iknowurname said:Oldbear83 said:
A dishonest answer from you again, proving you are truly a Talarico supporter.
Not a Talarico supporter. Just a hater of corrupt politicians, manufactured issues, and the Epstein class - and therefore, Paxton. I just think everyone else should be a hater of those things too.
HuMcK said:
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.
ABC BEAR said:
Never vote for any democrat, under any circumstances.
Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
BUDOS said:
I'm a moderate conservative who usually votes Republican, and worries that the three branches of government are not operating as originally intended. On the other hand, in my opinion, too many citizens are not sufficiently informed nor involved in the political process. If we were I would hope we would have better candidates and more than two political parties of significance.
The third option is to not vote for either.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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
Wrong party power structure. That's party politics.GrowlTowel said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
The Republican Party spent approximately 200m to keep Paxton off the November ballot. Try again.
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.
And before you ask, of course I've voted for people I didn't vote for in the primaries. But we're talking about someone people openly admit is a scumbag and horrible person, crook, terrible candidate, etc., yet you're willing to cast a vote in some defensive move argument. Sorry, my vote still requires earning it, and I'm happy to write in who I'd prefer. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate this race to the bottom. Maybe losing is the necessary lesson to demand better.
In the last 25 years, Republicans have controlled the House 18 of them. The Senate and the Presidency 13 of them. What do you think is going to happen?Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.
And before you ask, of course I've voted for people I didn't vote for in the primaries. But we're talking about someone people openly admit is a scumbag and horrible person, crook, terrible candidate, etc., yet you're willing to cast a vote in some defensive move argument. Sorry, my vote still requires earning it, and I'm happy to write in who I'd prefer. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate this race to the bottom. Maybe losing is the necessary lesson to demand better.
Poor logic, since not voting means you are accepting whatever gets elected, and that often means adults letting immature people vote per emotion.
That's what is going on here. Paxton is not what most of us want, but he's far better and less dangerous to our nation than Talarico.
You claim letting Talarico take power may be a 'necessary lesson'. History shows that kind of stupidity does not end well.
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Mothra said:Mitch Blood Green said:Mothra said:bear laws said:
dy forgotteI 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.
And before you ask, of course I've voted for people I didn't vote for in the primaries. But we're talking about someone people openly admit is a scumbag and horrible person, crook, terrible candidate, etc., yet you're willing to cast a vote in some defensive move argument. Sorry, my vote still requires earning it, and I'm happy to write in who I'd prefer. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate this race to the bottom. Maybe losing is the necessary lesson to demand better.
Poor logic, since not voting means you are accepting whatever gets elected, and that often means adults letting immature people vote per emotion.
That's what is going on here. Paxton is not what most of us want, but he's far better and less dangerous to our nation than Talarico.
You claim letting Talarico take power may be a 'necessary lesson'. History shows that kind of stupidity does not end well.
In the last 25 years, Republicans have controlled the House 18 of them. The Senate and the Presidency 13 of them. What do you think is going to happen?
bear laws said: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.
I am not as concerned on a candidate's position on legislation that has no chance of passing in comparison to issues actually at stake.
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
Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
BUDOS said:
Okay, I'm going to ask you a question because you usually respond rationally. As someone who spent my first 30 years in Texas, but now live in Missouri, I get a limited amount of the Paxton/Talarico contest. Why is Paxton, with all his luggage, a better candidate for Texas and the country, than Talarico?
If you choose to respond, and it makes it easier,I am fine with links for me to read. I also understand if you choose not to, as I obviously won't be voting for either one.
Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Because of a junior Senator from Texas? Mmmkay…Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Mothra said:Mitch Blood Green said:Mothra said:bear laws said:
dy forgotteI 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.
And before you ask, of course I've voted for people I didn't vote for in the primaries. But we're talking about someone people openly admit is a scumbag and horrible person, crook, terrible candidate, etc., yet you're willing to cast a vote in some defensive move argument. Sorry, my vote still requires earning it, and I'm happy to write in who I'd prefer. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate this race to the bottom. Maybe losing is the necessary lesson to demand better.
Poor logic, since not voting means you are accepting whatever gets elected, and that often means adults letting immature people vote per emotion.
That's what is going on here. Paxton is not what most of us want, but he's far better and less dangerous to our nation than Talarico.
You claim letting Talarico take power may be a 'necessary lesson'. History shows that kind of stupidity does not end well.
In the last 25 years, Republicans have controlled the House 18 of them. The Senate and the Presidency 13 of them. What do you think is going to happen?
2019-2024 all over again, or did you forget those years?
There's the OB we know! Can't refute, so goes to the insults.Oldbear83 said:
Thank you for your opinion, Mrs. Talarico.
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
Thank you for your opinion, Mrs. Talarico.
There's the OB we know! Can't refute, so goes to the insults.
Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Not sure who you guys are. I'd take any votes.
But I am sure you will sit it out anyway for a more principled candidate, all the while letting guys like Talarico take office. Will be interesting if he's the deciding vote in some sort of abortion legislation.
Not that y'all care.
Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Not sure who you guys are. I'd take any votes.
But I am sure you will sit it out anyway for a more principled candidate, all the while letting guys like Talarico take office. Will be interesting if he's the deciding vote in some sort of abortion legislation.
Not that y'all care.
You guys nominated a crook & blame us for not voting for him
Oldbear83 said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Not sure who you guys are. I'd take any votes.
But I am sure you will sit it out anyway for a more principled candidate, all the while letting guys like Talarico take office. Will be interesting if he's the deciding vote in some sort of abortion legislation.
Not that y'all care.
You guys nominated a crook & blame us for not voting for him
Spoken like the Democrat you have chosen to become
Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Not sure who you guys are. I'd take any votes.
But I am sure you will sit it out anyway for a more principled candidate, all the while letting guys like Talarico take office. Will be interesting if he's the deciding vote in some sort of abortion legislation.
Not that y'all care.
You guys nominated a crook & blame us for not voting for him
Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Osodecentx said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry 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.
Since the 1st Amendment was significantly weakened by Employment Division v. Smith, too much of our religious liberty now depends on RFRA. There's also nothing to stop Congress from legislating a right to abortion.
And yet you're going to sit election out, despite what may be at stake.
You guys don't want RINOs despoiling MAGA
Not sure who you guys are. I'd take any votes.
But I am sure you will sit it out anyway for a more principled candidate, all the while letting guys like Talarico take office. Will be interesting if he's the deciding vote in some sort of abortion legislation.
Not that y'all care.
You guys nominated a crook & blame us for not voting for him
I didn't vote for Paxton. But he ended up being the candidate, despite my voting for Cornyn.
That being the case, I am going to put my big boy pants on, act like an adult (instead of a whiny little baby), and vote for Paxton so the progressives don't turn Texas blue.
And yes, it is your ilk who will share much of the blame if Talarico wins.
Again, not that y'all care. You aren't really conservatives anyway.
ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear said:Oldbear83 said:ATL Bear 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.
That's James Talarico - like I said, a sheep in wolves clothing and not some independent moderate.
- Consistently voted with the Democratic caucus and is widely viewed as one of the more progressive members of the Texas House
That's not a sheep. It's a choice. Would you prefer a liberal more than a crook?
Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.
The third option is to not vote for either.
And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.
Actually, you're letting someone else make the choice for you. By succumbing to party power structure and choosing to succumb to candidates you would normally never support, you're the one abdicating your decision.
So you don't vote in the primaries?
Of course. If I would never vote for someone in a primary election, why would I vote for them in the general? That's succumbing to the party power structure.
And before you ask, of course I've voted for people I didn't vote for in the primaries. But we're talking about someone people openly admit is a scumbag and horrible person, crook, terrible candidate, etc., yet you're willing to cast a vote in some defensive move argument. Sorry, my vote still requires earning it, and I'm happy to write in who I'd prefer. Otherwise we continue to perpetuate this race to the bottom. Maybe losing is the necessary lesson to demand better.
