Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Perhaps they recognize that no candidate is perfect, and compared to the other one, this one may be more palatable, even with his warts. As for CNN not being an objective forum, which one would you suggest? C-Span?
Based on the questions which were asked, and that they interrupted and challenged him, and that he did have to stumble and dodge a bit, I think the format, on live television, while not perfect, had merit. What would you suggest?

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

What if both people had the same record but the party was different? Talarico was a republican and Paxton, still a crook (pro life, cheater, anti trans in girl sports, etc), but a democrat?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a cheater?

---

That word is out of line, I think. Please show where Paxton has been convicted of anything.

I see an absurd double standard, in that people are supposed to accept claims about Paxton made by his enemies, but only accept claims about Talarico that come from his friends.

---

bear laws said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

I agree that some issues I mentioned are primarily state matters. But I don't think that makes them irrelevant in a Senate race. Congress routinely legislates on issues involving civil rights, religious liberty, marriage, workplace discrimination, federal funding, and other social-policy questions. Senators also vote on federal judges and Supreme Court justices who often end up deciding those issues. So while a senator may not directly set Texas school policy, a candidate's positions on these questions still tell voters a great deal about how he would exercise federal power and what values he would bring to the office.

That is why it sounds like I place far more significance on them than you.

---

Not looking for a policy fight here, I am not going to change your mind. Plus we probably agree on more than you think. Only will return to my original point that while the issues you care about most obviously matter, they are not the entire measure of his legislative record.

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Perhaps they recognize that no candidate is perfect, and compared to the other one, this one may be more palatable, even with his warts. As for CNN not being an objective forum, which one would you suggest? C-Span?
Based on the questions which were asked, and that they interrupted and challenged him, and that he did have to stumble and dodge a bit, I think the format, on live television, while not perfect, had merit. What would you suggest?

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

bear laws said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

You can't be serious can you? ALL of those issues have been hot topics by the left at the National level with them wanting to pass legislation to control all of those state issues.

---

Rhetoric doesn't mean much to me when you have the law, so what is a "hot topic" does not mean much. I am focused on what can actually and likely happen. Certain issues remain with the states and if any law is passed in Congress, by either party, infringing on that constitutional structure then the other party will sue and the bill will be stricken down. I regularly counsel legislators that introducing a specific law is futile because it will wind up in court - y'all would be surprised to know how many laws are DOA because of likelihood of litigation.

---

bear laws said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

You can't be serious can you? ALL of those issues have been hot topics by the left at the National level with them wanting to pass legislation to control all of those state issues.

---

Rhetoric doesn't mean much to me when you have the law, so what is a "hot topic" does not mean much. I am focused on what can actually and likely happen. Certain issues remain with the states and if any law is passed in Congress, by either party, infringing on that constitutional structure then the other party will sue and the bill will be stricken down. I regularly counsel legislators that introducing a specific law is futile because it will wind up in court - y'all would be surprised to know how many laws are DOA because of likelihood of litigation.

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

You can't be serious can you? ALL of those issues have been hot topics by the left at the National level with them wanting to pass legislation to control all of those state issues.

---

Rhetoric doesn't mean much to me when you have the law, so what is a "hot topic" does not mean much. I am focused on what can actually and likely happen. Certain issues remain with the states and if any law is passed in Congress, by either party, infringing on that constitutional structure then the other party will sue and the bill will be stricken down. I regularly counsel legislators that introducing a specific law is futile because it will wind up in court - y'all would be surprised to know how many laws are DOA because of likelihood of litigation.

---

Just to be clear, the fact that the candidate can vote on national legislation and judges is something that shouldn't concern us, or is something we should take less seriously?

I am trying to understand your position, but it isn't making much sense to me.

---

Mothra said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Perhaps they recognize that no candidate is perfect, and compared to the other one, this one may be more palatable, even with his warts. As for CNN not being an objective forum, which one would you suggest? C-Span?
Based on the questions which were asked, and that they interrupted and challenged him, and that he did have to stumble and dodge a bit, I think the format, on live television, while not perfect, had merit. What would you suggest?

---

Agreed. So the question is: do you want the candidate who promotes policy more in line with conservative and traditional values if you are conservative, or the candidate who supports the opposite?

It should be an easy choice if you're a conservative or traditionalist.

---

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?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Paxton is saying the same things about policy as he always did.

Talarico has changed his positions over his campaign. From silly things like starting as a vegan then putting out ads showing him eating BBQ when he remembered he's in Texas, to more serious switches on the Border, transgender participation in girls' sports, and more support for Oil & Gas companies. All of those changes conveniently after beating Jasmine Crockett for the Democrats' spot on the ballot.

If you take Talarico at his word, you are either gullible or as dishonest as he is. At least Paxton is consistent in his policies, which is where voters should focus their decision.

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

bear laws said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear laws said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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.

---

You can't be serious can you? ALL of those issues have been hot topics by the left at the National level with them wanting to pass legislation to control all of those state issues.

---

Rhetoric doesn't mean much to me when you have the law, so what is a "hot topic" does not mean much. I am focused on what can actually and likely happen. Certain issues remain with the states and if any law is passed in Congress, by either party, infringing on that constitutional structure then the other party will sue and the bill will be stricken down. I regularly counsel legislators that introducing a specific law is futile because it will wind up in court - y'all would be surprised to know how many laws are DOA because of likelihood of litigation.

---

And in the mean time the law is in effect and harming people. Or worse, the structure of the court changes and they feel it is ok so it stays in place.

Example, I think everyone in society today would agree that separate is NOT equal..... but Plessy V Ferguson shows us the make up of the court can often be wrong in their ruling.

I would rather not vote for people that want to vote/pass unconstitutional things.

---

You sound conservative (apologies if wrong assumption), so I assume you're a Trump voter. But if you do not want to vote for people that want to do unconstitutional things.... boy oh boy

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I agree with much of what you say and your rationale, especially about a media town hall &/or debate versus a true debate format. Like others on these forums I am one of those who surf cable news, so I disagree that CNN is the worst. If I recall correctly, and it has been awhile, nonprofit media evaluator agencies agree.

For the most part I am enjoying reading these posts and their overall content and tone. Hope it continues.

---

The whole "non-profit media agencies" thing itself is a biased scam. It is easy to actually look at reality and realize things CNN has lied to you about:

1. Joe Biden's senility
2. Hunter's laptop
3. The Russia Hoax
4. Trump "banned Muslims"
5. "Both sides" in Charlottesville
6. "Hands up, don't shoot"
7. George Floyd was a gentle giant
8. Jacob Blake was unarmed
9. "Mostly peaceful protests"
10. Daniel Penny

That was literally off the top of my head. The difference is I can share specifics and not rely on an "expert" to tell me what is real.

---