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.

---

Would that be the vote against a National Abortion Ban bill that Trump promised was not the goal?

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

Yes they do, if that aDuLtErEr is running against a scripture perverting leftist like Talarico. Only conservatives with room temperature IQs help the worst of two evils by abstaining from voting.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

It's garbage because you can't support the return of 2019-2024 if Talarico wins or refute that many Americans are looking for change from 2025-2026, something plaguing Republicans in many races (including here in Georgia). Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

Oh please. Repeating drivel with more words does not make dog puke turn into compelling argument.

And if bad candidates killed a party, the Democrats would have died off decades ago.

Just admit you can't bring yourself to do what's right for the country unless you can virtue pose while posting.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Good evening, BUDOS. First, thank you for your courtesy in your question. My response is rhetorical, because I have seen links get attacked because someone likes this source or that, and I want to make an argument on simple (as I see it) logic.

I will also concede that I am a Republican, and so there is a certain bias in my perspective, Yet I think this election comes down to party foundations. I believe the Democrats and Republicans have both, to some degree, gotten away from their most rational positions of the 1980s, but the Democrats have veered further from those ideals than the Republicans, for reasons which frankly I find irrational.

James Talarico was clearly groomed to be the next incarnation of Beto O'Rourke, and to that end he made a lot of early statements which most Americans would find in conflict with traditional values and normative standards. Some people find those statements appealing, and as far as that goes my only statement would be that I disagree, while allowing people have a right to their opinions.

But after winning the primary race, Mr. Talarico has modified, and in some case contradicted his former position on a number of issues, and pretends not to have made the early statements. That is hypocritical on its face to me, and a large red flag.

Regarding Mr. Paxton, a lot of people dislike his personal problems, but on closer inspection I do not see them disqualifying him as some claim. Essentially, Paxton has two real issues and two attacks against him which are fabricated by political enemies. Paxton is getting divorced from his wife for one issue, and of course he faced impeachment from the Texas House. In the matter of the divorce, like many high-profile breakups this one had some noise, but it was hardly a scandal in an age where so many Presidents, just for comparison, have been divorced and still did their jobs fine. In the matter of the impeachment, Paxton made some political enemies who championed the impeachment, and while Paxton's reputation took some damage, in the end the claims fell short of proof and there was no conviction. It's not what any politician would want on his resume, but it's not evidence of corruption as some pretend.

Paxton has also faced two waves of attacks which were built on pure spite. As I mentioned, Paxton built a career which has had a degree of polarized positions, and those politicians who hate Paxton have made great noise pretending he is a criminal or worse. And there is also John Cornyn, whose hypocritical narcissism cost him in the primaries this year, and rather than face up to his failures, the Establishment Cornyn prefers to go after Paxton, to the degree that he is practically campaigning for Talarico. Again, this is not out of principle but ego.

So in the end, my choice was not for Paxton to be the GOP candidate, but I must support the GOP, or by default the Democrats if I choose not to vote. Paxton's marital status and his impeachment are stains, but neither disqualify Paxton, as I support the policy positions he has taken.

Talarico, on the other hand, represents a party known for policies I find abhorrent, and I have no doubt Talarico would go along with them, I also consider James Talarico less honest than Paxton as a candidate, because he has changed his positions without admitting he changed, and I do not find his new claims credible, when compared to his actual voting record.

---

To ATL Bear, read through the two posts above.

This is how adults discuss the issue. If you can reach that level of discussion, you will get a response at that level. Continue to act like you write for the NY Times, and you will continue to be treated at that level.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

I hate the campaign season when every candidate is a perfect reprobate according to their opponents. And those opponents feel the need to regurgitate that sentiment all over my phone as well as on every advertising platform available. How am I supposed to relax and watch a perfectly good Sabine Hossenfelder YouTube video when candidates keep mudding my viewing pleasure?

There is no way I am allowing anyone telling me, "How can you possibly vote for that guy!" to affect my vote.

Tell me the positive about the candidate you like. (That doesn't include something on the line that your favorite candidate isn't So and So. That is just more goofball garbage) What are his/her policy stances that you think are great. Why are those policies good for us? Then I might listen. I may still not like the policy stances of your candidate, and I would be happy to say why other policy stances are better, but we would at least not have to engage in the stupid degradation of candidates we don't like.

I will do my best to not get dragged into such any more, unless it is talking about candidates in general for comedic relief. Kind of like lawyer and used car salesmen jokes.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

---

The right answer is to get involved with your party of choice and work your way into having clout to influence that party's candidate choices.

If enough people will do that and get frustrated by the deaf ears of major parties, then a new party would have a better chance to gain traction. We have become complacent in our political activities as average Americans.

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

---

The right answer is to get involved with your party of choice and work your way into having clout to influence that party's candidate choices.

If enough people will do that and get frustrated by the deaf ears of major parties, then a new party would have a better chance to gain traction. We have become complacent in our political activities as average Americans.

---

Nah, these yahoos believe it's best just to take your ball, go home, and wait it out for the perfect candidate as guys like Talarico get elected.

But boy are they sending a message!

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

---

You've been saying that for, what, 20 years?

Maybe one of these days they'll hear your protest.

Compagno: Talarico appears weak or horrifying.

Watters: Yeah but Paxton has a lazy eye and this whiff or corruption around him. There’s just something off-putting about him. pic.twitter.com/Oklp35XqlZ

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 15, 2026

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

---

You've been saying that for, what, 20 years?

Maybe one of these days they'll hear your protest.

---

Too many of us gripe about the candidates and the political issues--and that is all we do. That is not what the Founding Fathers were depending upon. Perhaps Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about, and that is a key reason we are not doing too well. However, if we are the cause, perhaps some of us will get off our griping butts and actually become more politically active, regardless of you political, social, economic, etc. views. Perhaps......

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

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

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

What's not to like?

---

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

---

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

---

did you get my speeding ticket fixed yet, Mr. Scissorhands?

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

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

---

you queer little boy? Openly sexual? And that means what?

Oldbear83 said:

---

ABC BEAR said:

---

Never vote for any democrat, under any circumstances.

---

No one who loves America votes for Democrats

---

that may be the dumbest, most ill informed post ever by you and that is saying something. Ds are the Antichrist. Queers and Trans folks coming for ya! Hide

Mothra said:

---

That's why I evaluate candidates primarily on how loyal they are to Israel.

---

We know...

BUDOS said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

There was nothing to refute. You offered a garbage post, so I treated it according to your standard.

Check my response to BUDOS, if you want to see what a proper post gets for a response.

---

Supporting bad candidates and abandoning principles will just perpetuate the continued decline of the conservative movement.

---

And of the nation. It's incredibly short-sighted.

---

You've been saying that for, what, 20 years?

Maybe one of these days they'll hear your protest.

---

Too many of us gripe about the candidates and the political issues--and that is all we do. That is not what the Founding Fathers were depending upon. Perhaps Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about, and that is a key reason we are not doing too well. However, if we are the cause, perhaps some of us will get off our griping butts and actually become more politically active, regardless of you political, social, economic, etc. views. Perhaps......

---

Yes.

Between video games and other entertainment options, of course. As soon as I pass level 36 and post in one more social media site.

And in BarB's case, as soon as he gets past junvolk and finally into Reichsarbeitsdienst.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

Good evening, BUDOS. First, thank you for your courtesy in your question. My response is rhetorical, because I have seen links get attacked because someone likes this source or that, and I want to make an argument on simple (as I see it) logic.

I will also concede that I am a Republican, and so there is a certain bias in my perspective, Yet I think this election comes down to party foundations. I believe the Democrats and Republicans have both, to some degree, gotten away from their most rational positions of the 1980s, but the Democrats have veered further from those ideals than the Republicans, for reasons which frankly I find irrational.

James Talarico was clearly groomed to be the next incarnation of Beto O'Rourke, and to that end he made a lot of early statements which most Americans would find in conflict with traditional values and normative standards. Some people find those statements appealing, and as far as that goes my only statement would be that I disagree, while allowing people have a right to their opinions.

But after winning the primary race, Mr. Talarico has modified, and in some case contradicted his former position on a number of issues, and pretends not to have made the early statements. That is hypocritical on its face to me, and a large red flag.

Regarding Mr. Paxton, a lot of people dislike his personal problems, but on closer inspection I do not see them disqualifying him as some claim. Essentially, Paxton has two real issues and two attacks against him which are fabricated by political enemies. Paxton is getting divorced from his wife for one issue, and of course he faced impeachment from the Texas House. In the matter of the divorce, like many high-profile breakups this one had some noise, but it was hardly a scandal in an age where so many Presidents, just for comparison, have been divorced and still did their jobs fine. In the matter of the impeachment, Paxton made some political enemies who championed the impeachment, and while Paxton's reputation took some damage, in the end the claims fell short of proof and there was no conviction. It's not what any politician would want on his resume, but it's not evidence of corruption as some pretend.

Paxton has also faced two waves of attacks which were built on pure spite. As I mentioned, Paxton built a career which has had a degree of polarized positions, and those politicians who hate Paxton have made great noise pretending he is a criminal or worse. And there is also John Cornyn, whose hypocritical narcissism cost him in the primaries this year, and rather than face up to his failures, the Establishment Cornyn prefers to go after Paxton, to the degree that he is practically campaigning for Talarico. Again, this is not out of principle but ego.

So in the end, my choice was not for Paxton to be the GOP candidate, but I must support the GOP, or by default the Democrats if I choose not to vote. Paxton's marital status and his impeachment are stains, but neither disqualify Paxton, as I support the policy positions he has taken.

Talarico, on the other hand, represents a party known for policies I find abhorrent, and I have no doubt Talarico would go along with them, I also consider James Talarico less honest than Paxton as a candidate, because he has changed his positions without admitting he changed, and I do not find his new claims credible, when compared to his actual voting record.

---

To ATL Bear, read through the two posts above.

This is how adults discuss the issue. If you can reach that level of discussion, you will get a response at that level. Continue to act like you write for the NY Times, and you will continue to be treated at that level.

---

"Start posting like an adult like I do, ATLBear! You garbage, drivel, and dog puke-producing commenter!"

LOL.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

J.R. said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

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

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

What's not to like?

---

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

---

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

---

did you get my speeding ticket fixed yet, Mr. Scissorhands?

---

The funny thing is, I've kicked your law firms ass on many occasions.

How's the Indonesian ****** boyfriend Oompa Loompa?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

That's why I evaluate candidates primarily on how loyal they are to Israel.

---

We know...

---

Glad to see our resident neo Nazi leftist making an appearance

J.R. said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

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

---

you queer little boy? Openly sexual? And that means what?

---

Man, are you infatuated with homos. That's literally all you talk about.

How many men are you currently sleeping with?

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Danielsjackson114 said:

---

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

---

you queer little boy? Openly sexual? And that means what?

---

Man, are you infatuated with homos. That's literally all you talk about.

Right on suburban scissorhands! . You still the smartest guy in the room? You still asking people to compare K1? lol that was funny. Now go roll big momma in flour and find the wet spot!

How many men are you currently sleeping with?

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

---

You'll vote for a Yellow Dog if he is a Republican

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

---

You'll vote for a Yellow Dog if he is a Republican

---

I will address this new point in a minute, but I'm still trying to understand how I'm a populist. So let me try again: what evidence do you have of that position? Is it because I voted for Trump? The only way we're gonna have a dialogue is if you can answer simple questions seeking to understand your position rather than avoiding them.

With respect to who I would vote for, are you saying as between a yellow dog Democrat and a socialist leftist I would vote for the yellow dog Democrat?

If so, you are exactly right. I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose policies are more in line with my worldview and values as opposed to the candidate who policies and worldview are diametrically opposed to my values.

That's what reasonable adults do.

The hilarious thing about that is you see your position as somehow more honorable or noble than mine when it is your position that will lead to to the progressive and/or socialist getting elected. That's what makes absolutely no sense.

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

---

You'll vote for a Yellow Dog if he is a Republican

---

I will address this new point in a minute, but I'm still trying to understand how I'm a populist. So let me try again: what evidence do you have of that position? Is it because I voted for Trump? The only way we're gonna have a dialogue is if you can answer simple questions seeking to understand your position rather than avoiding them.

With respect to who I would vote for, are you saying as between a yellow dog Democrat and a socialist leftist I would vote for the yellow dog Democrat?

If so, you are exactly right. I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose policies are more in line with my worldview and values as opposed to the candidate who policies and worldview are diametrically opposed to my values.

That's what reasonable adults do.

The hilarious thing about that is you see your position as somehow more honorable or noble than mine when it is your position that will lead to to the progressive and/or socialist getting elected. That's what makes absolutely no sense.

---

You nominated a crook , serial adulterer and demand I vote for him? I won't vote for Talarico or Paxton

I think Paxton probably pulls it out, but he'll have to do it without me. I'm a ticket splitting Independent not a slave on your Trump plantation.

You don't understand the Yellow Dog voter tradition. You'd vote for the most unqualified Republican over a qualified Democrat. "My party first"
Who is the last Democrat you voted for?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

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

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

What's not to like?

---

What's not to like, lol.

The dude is a flaming liberal progressive. He absolutely supports policies that are not good for Texas or America and certainly not for decent people.

Being a nice ghey wad doesn't qualify you for a position that is all about legislating policies. He's made his positions clear over the years and has only put on a fake face.

Some of you guys are such dupes and you'll sell out kids in the name of fake niceness. You'll advocate for a guy whose policies are ridiculous ... in the name of being anti paxton. Each of you are so easily manipulated by tv.

Last, when men just "overlook" candidates who are pro chemically castrating kids, pro celebrating lgbtqxyz in elementary school, pro kid transing, you've lost your souls. You're not men, you are a mockery of the definition of man.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

---

You'll vote for a Yellow Dog if he is a Republican

---

I will address this new point in a minute, but I'm still trying to understand how I'm a populist. So let me try again: what evidence do you have of that position? Is it because I voted for Trump? The only way we're gonna have a dialogue is if you can answer simple questions seeking to understand your position rather than avoiding them.

With respect to who I would vote for, are you saying as between a yellow dog Democrat and a socialist leftist I would vote for the yellow dog Democrat?

If so, you are exactly right. I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose policies are more in line with my worldview and values as opposed to the candidate who policies and worldview are diametrically opposed to my values.

That's what reasonable adults do.

The hilarious thing about that is you see your position as somehow more honorable or noble than mine when it is your position that will lead to to the progressive and/or socialist getting elected. That's what makes absolutely no sense.

---

You nominated a crook , serial adulterer and demand I vote for him? I won't vote for Talarico or Paxton

I think Paxton probably pulls it out, but he'll have to do it without me. I'm a ticket splitting Independent not a slave on your Trump plantation.

You don't understand the Yellow Dog voter tradition. You'd vote for the most unqualified Republican over a qualified Democrat. "My party first"
Who is the last Democrat you voted for?

---

you're so lost, can't see past "trump bad" or "paxton bad".

The term is Yellow Dog democrat, and it was specific to Dems for a reason. As for being "independent", the policies of the left today aren't "reasonable" by any stretch. Every democrat from the 80's, 90's would sound more like a conservative today than they do a democrat. The blue dog democrats left the party about a decade ago. All that is left is the yellow dogs and morons.

So get off your fake high horse and stop pretending that you've got the high ground. Voting for liberal policies has LONG term impacts that affect the whole state and nation. They will absolutely ensure that our kids and communities are worsened for generations. Voting for a less than great guy who will vote for policies that are healthy for our state is certainly the better option.

You're not even smart enough these days to care about long term impact of liberal policies on our kids and on our state. As bad as Trump's persona has been, the fact that we have a fighter in office has led to some pretty great things from a culture perspective - the progressives are being called out, while people like you just let them roll over traditional masculinity and femininity, you allowed them to put men in women's restrooms (supported it actually), stood quiet while the put males in womens sports, stood super quiet while they transed kids and messed with their sexuality at the earliest of ages. Shameful really.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

Conservatives don't have to vote for a dishonest adulterer. You're not conservative

---

They don't have to vote for anybody, but if they don't, instead they get the gay, trannie-loving eunuch whose policies are the antithesis of their values.

That's why smart conservatives and actual conservatives will pull the trigger for Paxton. But it sounds like you prefer the gay, progressive who loves trannies.

And I'll put my bona fides up against you any day of the week. What's the last Repub you voted for?

---

You're a party first Republican, nobody disputes that. You're a populist, not a conservative.

I voted for Trump in 2024

---

Just so I'm clear, you believe I'm a populist because I voted for Trump? I'm trying to figure out what evidence you have of your position other than that.

By the way, does that also mean that you're a populist if you voted for Trump?

Your argument makes no sense

---

You'll vote for a Yellow Dog if he is a Republican

---

I will address this new point in a minute, but I'm still trying to understand how I'm a populist. So let me try again: what evidence do you have of that position? Is it because I voted for Trump? The only way we're gonna have a dialogue is if you can answer simple questions seeking to understand your position rather than avoiding them.

With respect to who I would vote for, are you saying as between a yellow dog Democrat and a socialist leftist I would vote for the yellow dog Democrat?

If so, you are exactly right. I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose policies are more in line with my worldview and values as opposed to the candidate who policies and worldview are diametrically opposed to my values.

That's what reasonable adults do.

The hilarious thing about that is you see your position as somehow more honorable or noble than mine when it is your position that will lead to to the progressive and/or socialist getting elected. That's what makes absolutely no sense.

---

You nominated a crook , serial adulterer and demand I vote for him? I won't vote for Talarico or Paxton

I think Paxton probably pulls it out, but he'll have to do it without me. I'm a ticket splitting Independent not a slave on your Trump plantation.

You don't understand the Yellow Dog voter tradition. You'd vote for the most unqualified Republican over a qualified Democrat. "My party first"
Who is the last Democrat you voted for?

---

OK now this is the third time you haven't answered the question. Let me try it one more time and then if you don't answer it, I'll just conclude your purposely avoiding it because you know it was a stupid point. Whatever evidence do you have that I am a populist? Is it because I voted for Trump? And I guess a related question since you can't seem to answer those two pretty easy ones. Do you understand what a populist is?

As for Trump, how did I nominate him? How did I nominate Paxton? You seem to be attributing personal responsibility to me for the candidate we ended up with. However, I utilized the Democratic process of voting for another candidate in the primary. So how does that make me responsible for either Trump or Paxton?

Again, if we're going to have a discussion, you will be required to answer some basic and easy questions instead of avoid avoiding them.

The slave on the Trump plantation line is hilarious. It just goes to show you're not really an adult or serious person. And you're probably not even really a conservative. I'm going to vote for the candidate whose policies most closely aligned with my values. It's probably going to be the rare occasion when that's a Democrat. However, if Joe mansion or John Fetterman was running against Paxton in this race, you bet I'd vote for them.

The problem is those type of guys aren't winning Democrat primaries nowadays. Instead, it's democratic, socialist and leftist like Tallarico. And as between the two, you bet, I am going to vote for the individual who more closely aligns with my values. That's what any reasonable person would do.

Present company, excluded of course. These aren't difficult concepts. They're adult concepts. Sometimes adults have to make difficult choices instead of taking their ball and going home.

.

Jimmy told a bunch of whoppers as expected, but of course CNN never "Fact Checks" Democrats and did not Jimmy.

Claim: Jimmy claimed he passed 60 "bipartisan bills"
Reality: 10

1. A highway naming
2. A utility district
3. Dam work for a water district
4. Only seven substantive laws in four terms

Zero became law in 2025.

Claim: authored "largest early childhood education bill in our state's history"
Reality: co-authored with a Republican

Claim: Insulin cap bill
Reality: Written by a Republican. Jimmy's bill died in committee

Jimmy like a real Democrat is taking credit for other's work.