A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

that is my opinion. I may not agree with some of his economic proposals, but I'll take that to have an honest man with character. R's need to be taught a lesson....Gold Jesus will sell you down the river.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

Sure he comes across like a little Boy Scout with his 1st Grade class picture haircut, but in reality he's a slightly less masculine version of VA gov Spermberger. Say all the "moderate" and "independent" things now, but once in office will push the same hard left crap he is on record as touting while in the legislature before he magically changed his position to run statewide.

Independent? That will last only as long as the leash that Chucky and Cory and Lizzie and Bernie put him on. He'll be little more than an errand boy for them, unless they somehow manage to get enough of a majority that his vote isn't needed and he can masquerade as independent.

I'm no great fan of Paxton either. If there were 100 candidates for Senate, he'd probably be my 98th choice. But Little Jimmy comes in at 99th, only because Ghetto Jazzy would be at 100.

Great example of how there's simply no pleasing some people. It sounds like you didn't hear much you could criticize, so you just defaulted to "he'll be a party puppet", and nevermind that he specifically addressed that (and criticized those party leaders).

It's always remarkable how a politician's positions suddenly become more moderate the moment he decides to run statewide in a conservative state. What's even more remarkable is the number of people who will buy the act.

Talarico spent years building his brand on progressive causes, and now we're supposed to believe that he's the reasonable centrist in the room because he gave a polished town hall performance? Some people are very easily persuaded by carefully chosen words. I prefer to look at a politician's record, associations, and actions. The idea that he's suddenly become an independent-minded centrist strikes me as campaign-season rebranding rather than a genuine transformation.

As for the interview itself, let's not ignore the absurdity of the setup. CNN had Hinojosa, an active Democratic candidate for governor, serving as one of the evaluators of Talarico's performance. That's like asking a teammate to grade the game film and then acting surprised when the review is favorable. I honestly don't think Fox would be shameless enough to put a current Republican statewide candidate on a panel to evaluate another Republican candidate and then present it as neutral analysis.

The bigger issue is that many people seem eager to judge Talarico by his rhetoric rather than his agenda. A smooth-talking politician who tells conservatives what they want to hear for a few months doesn't erase years of advocacy. Talarico isn't a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's the opposite: a sheep in wolf's clothing. He wraps a very conventional progressive agenda in the language of moderation, faith, bipartisanship, and common sense, hoping voters won't notice that the substance remains largely unchanged.

If voters like that agenda, they should vote for him. But they should at least be honest about what they're buying. The idea that James Talarico has suddenly become some independent-minded moderate because of a few well-rehearsed interviews is, frankly, hard to take seriously. I am surprised you've been duped. You seem more intelligent than that.

J.R. said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

that is my opinion. I may not agree with some of his economic proposals, but I'll take that to have an honest man with character. R's need to be taught a lesson....Gold Jesus will sell you down the river.

---

Of course you will vote for the progressive. As if that's a surprise to anyone.

HuMcK said:

---

Great example of how there's simply no pleasing some people. It sounds like you didn't hear much you could criticize, so you just defaulted to "he'll be a party puppet", and nevermind that he specifically addressed that (and criticized those party leaders).

---

LOL. You've always taken conservative voters for stupid. Talarico gets up on CNN, says a few things conservatives want to hear, and suddenly we're supposed to forget his record and believe he's an independent-minded moderate?

Sorry, but we've seen this movie before. I'll judge him by what he's done, not by what he says when he's trying to win a statewide election.

The guy is a complete phony. Anyone with a double-digit IQ can see that.

He either is lying now or has been lying for 10 years. He has been a radical extremist and suddenly tries to pretend he does not believe all the things he has believed for 10 years? How naive are you guys?

Heck, he just lied about having the flue for two weeks.

Seriously, how stupid does someone have to be to not see that obvious fact. The reality is Democrats have always been "yellow dogs" - nothing matters but the T-shirt.

I mean his pastor already has been captured on video stating he plans to lie to pretend to be a moderate. Shocking how they keep fooling you.

My favorite line from talafreako was that the most important school topic for children is sex education?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

His record shows he believes the exact opposite.

His previous statements have been the exact opposite. Seems like now that the election is closer he is trying to toe the middle ground to get more dupes to vote for him. Then he will switch and follow his previous path and do the opposite of what he is saying...... when he actually shows up which his record shows he often skips.....

whitetrash said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

Sure he comes across like a little Boy Scout with his 1st Grade class picture haircut, but in reality he's a slightly less masculine version of VA gov Spermberger. Say all the "moderate" and "independent" things now, but once in office will push the same hard left crap he is on record as touting while in the legislature before he magically changed his position to run statewide

---

Both Spamberger in VA and Sherrill in NJ are recent glaring examples of this same con. Campaign as a "born again" dumocrat moderate who disavows past statements and policy positions and/or claims that what was clearly expressed support for hard leftist positions were statements "taken out of context", etc. Dupe enough voters to get yourself elected, then govern as the fully loyal, committed dumocrat woke leftist that you really are starting day one. It's incredible how many people continue to fall for this absolute snake oil salesman BS, but such is the nature of our largely dumbed down electorate.

Jr has sht fit brains and needs to be questioned why he is so openly sexual while moving to Thailand

I saw this debate on the forums and was curious, so I took a look. I keep seeing what appears to be both Talarico supporters and detractors touting his "record" while in the Texas legislature, from both positive and negative perspectives (not just in this forum, but throughout the race itself as well).

As an attorney who has some experience in the legislative space here in Texas, I am extremely skeptical that anyone has comprehensively reviewed his record of bills introduced, passed, vetoed, etc, and what exactly was in those bills. That is no easy task, to be fair, but let's not pretend y'all--most people (and to be frank, most of y'all) are citing his "record" based on what is emphasized or highlighted to you by the media, your own self-serving algorithm, and the politicians themselves (both Paxton and Talarico).

If you are interested in giving serious critical thought to his legislative record, I encourage you to visit this site: https://legiscan.com/TX/people/james-talarico/id/20246?record=all&type=bill&status=introduced. It provides a summary of all bills he has introduced, vetoed, passed, scheduled, etc. throughout his time in the legislature. I have used it in my work to examine a legislator's history.

If we are to judge the politician on his record - which we absolutely should do - let's at least be open to an honest and critical assessment of his full record. And for what it's worth, Paxton is infamously considered one of the most corrupt and dirty lawyers in the state amongst attorney circles.

"You've always taken conservative voters for stupid."

Gas just hit over $4 (again) in the Austin area, diesel at $6. Our standing in the world is lower than it's been in generations, and our allies are starting to hate us. We started the dumbest trade war ever against our allies. We're in a stupid actual hot war with Iran that has no end in sight, and it's caused inflation to come roaring back after Biden had it mostly tamed (hope you enjoy another rate hike this month!).

Trump was handed a golden ticket where all he had to do was shut up, stay out of the way, and take (undeserved) credit. Instead, we got the most predictable sht-storm ever, and it seems like all guy focuses on is his fcking construction projects while he dismisses the problems of ordinary people and shts all over the constitution.

You say I've always taken conservative voters for stupid. I say that if you voted for the current admin and still support it, even going so far as to advocate for giving him more power by voting for yet another crook like Paxton...then, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

fubar said:

---

What impressed you most (positively), and what most bothered you?

- disclaimer: I live (and vote) in Kansas

---

Positive:

Fair question. I thought his background of teaching showed a polished speaker who stood firm on his principles. He came across as an Independent (never accepting PAC money).

He took on all questions concerning abortion, the Iran War, Israel and the Border.

Regardless, the coward Paxton refused to debate, probably per Trump's orders, and I would never vote for a known crook like Paxton who will become Super Crook if elected.


Negative:

I think he could revert to the ultra-liberal Democrat in office. I do not mean Progressive as a negative, just the far far left.

bear laws said:

---

I saw this debate on the forums and was curious, so I took a look. I keep seeing what appears to be both Talarico supporters and detractors touting his "record" while in the Texas legislature, from both positive and negative perspectives (not just in this forum, but throughout the race itself as well).

As an attorney who has some experience in the legislative space here in Texas, I am extremely skeptical that anyone has comprehensively reviewed his record of bills introduced, passed, vetoed, etc, and what exactly was in those bills. That is no easy task, to be fair, but let's not pretend y'all--most people (and to be frank, most of y'all) are citing his "record" based on what is emphasized or highlighted to you by the media, your own self-serving algorithm, and the politicians themselves (both Paxton and Talarico).

If you are interested in giving serious critical thought to his legislative record, I encourage you to visit this site: https://legiscan.com/TX/people/james-talarico/id/20246?record=all&type=bill&status=introduced. It provides a summary of all bills he has introduced, vetoed, passed, scheduled, etc. throughout his time in the legislature. I have used it in my work to examine a legislator's history.

If we are to judge the politician on his record - which we absolutely should do - let's at least be open to an honest and critical assessment of his full record. And for what it's worth, Paxton is infamously considered one of the most corrupt and dirty lawyers in the state amongst attorney circles.

---

Thank you for providing that resource. Could you provide a summary or maybe some things you have found that go against what we've been hearing from the media?

bear laws said:

---

I saw this debate on the forums and was curious, so I took a look. I keep seeing what appears to be both Talarico supporters and detractors touting his "record" while in the Texas legislature, from both positive and negative perspectives (not just in this forum, but throughout the race itself as well).

As an attorney who has some experience in the legislative space here in Texas, I am extremely skeptical that anyone has comprehensively reviewed his record of bills introduced, passed, vetoed, etc, and what exactly was in those bills. That is no easy task, to be fair, but let's not pretend y'all--most people (and to be frank, most of y'all) are citing his "record" based on what is emphasized or highlighted to you by the media, your own self-serving algorithm, and the politicians themselves (both Paxton and Talarico).

If you are interested in giving serious critical thought to his legislative record, I encourage you to visit this site: https://legiscan.com/TX/people/james-talarico/id/20246?record=all&type=bill&status=introduced. It provides a summary of all bills he has introduced, vetoed, passed, scheduled, etc. throughout his time in the legislature. I have used it in my work to examine a legislator's history.

If we are to judge the politician on his record - which we absolutely should do - let's at least be open to an honest and critical assessment of his full record. And for what it's worth, Paxton is infamously considered one of the most corrupt and dirty lawyers in the state amongst attorney circles.

---

I completely agree that people should review the record rather than campaign talking points. The good news is that's much easier today than it used to be.

When you review James Talarico's votes, you find he opposed Texas pro-life legislation, opposed restrictions on transgender treatments for minors, opposed restrictions on transgender sports participation, opposed election-security measures, and has been a leading opponent of school-choice proposals. These are the facts.

People can decide for themselves whether those were good votes, but let's not pretend his record is some mystery. The legislative record is public and it shows a consistently progressive voting pattern. It's easier than ever to determine how Talarico voted.

So to recap:

• Voted against major Texas pro-life legislation and has supported efforts to expand or protect abortion access.

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender medical treatments for minors.

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender participation in girls' sports.

• Opposed multiple election-security and voting-integrity measures supported by Texas Republicans.

• Opposed school-choice and school-voucher proposals.

• Publicly advocated for abortion-rights legislation and sponsored proposals to restore or protect abortion access in Texas.

• Has been a consistent ally of LGBTQ causes and opposed several Republican-backed bills relating to transgender issues.

• Opposed a number of border-security and immigration-enforcement measures advanced by Texas Republicans.

• Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House

That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.

HuMcK said:

---

"You've always taken conservative voters for stupid."

Gas just hit over $4 (again) in the Austin area, diesel at $6. Our standing in the world is lower than it's been in generations, and our allies are starting to hate us. We started the dumbest trade war ever against our allies. We're in a stupid actual hot war with Iran that has no end in sight, and it's caused inflation to come roaring back after Biden had it mostly tamed (hope you enjoy another rate hike this month!).

Trump was handed a golden ticket where all he had to do was shut up, stay out of the way, and take (undeserved) credit. Instead, we got the most predictable sht-storm ever, and it seems like all guy focuses on is his fcking construction projects while he dismisses the problems of ordinary people and shts all over the constitution.

You say I've always taken conservative voters for stupid. I say that if you voted for the current admin and still support it, even going so far as to advocate for giving him more power by voting for yet another crook like Paxton...then, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

---

You've unwittingly proven my point.

My comment was about Talarico. His voting record. His actual votes. His actual positions.

Your response was four paragraphs about Trump.

Whether you're right or wrong about Trump doesn't change a single vote Talarico cast on abortion, transgender issues, school choice, election laws, or border security.

That's exactly what I meant when I said you've always taken conservative voters for stupid. You seem to think we're supposed to ignore a politician's record because he gave a good interview and said a few things we like.

No thanks. I'll judge Talarico the same way I'd judge any politician: by what he did when he held office, not by what he says when he's running for higher office.

As for Trump being handed a "golden ticket," that position is so laughable it's hard to take seriously. Only the most partisan of partisan hacks would say that. Joe Biden left behind a mess: persistent inflation, record illegal immigration, exploding federal debt, two major wars raging abroad, and widespread public concern about his mental fitness. Trump inherited those problems; he didn't create them.

But none of that is even the issue here. So you talk about Trump in an attempt to avoid a very stupid point you were attempting to make.

It's what you do.

Like everything in our modern political age, his record is much more nuanced than Paxton would like you to believe. In my opinion, Talarico's characterizations of his record are closer to reality than Paxton's, although I am sure there are some more controversial bill introductions he would prefer not to emphasize. Most of his legislative work seems to have related to mundane, less controversial issues. Of course, that does not move the needle for the average voter, so most people do not care and see fit to define him based on one or a small handful of issues.

It seems to me that his priority for education policy and "working class" policy is genuine - he introduced many bills concerning both issues. The whole line of ads that he wants to fund minor trans surgeries is not supported by the legislative record. Go to Paxton's ad, which cites the house bill allegedly supporting that claim, and read the bill. He vetoed a complete ban on any "gender affirming care" (however that is defined in the bill), no matter when. That may be objectionable for valid reasons for many people, but that is just misleading to say that he therefore supports the funding of those surgeries. He does seem to be supportive of allowing the right to abortion, at least up to a certain point and in the exception of risk to the life of the mother. He does have a clear record of being bipartisan in working with republicans in the Texas house to pass bills - he co-authored and co-introduced many bills alongside republicans.

I do not think most people will care about an accurate reflection of his record, as average voters (and many on this platform) seem to primarily care only about culture war issues that actually have little to no effect on Americans' lives.

99% of what Senators do is the boring and mundane bills. And those are the bills that are likely to affect the most Americans - even if they get no clicks in the media. So, to me, Talarico's record on the boring and mundane (and every candidate with prior political work for that matter) is most important.

bear laws said:

---

Like everything in our modern political age, his record is much more nuanced than Paxton would like you to believe. In my opinion, Talarico's characterizations of his record are closer to reality than Paxton's, although I am sure there are some more controversial bill introductions he would prefer not to emphasize. Most of his legislative work seems to have related to mundane, less controversial issues. Of course, that does not move the needle for the average voter, so most people do not care and see fit to define him based on one or a small handful of issues.

It seems to me that his priority for education policy and "working class" policy is genuine - he introduced many bills concerning both issues. The whole line of ads that he wants to fund minor trans surgeries is not supported by the legislative record. Go to Paxton's ad, which cites the house bill allegedly supporting that claim, and read the bill. He vetoed a complete ban on any "gender affirming care" (however that is defined in the bill), no matter when. That may be objectionable for valid reasons for many people, but that is just misleading to say that he therefore supports the funding of those surgeries. He does seem to be supportive of allowing the right to abortion, at least up to a certain point and in the exception of risk to the life of the mother. He does have a clear record of being bipartisan in working with republicans in the Texas house to pass bills - he co-authored and co-introduced many bills alongside republicans.

I do not think most people will care about an accurate reflection of his record, as average voters (and many on this platform) seem to primarily care only about culture war issues that actually have little to no effect on Americans' lives.

99% of what Senators do is the boring and mundane bills. And those are the bills that are likely to affect the most Americans - even if they get no clicks in the media. So, to me, Talarico's record on the boring and mundane (and every candidate with prior political work for that matter) is most important.

---

Respectfully, going to have to call b.s. on this one.

While people can certainly debate whether particular attack ads overstate a vote or take a vote out of context (FTR, both sides do this), the underlying votes are still the underlying votes.

Talarico voted against SB 14, the bill prohibiting certain gender-transition treatments for minors. He opposed legislation restricting transgender participation in girls' sports. He has supported abortion-rights legislation and sponsored measures aimed at repealing abortion restrictions. He has generally opposed Republican border-security and school-choice initiatives. Those are not positions typically associated with moderate Texas Democrats.

Now, does he also work on bipartisan education and health-care bills? Sure. Most legislators do. But pointing to routine bipartisan legislation doesn't make someone a moderate if, on the major issues that divide the parties, the legislator consistently votes with the progressive side of the Democratic caucus.

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

Mothra said:

---

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

How do you justify voting for Paxton?

My take is simple:

1. Talarico was already well known as a progressive. He's trying now to scrub his record, to the point of contradicting himself to do so.

2. Talarico's supporters know he is not a conservative, so they are playing along now because getting him elected is the big prize (see Obama 2008 as a 'center-left' candidate, not the extremist he proved to be in office)

3. CNN is not an objective forum for debate/townhalls, and never was.

Johnny Bear said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

A shame it wasn't on Fox so his detractors could see he is a genuine honest candidate. He took on all questions and came across as much more of an Independent than Democrat. He blamed both parties and put and end to the Paxton false accusations on abortion, child sex multination and all the other bogus charges from Paxton.

I think he has been missing because he needed a lot of coaching on how to campaign. He also drew the line in the sand on Netanyahu/Israel. Defended Israel and wants an end to the Iran war.

What's not to like?

---

Sure he comes across like a little Boy Scout with his 1st Grade class picture haircut, but in reality he's a slightly less masculine version of VA gov Spermberger. Say all the "moderate" and "independent" things now, but once in office will push the same hard left crap he is on record as touting while in the legislature before he magically changed his position to run statewide

---

Both Spamberger in VA and Sherrill in NJ are recent glaring examples of this same con. Campaign as a "born again" dumocrat moderate who disavows past statements and policy positions and/or claims that what was clearly expressed support for hard leftist positions were statements "taken out of context", etc. Dupe enough voters to get yourself elected, then govern as the fully loyal, committed dumocrat woke leftist that you really are starting day one. It's incredible how many people continue to fall for this absolute snake oil salesman BS, but such is the nature of our largely dumbed down electorate.

---

This has been a pattern for a long time: Democrats pretending to be "moderate" while governing as extremist radicals.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

How do you justify voting for Paxton?

---

Respectfully, I believe I already answered that question in my original post.

I wrote:

Quote:

---

"I prefer to look at a politician's record, associations, and actions."

---

That's really my voting philosophy. I tend to focus more on policy than personality. I'm not looking for a minister, a motivational speaker, or someone I'd enjoy having dinner with. I'm voting for someone who will exercise political power and cast votes on public policy.

That's why a town hall performance or a well-crafted interview doesn't carry nearly as much weight with me as a candidate's actual record in office. A candidate's legislative record tells me far more about how that candidate is likely to govern than a few months of campaign messaging.

So when I evaluate a candidate, I ask myself a simple question: Do I generally agree with the policies that this person has supported and the votes that this person has cast? If the answer is yes, that candidate will likely get my vote. If the answer is no, that candidate probably won't.

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

How do you justify voting for Paxton?

---

Respectfully, I believe I already answered that question in my original post.

I wrote:

Quote:

---

"I prefer to look at a politician's record, associations, and actions."

---

That's really my voting philosophy. I tend to focus more on policy than personality. I'm not looking for a minister, a motivational speaker, or someone I'd enjoy having dinner with. I'm voting for someone who will exercise political power and cast votes on public policy.

That's why a town hall performance or a well-crafted interview doesn't carry nearly as much weight with me as a candidate's actual record in office. A candidate's legislative record tells me far more about how that candidate is likely to govern than a few months of campaign messaging.

So when I evaluate a candidate, I ask myself a simple question: Do I generally agree with the policies that this person has supported and the votes that this person has cast? If the answer is yes, that candidate will likely get my vote. If the answer is no, that candidate probably won't.

---

Well said. I assume that 99% of politicians are probably not great people - one generally has to do a bit of selling one's soul to get elected.

bear laws said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

Like everything in our modern political age, his record is much more nuanced than Paxton would like you to believe. In my opinion, Talarico's characterizations of his record are closer to reality than Paxton's, although I am sure there are some more controversial bill introductions he would prefer not to emphasize. Most of his legislative work seems to have related to mundane, less controversial issues. Of course, that does not move the needle for the average voter, so most people do not care and see fit to define him based on one or a small handful of issues.

It seems to me that his priority for education policy and "working class" policy is genuine - he introduced many bills concerning both issues. The whole line of ads that he wants to fund minor trans surgeries is not supported by the legislative record. Go to Paxton's ad, which cites the house bill allegedly supporting that claim, and read the bill. He vetoed a complete ban on any "gender affirming care" (however that is defined in the bill), no matter when. That may be objectionable for valid reasons for many people, but that is just misleading to say that he therefore supports the funding of those surgeries. He does seem to be supportive of allowing the right to abortion, at least up to a certain point and in the exception of risk to the life of the mother. He does have a clear record of being bipartisan in working with republicans in the Texas house to pass bills - he co-authored and co-introduced many bills alongside republicans.

I do not think most people will care about an accurate reflection of his record, as average voters (and many on this platform) seem to primarily care only about culture war issues that actually have little to no effect on Americans' lives.

99% of what Senators do is the boring and mundane bills. And those are the bills that are likely to affect the most Americans - even if they get no clicks in the media. So, to me, Talarico's record on the boring and mundane (and every candidate with prior political work for that matter) is most important.

---

Respectfully, going to have to call b.s. on this one.

While people can certainly debate whether particular attack ads overstate a vote or take a vote out of context (FTR, both sides do this), the underlying votes are still the underlying votes.

Talarico voted against SB 14, the bill prohibiting certain gender-transition treatments for minors. He opposed legislation restricting transgender participation in girls' sports. He has supported abortion-rights legislation and sponsored measures aimed at repealing abortion restrictions. He has generally opposed Republican border-security and school-choice initiatives. Those are not positions typically associated with moderate Texas Democrats.

Now, does he also work on bipartisan education and health-care bills? Sure. Most legislators do. But pointing to routine bipartisan legislation doesn't make someone a moderate if, on the major issues that divide the parties, the legislator consistently votes with the progressive side of the Democratic caucus.

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

I am not claiming he is a moderate, just saying his record is more nuanced than Paxton claims. I do not point to the "routine" legislation to say he is a moderate, only to say he is fairly normal on actual issues that affect every American. I believe you can squarely fall into a political camp, while also having normal beliefs on non culture war issues.

And none of the bills you cited = supporting funding transition surgeries. He still might be more protective of trans people than you and I would like, but supporting government payments or subsidies for trans surgeries would obviously be very extreme. All I am saying is that is not his position, based on the record. I also already pointed out that he supports the right to abortion, so not sure your point in emphasizing that again.

"Most" legislators, in fact, are not bipartisan - I can assure you of that as I work with many partisans on both sides of the aisle. I'm not downplaying his record, I just support judging the man based on his entire record. You obviously have firm beliefs on very hot button, culture war issues, but you cannot claim its a judgment based on the full record. I am not even supportive of Talarico, but if you find an objective observation on the nuance of his record to indicate support for him, that says more about your politics than mine.

---

We simply differ on what constitutes an important issue.

I don't view abortion, parental rights, transgender policy, religious liberty, school choice, or border security as mere "culture war" distractions. Many voters, including me, view those as significant public-policy questions that go to the heart of what government should do and what values should inform public life.

So when you say that I am not looking at Talarico's "full record," I would respectfully disagree. I am looking at his full record. I simply place greater weight on the issues where there are fundamental differences in governing philosophy and values.

I think we're actually in agreement that Talarico has a fairly conventional Democratic voting record. We are in Texas after all, and outside of Austin, Texas, you are going to have to moderate your views to get elected.

Where we differ is that you see nuance and bipartisanship within that record, while I see a legislator who, on the issues I consider most consequential, has generally aligned with the progressive side of the Democratic Party. I place far more importance on that than you.

bear laws said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

Like everything in our modern political age, his record is much more nuanced than Paxton would like you to believe. In my opinion, Talarico's characterizations of his record are closer to reality than Paxton's, although I am sure there are some more controversial bill introductions he would prefer not to emphasize. Most of his legislative work seems to have related to mundane, less controversial issues. Of course, that does not move the needle for the average voter, so most people do not care and see fit to define him based on one or a small handful of issues.

It seems to me that his priority for education policy and "working class" policy is genuine - he introduced many bills concerning both issues. The whole line of ads that he wants to fund minor trans surgeries is not supported by the legislative record. Go to Paxton's ad, which cites the house bill allegedly supporting that claim, and read the bill. He vetoed a complete ban on any "gender affirming care" (however that is defined in the bill), no matter when. That may be objectionable for valid reasons for many people, but that is just misleading to say that he therefore supports the funding of those surgeries. He does seem to be supportive of allowing the right to abortion, at least up to a certain point and in the exception of risk to the life of the mother. He does have a clear record of being bipartisan in working with republicans in the Texas house to pass bills - he co-authored and co-introduced many bills alongside republicans.

I do not think most people will care about an accurate reflection of his record, as average voters (and many on this platform) seem to primarily care only about culture war issues that actually have little to no effect on Americans' lives.

99% of what Senators do is the boring and mundane bills. And those are the bills that are likely to affect the most Americans - even if they get no clicks in the media. So, to me, Talarico's record on the boring and mundane (and every candidate with prior political work for that matter) is most important.

---

Respectfully, going to have to call b.s. on this one.

While people can certainly debate whether particular attack ads overstate a vote or take a vote out of context (FTR, both sides do this), the underlying votes are still the underlying votes.

Talarico voted against SB 14, the bill prohibiting certain gender-transition treatments for minors. He opposed legislation restricting transgender participation in girls' sports. He has supported abortion-rights legislation and sponsored measures aimed at repealing abortion restrictions. He has generally opposed Republican border-security and school-choice initiatives. Those are not positions typically associated with moderate Texas Democrats.

Now, does he also work on bipartisan education and health-care bills? Sure. Most legislators do. But pointing to routine bipartisan legislation doesn't make someone a moderate if, on the major issues that divide the parties, the legislator consistently votes with the progressive side of the Democratic caucus.

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

I am not claiming he is a moderate, just saying his record is more nuanced than Paxton claims. I do not point to the "routine" legislation to say he is a moderate, only to say he is fairly normal on actual issues that affect every American. I believe you can squarely fall into a political camp, while also having normal beliefs on non culture war issues.

And none of the bills you cited = supporting funding transition surgeries. He still might be more protective of trans people than you and I would like, but supporting government payments or subsidies for trans surgeries would obviously be very extreme. All I am saying is that is not his position, based on the record. I also already pointed out that he supports the right to abortion, so not sure your point in emphasizing that again.

"Most" legislators, in fact, are not bipartisan - I can assure you of that as I work with many partisans on both sides of the aisle. I'm not downplaying his record, I just support judging the man based on his entire record. You obviously have firm beliefs on very hot button, culture war issues, but you cannot claim its a judgment based on the full record. I am not even supportive of Talarico, but if you find an objective observation on the nuance of his record to indicate support for him, that says more about your politics than mine.

---

Bear Laws
I wish more of us were as interested in approaching politics in this manner and tone. It appears to be pretty much in line with what Paul is encouraging in Romans 13 & 14. As you appear to indicate, no candidate is perfect and won't be. It is up to us to do our own homework and not depend upon the biases of a political party platform or a cable news channel, especially if we only depend on one (any one channel).

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

Like everything in our modern political age, his record is much more nuanced than Paxton would like you to believe. In my opinion, Talarico's characterizations of his record are closer to reality than Paxton's, although I am sure there are some more controversial bill introductions he would prefer not to emphasize. Most of his legislative work seems to have related to mundane, less controversial issues. Of course, that does not move the needle for the average voter, so most people do not care and see fit to define him based on one or a small handful of issues.

It seems to me that his priority for education policy and "working class" policy is genuine - he introduced many bills concerning both issues. The whole line of ads that he wants to fund minor trans surgeries is not supported by the legislative record. Go to Paxton's ad, which cites the house bill allegedly supporting that claim, and read the bill. He vetoed a complete ban on any "gender affirming care" (however that is defined in the bill), no matter when. That may be objectionable for valid reasons for many people, but that is just misleading to say that he therefore supports the funding of those surgeries. He does seem to be supportive of allowing the right to abortion, at least up to a certain point and in the exception of risk to the life of the mother. He does have a clear record of being bipartisan in working with republicans in the Texas house to pass bills - he co-authored and co-introduced many bills alongside republicans.

I do not think most people will care about an accurate reflection of his record, as average voters (and many on this platform) seem to primarily care only about culture war issues that actually have little to no effect on Americans' lives.

99% of what Senators do is the boring and mundane bills. And those are the bills that are likely to affect the most Americans - even if they get no clicks in the media. So, to me, Talarico's record on the boring and mundane (and every candidate with prior political work for that matter) is most important.

---

Respectfully, going to have to call b.s. on this one.

While people can certainly debate whether particular attack ads overstate a vote or take a vote out of context (FTR, both sides do this), the underlying votes are still the underlying votes.

Talarico voted against SB 14, the bill prohibiting certain gender-transition treatments for minors. He opposed legislation restricting transgender participation in girls' sports. He has supported abortion-rights legislation and sponsored measures aimed at repealing abortion restrictions. He has generally opposed Republican border-security and school-choice initiatives. Those are not positions typically associated with moderate Texas Democrats.

Now, does he also work on bipartisan education and health-care bills? Sure. Most legislators do. But pointing to routine bipartisan legislation doesn't make someone a moderate if, on the major issues that divide the parties, the legislator consistently votes with the progressive side of the Democratic caucus.

I realize the Talarico supporters, such as yourself, are going to try and downplay his voting record. But Talarico's actual voting record is much closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party than to politicians like Joe Manchin or the old "Blue Dog" Democrats.

---

I am not claiming he is a moderate, just saying his record is more nuanced than Paxton claims. I do not point to the "routine" legislation to say he is a moderate, only to say he is fairly normal on actual issues that affect every American. I believe you can squarely fall into a political camp, while also having normal beliefs on non culture war issues.

And none of the bills you cited = supporting funding transition surgeries. He still might be more protective of trans people than you and I would like, but supporting government payments or subsidies for trans surgeries would obviously be very extreme. All I am saying is that is not his position, based on the record. I also already pointed out that he supports the right to abortion, so not sure your point in emphasizing that again.

"Most" legislators, in fact, are not bipartisan - I can assure you of that as I work with many partisans on both sides of the aisle. I'm not downplaying his record, I just support judging the man based on his entire record. You obviously have firm beliefs on very hot button, culture war issues, but you cannot claim its a judgment based on the full record. I am not even supportive of Talarico, but if you find an objective observation on the nuance of his record to indicate support for him, that says more about your politics than mine.

---

We simply differ on what constitutes an important issue.

I don't view abortion, parental rights, transgender policy, religious liberty, school choice, or border security as mere "culture war" distractions. Many voters, including me, view those as significant public-policy questions that go to the heart of what government should do and what values should inform public life.

So when you say that I am not looking at Talarico's "full record," I would respectfully disagree. I am looking at his full record. I simply place greater weight on the issues where there are fundamental differences in governing philosophy and values.

I think we're actually in agreement that Talarico has a fairly conventional Democratic voting record. We are in Texas after all, and outside of Austin, Texas, you are going to have to moderate your views to get elected.

Where we differ is that you see nuance and bipartisanship within that record, while I see a legislator who, on the issues I consider most consequential, has generally aligned with the progressive side of the Democratic Party. I place far more importance on that than you.

---

Fair enough. Only thing I will say in rebuttal is that more than half of those issues are currently reserved to the power of state government control. The federal government cannot legislate intrastate issues. A US Senator will not be in a position to implement policy on most of those issues, particularly parental rights, school choice, and religious liberty. And I want to assure you can safely rely on the 1st Amendment and the current court to protect religious liberty (free exercise clause + establishment clause). Although, if you are a consistent believer in religious liberty, those constitutional protections extend to all faiths... but that is not the point of this discussion.

So when I say culture war issues, I am referencing the use of those issues to make people fear for what a candidate might do while in federal power, when they will in fact lack the power to do anything. To be fair to you, some of those issues are obviously within the realm of the Congress' legislative power and I think its a perfectly acceptable policy belief to value those issues more than others.