted for Paxton. Had Cornyn represented the interests of his base, he would have easily won another term.
Reply Quote
5
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GrowlTowel • 4:06p, 9/27/26
GrowlTowel said:
TechDawgMc said:
I don't want the Democrats to have control of Congress. I don't think much of Talarico.

But if we lose a Texas GOP Senate seat, it will be the fault of people who voted for Paxton in the primaries. We had two options who would have won handily. Instead we have this nonsense. I don't care if you don't like Cornyn. He wasn't anywhere near the easy target that Paxton is.


No, it will be Cornyn's fault. He is the reason people voted for Paxton. Had Cornyn represented the interests of his base, he would have easily won another term.

This. Never forget Cornyn could have had the primary win by just voting for the SAVE America act.

Just why did Cornyn oppose that?
Reply Quote
4
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 4:21p, 9/27/26
Exactly. Cornyn stopped representing Texans years ago. He was more interested in the senate country club and his corrupt buddies there than in doing his job. Another worthless RINO.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Reply Quote
4
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 5:12p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
GrowlTowel said:
TechDawgMc said:
I don't want the Democrats to have control of Congress. I don't think much of Talarico.

But if we lose a Texas GOP Senate seat, it will be the fault of people who voted for Paxton in the primaries. We had two options who would have won handily. Instead we have this nonsense. I don't care if you don't like Cornyn. He wasn't anywhere near the easy target that Paxton is.


No, it will be Cornyn's fault. He is the reason people voted for Paxton. Had Cornyn represented the interests of his base, he would have easily won another term.

This. Never forget Cornyn could have had the primary win by just voting for the SAVE America act.

Just why did Cornyn oppose that?

He didn't oppose it.
Cornyn supported the bill; he was actually one of its original sponsors. In February 2026 he joined Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Chip Roy in introducing the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and photo ID to vote in federal elections. In March he voted for the motion to proceed to the bill, kicking off Senate debate.

Where he differed from some conservatives was on the filibuster, not the bill itself. Until March, he wasn't willing to scrap the 60-vote filibuster to pass it, then during his heated runoff against Ken Paxton, he reversed and backed changing Senate rules to advance it.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 5:22p, 9/27/26
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.
Reply Quote
4
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 5:28p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 5:32p, 9/27/26
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.
Reply Quote
2
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 5:38p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 5:50p, 9/27/26
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.
Reply Quote
3
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 5:55p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill
Reply Quote
303Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 6:21p, 9/27/26
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Yes but he wasn't immediately ready to dispense with 200+ years of Senate procedural precedent to end debate and force a vote, hence he is a traitor to the cause and doesn't represent Texas (as some here have claimed). Failure of absolute devotion to "the cause" has consequences.

Reply Quote
6
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 303Bear • 6:54p, 9/27/26
303Bear said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Yes but he wasn't immediately ready to dispense with 200+ years of Senate procedural precedent to end debate and force a vote, hence he is a traitor to the cause and doesn't represent Texas (as some here have claimed). Failure of absolute devotion to "the cause" has consequences.

Bingo.
Reply Quote
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 303Bear • 6:55p, 9/27/26
303Bear said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Yes but he wasn't immediately ready to dispense with 200+ years of Senate procedural precedent to end debate and force a vote, hence he is a traitor to the cause and doesn't represent Texas (as some here have claimed). Failure of absolute devotion to "the cause" has consequences.

Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 7:35p, 9/27/26
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Then why wouldn't he simply publicly commit to seeing it passed? Seems like an easy win.

But he refused.

You keep ducking the point, which is why ?
Reply Quote
2
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:41p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Then why wouldn't he simply publicly commit to seeing it passed? Seems like an easy win.

But he refused.

You keep ducking the point, which is why ?


You want to do away with the filibuster?
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Osodecentx • 9:10p, 9/27/26
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Then why wouldn't he simply publicly commit to seeing it passed? Seems like an easy win.

But he refused.

You keep ducking the point, which is why ?


You want to do away with the filibuster?


You are ducking again, daffy
Reply Quote
1
303Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Oldbear83 • 9:17p, 9/27/26
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
Osodecentx said:
Oldbear83 said:
None of that changes the fact that when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

A lot of Cornyn's actions are like that: Pretend to be conservative but no follow-through.

That in a nutshell, is what did him in - Republicans caught on at last.


Clinch what nomination?

Try reading the thread, just few posts from me on this one should bring you up to speed.


I quote you : when he could have clinched the nomination for simply affirming his vote, Cornyn refused.

To what nomination do you refer?

The GOP nomination for the Senate race.

Not sure how you forgot that was the subject.


Cornyn authored the SAAct
He didn't oppose the bill, it is his bill

Then why wouldn't he simply publicly commit to seeing it passed? Seems like an easy win.

But he refused.

You keep ducking the point, which is why ?

Sponsoring (and your staff writing a large portion of) a bill isnt " publicly commit to seeing it passed"?

Be honest, he wouldn't agree to circumvent senate procedure and eliminate the filibuster to get the bill passed. An infinitely reasonable position to take. This pissed off the far right and Trump and got him ousted because he could not be relied on to follow orders, regardless of the 23+ years (more if you count his time in state politics and the Texas Supreme Court) of reliable conservative voting (including time as Majority Whip in the Senate).

Reply Quote
1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.