Mothra said:

---

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?

---

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.

They're adult concepts. Sometimes adults have to make difficult choices instead of taking their ball and going home.

.

---

iI we're going to have a discussion, you will be required to answer some basic and easy questions instead of avoid avoiding them. Who is the last Democrat for whom you voted? Why are you trying to avoid responsibility for the nomination of Paxton? You nominated a crook , serial adulterer and demand I vote for him? Sometimes adults have to make difficult choices instead of taking orders from Trump. I don't expect a Yellow Dog Republican to understand this.
"My party right or wrong".

Who is the last Democrat you voted for? We all know you have voted for a Democrat. Who?

You're just a MAGA echo chamber

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

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.

---

Does Reichsarbeitsdienst mean "dry behind the ears," by chance?

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

So to recap:

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

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender medical treatments for minors.

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

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

• Opposed school-choice and school-voucher proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

The third option is to not vote for either.

---

And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.

---

whitetrash said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

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

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

What's not to like?

---

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

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

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

---

How is it different than the GOP? They are just as bad, Vance just said the GOP has conceded that the nominee will be hand picked by Donald.

They way I see it you have a choice.

1 - Vote for the GOP and watch Elon and Donald Jr (i.e. the wealthy) continue to line their pockets through contracts.

or

2 - Vote Democratic and the money will go to social programs that just maybe my family has a shot at getting?

Will the Dems back some crazy ass **** that will 99% not impact my or my family's life? Sure. But, hell the GOP is in a war with Iran, a love affair with Kim-NK, and is siding with Putin! Trump is setting aside law to help Putin. What's crazier?

Ummm... Donald Jr getting another drone contract or my son's student loan being paid off?????

Sorry, guys you made this transactional. Now you are pissed when people start voting that way. No more "shining city of the hill" or the "Pearly Gates being guarded by US Marines". We are in pay-me world. Donald brought that main stream...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

So to recap:

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

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender medical treatments for minors.

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

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

• Opposed school-choice and school-voucher proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

The third option is to not vote for either.

---

And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.

---

---

Good old PJ...that guy was hilarious.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

So to recap:

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

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender medical treatments for minors.

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

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

• Opposed school-choice and school-voucher proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

The third option is to not vote for either.

---

And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.

---

---

So you take your guidance from past populists?

Me, I use reason and a knowledge of History. I get it though, those things trigger you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

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

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

What's not to like?

---

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

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

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

---

How is it different than the GOP? They are just as bad, Vance just said the GOP has conceded that the nominee will be hand picked by Donald.

They way I see it you have a choice.

1 - Vote for the GOP and watch Elon and Donald Jr (i.e. the wealthy) continue to line their pockets through contracts.

or

2 - Vote Democratic and the money will go to social programs that just maybe my family has a shot at getting?

Will the Dems back some crazy ass **** that will 99% not impact my or my family's life? Sure. But, hell the GOP is in a war with Iran, a love affair with Kim-NK, and is siding with Putin! Trump is setting aside law to help Putin. What's crazier?

Ummm... Donald Jr getting another drone contract or my son's student loan being paid off?????

Sorry, guys you made this transactional. Now you are pissed when people start voting that way. No more "shining city of the hill" or the "Pearly Gates being guarded by US Marines". We are in pay-me world. Donald brought that main stream...

---

That's definitely one of the funnier posts in a while. Of course it's sad because I actually think you believe it. You do not hate so-called corruption, you just hate Trump.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

bear laws said:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

So to recap:

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

• Voted against legislation restricting transgender medical treatments for minors.

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

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

• Opposed school-choice and school-voucher proposals.

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

Absolutely not. No reasonable conservative would.

---

The third option is to not vote for either.

---

And thereby allow someone else to make the decision in your place.

---

---

So you take your guidance from past populists?

Me, I use reason and a knowledge of History. I get it though, those things trigger you.

---

No, I take the example as I said, from the current President. Life is transactional, what do I get. Biden paid off my sisters student loans after 20 years of games from the GOP. Obama got my brother Health Care as a small business, actually affordable for him. Trump has been a nightmare, my pocketbook isn't better. Time to give the Dem's a chance.

I did my part. I went to Kuwait when sent. I worked in local government trying to make this place better. Sorry, bud. Based on the current GOP model, what is in it for me. I want SS with yearly COLA, Medicare fully funded, Prescriptions reasonable. I may not even use those, but I want the option. I paid in for 40+ years. You deserve the option after paying in. If you don't use it, it should be your choice. Not some mellenial or politician getting richer with insider trading. Or some BS what about our grandkids. Cut the Trillion dollar defense budget. Collect SS on all income. Hold Big Pharm liable. Don't take it from me.

So, no not geared toward a past populist. But he that had a point.

Total defense spending in all departments is closer to $2 trillion. Step one should be to cut $1 trillion and use it to pay interest on the debt. Then we talk about reducing the remaining $1 trillion or so in annual deficits.

So many words to make up something that still makes you look like a weak-wristed facade of a Republican.

Oldbear83 said:

---

So many words to make up something that still makes you look like a weak-wristed facade of a Republican.

---

BS and you know it.

Either you are stupid, which I do not believe.

You are plugged in and making a fortune, which could be a possibility. (White Rock pseudo-name)

You are stubborn and won't admit you were wrong. I do believe.

I admit I was wrong to vote for Trump. Jan 6th should have told me. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Three times?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So many words to make up something that still makes you look like a weak-wristed facade of a Republican.

---

BS and you know it.

Either you are stupid, which I do not believe.

You are plugged in and making a fortune, which could be a possibility. (White Rock pseudo-name)

You are stubborn and won't admit you were wrong. I do believe.

I admit I was wrong to vote for Trump. Jan 6th should have told me. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Three times?

---

you can't be anyone who holds any real values and vote for Dems. You know this. Stop playing pretend.

They all vote for things that "feel" nice and "sound" nice, but ultimately hurt everyone. There is nothing redeeming about the democratic platform. the niceness is just a facade that is painted by the media.

How'd you get so dense. TDS is just a symptom of non critical thinking.

As for Trump, most wouldn't vote for him again if a better STRONG candidate came along ... But Trump served his purpose - he's awakened the fight in the Republican party and in decent Americans who love our country. Everyone realizes that the left wants to reduce America to just another country controlled by the globalist West.

Glad you aren't the majority. Weak wristed principles, based on emotion rather than long term health of our country.

Is the strategy here to avoid answering my questions by posing questions I've already answered? I'll try this again in the hope you're interested in a good-faith discussion, and will agree to answer mine:

1) Who is the last Democrat for whom you voted?

A: John Ames. As I said previously, if the Democrats had run a reasonable moderate, someone in the mold of Fetterman or Gabbard, for example, I likely would have voted for that person over Paxton. But that is not the Democrat Party that exists today.

2) Why are you trying to avoid responsibility for the nomination of Paxton?

Because I didn't nominate him. That's not how a primary election works. Individual voters do not "nominate" candidates. They cast a vote among the available candidates, and the candidate receiving the most votes becomes the nominee.

In this particular election, I voted for Paxton's opponent in the Republican primary. He lost. Unfortunately, that was the outcome.

3) You nominated a crook, serial adulterer, and demand I vote for him?

Two things:

a) Again, I did not nominate Paxton. I voted for another candidate in the primary.

b) I haven't demanded that you do anything. I've simply asked a few questions that you've repeatedly declined to answer.

4) Sometimes adults have to make difficult choices instead of taking orders from Trump.

Just so I understand your position, you're not voting for Paxton because you don't want to "take orders from Trump"?

Can you point me to where Trump ordered me to vote for Paxton? I must have missed that directive.

I would submit that my vote for Cornyn in the primary, despite Trump's endorsement of Paxton, proves the opposite. I voted for the candidate I thought was best, not the candidate Trump endorsed. The issue isn't whether Trump likes Paxton. The issue is whether Paxton or Talarico is the better choice in the general election.

5) I don't expect a Yellow Dog Republican to understand this. "My party right or wrong."

I think you're letting emotion drive the discussion. This election isn't really about Trump, and it isn't about personal grudges. It's about choosing between two imperfect candidates and deciding which one is more likely to advance the policies and principles you claim to support.

As someone who identifies as conservative, you and I likely agree on far more policy issues than we disagree on. The question isn't whether Paxton is perfect. He isn't. The question is whether he or Talarico is more likely to govern consistently with conservative principles.

One candidate will support judges who generally interpret the law from a conservative perspective. The other will support judges who generally do not. One candidate will advance a legislative agenda that is broadly conservative. The other will advance a legislative agenda that is broadly progressive. One candidate will help determine the direction of the Republican Party and conservative movement in Texas; the other will help advance the priorities of the Democratic Party.

Those consequences are real regardless of how any of us feel about either candidate personally.

Reasonable adults can disagree about candidates, but ultimately elections are not therapy sessions. They are choices between available alternatives. The question is not whether either candidate is flawless. The question is which candidate is more likely to produce outcomes that align with your stated beliefs and values.

That's why I find it difficult to understand why someone who claims to be conservative would effectively help elect a candidate whose policy positions are largely inconsistent with conservative principles simply because they dislike the Republican nominee. That strikes me less as a principled stand and more as allowing personal animosity to override policy preferences.

Now, I've answered your questions in good faith. I would appreciate an answer to mine. Let me know if I need to repost them a fourth time.

You have bought into the hate.

It's all that shows up in your posts now.

Mothra said:

---

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

---

I was at the YRT Convention today... if you were there your head would have exploded...

It felt like a white nationalist conference.

The future is bright!

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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

---

I was at the YRT Convention today... if you were there your head would have exploded...

It felt like a white nationalist conference.

The future is bright!

---

Don't know what YRT stands for. Don't really care.

Given the current demographic trajectory I'm not sure whiteness is going to save us. We aren't a majority anymore

Sam Lowry said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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

---

I was at the YRT Convention today... if you were there your head would have exploded...

It felt like a white nationalist conference.

The future is bright!

---

Sooner or later Mothra will see the writing on the wall for the Boomercons and start voting for every white nationalist he can find. Just give him time.

---

Glad to see the America hating Russian cuck make an appearance.

How's the war against white supremacy going
In Ukraine? You keep telling us ukraine is so close to being defeated.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have bought into the hate.

It's all that shows up in your posts now.

---

Do you see what is going on? Do you see the US taking the side of Russia going against our own sanctions? Data centers in Russia with Russian nuclear power? Prices? War? Gas shortage? Yet, you still cheer?

What is there to like?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You have bought into the hate.

It's all that shows up in your posts now.

---

Do you see what is going on? Do you see the US taking the side of Russia going against our own sanctions? Data centers in Russia with Russian nuclear power? Prices? War? Gas shortage? Yet, you still cheer?

What is there to like?

---

I see you wetting yourself every post. Ew.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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

---

I was at the YRT Convention today... if you were there your head would have exploded...

It felt like a white nationalist conference.

The future is bright!

---

Sooner or later Mothra will see the writing on the wall for the Boomercons and start voting for every white nationalist he can find. Just give him time.

---

Glad to see the America hating Russian cuck make an appearance.

How's the war against white supremacy going
In Ukraine? You keep telling us ukraine is so close to being defeated.

---

In fairness he keeps telling us a "genocide" is when a population increases. Covid broke his brain.

Why is Little Jinny lying so much? Why doesn't it bother the sycophants?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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

---

I was at the YRT Convention today... if you were there your head would have exploded...

It felt like a white nationalist conference.

The future is bright!

---

Sooner or later Mothra will see the writing on the wall for the Boomercons and start voting for every white nationalist he can find. Just give him time.

---

Glad to see the America hating Russian cuck make an appearance.

How's the war against white supremacy going
In Ukraine? You keep telling us ukraine is so close to being defeated.

---

In fairness he keeps telling us a "genocide" is when a population increases. Covid broke his brain.

Why is Little Jinny lying so much? Why doesn't it bother the sycophants?

---

Boy is the bolded part true.

Fear has a way of making you irrational.