twk said:

---

Keep trying to clean up this mess and you just wear yourself out. From your the Paxton letter:

Quote:

---

[G]roup boycotts involving a horizontal conspiracy to foreclose a market participant are considered per se
violations of [the Sherman Act].")

---

The Big XII may or may not take formal action. The individual members may decide to boycott Tech, and this threat from Paxton is intended to head that off. In such a group boycott, you'd have to join the members of the group if you want injunctive relief against them barring a boycott.

---

Member schools can't just not play other member schools. That would be a benching contract with the Big 12. If they do, they most certainly get sued. It's such a dumb thing to even talk about.

Quote:

---

He has conservative principals. Proven time and time again. I get the establishment went after him, but he pushed back and it was proven there was zero evidence against him.

---

A principled conservative would not cosy up and funnel money to the plaintiff's bar the way that Paxton has. He's very reminiscent of Dan Morales in that respect.

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't. The University of Houston is protected by sovereign immunity.

twk said:

---

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't.

---

Can't without getting sued and losing millions
In a guaranteed loss. Paxton is correct to point this out.

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't.

---

Can't without getting sued and losing millions
In a guaranteed loss. Paxton is correct to point this out.

---

You will never get a nickel out of UH. Just like Mike Leach got nothing suing Tech.

twk said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't.

---

Can't without getting sued and losing millions
In a guaranteed loss. Paxton is correct to point this out.

---

You will never get a nickel out of UH. Just like Mike Leach got nothing suing Tech.

---

If they break a contractual obligation with the Big 12, the suit is with the Big 12.

It's with the Big 12

It's
With
The
Big 12.

UH has nothing to do with it.

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

So would every other democrat. I will worry about what happens 6 years from now after enjoying 6 years of not having Talarico representing me.

---

I knew there was a reason I had that poster on ignore. Can you imagine the damage 6 years of that freak could do to Texas not to mention if it gave the Senate over to the lunatic left.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't.

---

Can't without getting sued and losing millions
In a guaranteed loss. Paxton is correct to point this out.

---

You will never get a nickel out of UH. Just like Mike Leach got nothing suing Tech.

---

If they break a contractual obligation with the Big 12, the suit is with the Big 12.

It's with the Big 12

It's
With
The
Big 12.

UH has nothing to do with it.

---

You can't sue the Big XII for a boycott by individual members, which is the scenario I was talking about, but which you desperately want to pretend isn't possible.

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

So, we get the republican party "right" by electing socialists? In this case a socialist who's likely as morally bankrupt as a lot of people believe his opponent to be. No thanks - I'll take my chances with Paxton.

Prosperdick said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

So would every other democrat. I will worry about what happens 6 years from now after enjoying 6 years of not having Talarico representing me.

---

I knew there was a reason I had that poster on ignore. Can you imagine the damage 6 years of that freak could do to Texas not to mention if it gave the Senate over to the lunatic left.

---

Some people will tell you who they really are if you just listen to what they tell you.

txags92 said:

---

Prosperdick said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

So would every other democrat. I will worry about what happens 6 years from now after enjoying 6 years of not having Talarico representing me.

---

I knew there was a reason I had that poster on ignore. Can you imagine the damage 6 years of that freak could do to Texas not to mention if it gave the Senate over to the lunatic left.

---

Some people will tell you who they really are if you just listen to what they tell you.

---

To be fair I wasn't listening. I just noticed the poster that was quoted I had on ignore.

I guess the morale of the story is once people tell you who they really are and it's part of the lunatic left, put them on ignore because it's pointless having a discussion with someone with a belief system that out of whack.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

If you would take Talafreako for six years, you are no Republican!

All of this just seems like a stupid move by Paxton; you have an election in less than five months where you need plenty of GOP voters who despise you, as well as lazy MAGAs that only get off the couch when Trump is on the ballot, to bother to show up and vote. Regardless of the legal arguments why proactively get involved with a toxic situation that most of the State is against aside from TT alums (and I guess people that post on F16 all day)?

It's not just TCU, UH, Baylor and other Big 12 students/alums that are pissed about this, it's basically anyone that cares about college football including alums of A&M, UT, SEC, Big 10...

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

I understand the need to field better character candidates for the Republican Party, but there is no scenario where one Senate term of James Talarico is better for Republicans in the long run. A Talarico win could flip control of the Senate to the Democrats, which could mean confirmation of radical liberal nominees under a Democratic presidential administration. Beating incumbent US Senator Talarico in 2032 will be significantly harder than it is in 2026.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

What is the long game for you and what type of Republican do you desire as a Senator, Congressman, and President? I am not clear who/what you like as a candidate.

SHSU-AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

If you would take Talafreako for six years, you are no Republican!

---

Voted Republican in every election since I was 18.

Won't support abject corruption.

I think there's something more to being an American than voting your party every single time regardless of outcome.

I want a strong Republican Party, and if Talafreako needs to be elected, so Paxton never runs again…so be it.

txags92 said:

---

I can't believe we FINALLY got rid of Cornyn and have a chance to get a real conservative voice into the Senate instead, and now there are people who would rather vote for a democrat because Paxton did something that cost basically nothing for a donor or because he cheated on his wife. Newsflash, ALL politicians do special favors for their biggest donors. Newsflash, a great many politicians cheat on their spouses. We are not voting on who to invite to be our best friend and hunting buddy for the next 6 years, we are voting for who will go to Washington DC and represent Texas as a conservative voice for the next 6 years. The obvious choice is obvious...

---

There is no universe in which I vote for Talarico. However, I am struggling with the idea of voting for Paxton. I've had the opportunity to meet Angela many times and have a close friend that is extremely close to her. I know it is through the lens of a soon to be future ex, but he is an absolutely awful human being in how he treats people, including family and business dealings. What is publicly out there is just the tip of the iceberg with him. I am not voting for him to be my pastor, but character has to matter at least a little to get a vote. He has none and so it is a struggle. I've never not voted for a conservative in a contested election, but likely will leave the spot blank this year. If we were going to kick Cornyn to the curb, Wesley Hunt was the guy.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

SHSU-AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

If you would take Talafreako for six years, you are no Republican!

---

Voted Republican in every election since I was 18.

Won't support abject corruption.

I think there's something more to being an American than voting your party every single time regardless of outcome.

I want a strong Republican Party, and if Talafreako needs to be elected, so Paxton never runs again…so be it.

---

So in your mind there is no corruption at all with Talarico? You think he is the answer to getting what you want? I am still unclear what policies you want from the Republican Party that they aren't doing…it is all very confusing that you would want Talarico, yet not support his policies, but you think that is the answer to the Republican Parry getting better…you will need to be more specific.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I can't believe we FINALLY got rid of Cornyn and have a chance to get a real conservative voice into the Senate instead, and now there are people who would rather vote for a democrat because Paxton did something that cost basically nothing for a donor or because he cheated on his wife. Newsflash, ALL politicians do special favors for their biggest donors. Newsflash, a great many politicians cheat on their spouses. We are not voting on who to invite to be our best friend and hunting buddy for the next 6 years, we are voting for who will go to Washington DC and represent Texas as a conservative voice for the next 6 years. The obvious choice is obvious...

---

There is no universe in which I vote for Talarico. However, I am struggling with the idea of voting for Paxton. I've had the opportunity to meet Angela many times and have a close friend that is extremely close to her. I know it is through the lens of a soon to be future ex, but he is an absolutely awful human being in how he treats people, including family and business dealings. What is publicly out there is just the tip of the iceberg with him. I am not voting for him to be my pastor, but character has to matter at least a little to get a vote. He has none and so it is a struggle. I've never not voted for a conservative in a contested election, but likely will leave the spot blank this year. If we were going to kick Cornyn to the curb, Wesley Hunt was the guy.

---

I understand your nuanced view on why you are struggling with the idea of voting for Ken Paxton. I agree that Wesley Hunt would have been a much better alternative to John Cornyn, and I voted for him in the primary and Cornyn in the runoff. But I am voting for Paxton in the general election because James Talarcio is much worse. Abstaining in the general election or voting for a third party means fewer votes that Talarico needs to win the general election.

Captn_Ag05 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

I can't believe we FINALLY got rid of Cornyn and have a chance to get a real conservative voice into the Senate instead, and now there are people who would rather vote for a democrat because Paxton did something that cost basically nothing for a donor or because he cheated on his wife. Newsflash, ALL politicians do special favors for their biggest donors. Newsflash, a great many politicians cheat on their spouses. We are not voting on who to invite to be our best friend and hunting buddy for the next 6 years, we are voting for who will go to Washington DC and represent Texas as a conservative voice for the next 6 years. The obvious choice is obvious...

---

There is no universe in which I vote for Talarico. However, I am struggling with the idea of voting for Paxton. I've had the opportunity to meet Angela many times and have a close friend that is extremely close to her. I know it is through the lens of a soon to be future ex, but he is an absolutely awful human being in how he treats people, including family and business dealings. What is publicly out there is just the tip of the iceberg with him. I am not voting for him to be my pastor, but character has to matter at least a little to get a vote. He has none and so it is a struggle. I've never not voted for a conservative in a contested election, but likely will leave the spot blank this year. If we were going to kick Cornyn to the curb, Wesley Hunt was the guy.

---

I just take all of the personal stuff out of it. I don't have to like Ken Paxton or his morals. I don't like him. I don't like what he did to his wife. But what I need from the position of "Senator from Texas" is not "good husband to his wife". I need a reliable conservative vote who isn't going to tell us one thing and then go cozy up to Chuck Shumer and find a way to thwart the conservative agenda. I voted for Hunt in the primary. I voted for Paxton in the runoff because he was the best available choice at being a reliable conservative vote. I will vote for him in the general election for the same reason.

We are all hung up on the whole idea of wanting to elect a "good person" to represent us. Well, there are exceedingly few good people in politic these days. John Cornyn wasn't one of them and neither is Talarico. You just need to boil it down to what the vote really means. What we need in DC are true conservative voices who will vote for conservative ideals. All the other stuff involved in the campaigns and in the personal lives of the various candidates is fluff that is meaningless to the really pressing need to get a conservative into a seat where we once had a uniparty squish. Paxton is that conservative and I will vote for him because the alternative is too horrible to take a chance on.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

SHSU-AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

If you would take Talafreako for six years, you are no Republican!

---

Voted Republican in every election since I was 18.

Won't support abject corruption.

I think there's something more to being an American than voting your party every single time regardless of outcome.

I want a strong Republican Party, and if Talafreako needs to be elected, so Paxton never runs again…so be it.

---

IMO, the democrat party is where the true corruption is. And you'll be voting for that. But it's a free country....at least for now.

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

twk said:

---

You don't understand the meaning of the word can't.

---

Can't without getting sued and losing millions
In a guaranteed loss. Paxton is correct to point this out.

---

You will never get a nickel out of UH. Just like Mike Leach got nothing suing Tech.

---

If they break a contractual obligation with the Big 12, the suit is with the Big 12.

It's with the Big 12

It's
With
The
Big 12.

UH has nothing to do with it.

---

You're wasting your time. He's been on an ad nauseam rant all day over something that relatively few people care about and won't make one bit of difference in the November election. He's made it abundantly clear how he feels about Paxton.

He also claims he is going to vote for Paxton in November.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

SHSU-AG said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

If you would take Talafreako for six years, you are no Republican!

---

Voted Republican in every election since I was 18.

Won't support abject corruption.

I think there's something more to being an American than voting your party every single time regardless of outcome.

I want a strong Republican Party, and if Talafreako needs to be elected, so Paxton never runs again…so be it.

---

That's an idiotic stance to take. Voting in a freak, so the Republican Party can get stronger? You're better off to vote in Paxton and then primary him in six years with a better candidate.

Oh look, the GOP talking points are about nonsensical social issues which coincidentally ignore the atrocious behavior of their own candidate. Same old shtick since the 1980s

Wonder if Texans will fall for the sleight of hand and continue to vote for corruption

Dan Carlin said:

---

Oh look, the GOP talking points are about nonsensical social issues which coincidentally ignore the atrocious behavior of their own candidate. Same old shtick since the 1980s

Wonder if Texans will fall for the sleight of hand and continue to vote for corruption

---

If anyone knows about corruption it would be the Democrats. Oh wait, I'm sure you're just a concerned moderate, right?

Dems are the OG's of corruption. GOP just puts up rookie numbers.

Dan Carlin said:

---

Oh look, the GOP talking points are about nonsensical social issues which coincidentally ignore the atrocious behavior of their own candidate. Same old shtick since the 1980s

Wonder if Texans will fall for the sleight of hand and continue to vote for corruption

---

Please tell me which policies you like with Talarico.

MelvinUdall said:

---

Dan Carlin said:

---

Oh look, the GOP talking points are about nonsensical social issues which coincidentally ignore the atrocious behavior of their own candidate. Same old shtick since the 1980s

Wonder if Texans will fall for the sleight of hand and continue to vote for corruption

---

Please tell me which policies you like with Talarico.

---

I'd also like to hear more about the sensible social issues he supports.

I'm voting for Ken Paxton solely due to his conservative position on policies and political issues, not on his personal morality.

Talirico is a far-left extremist trying to disguise himself behind the veil of his version of "Christianity".

This isn't even a hard choice. I don't like Paxton personally, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

Tramp96 said:

---

I'm voting for Ken Paxton solely due to his conservative position on policies and political issues, not on his personal morality.

Talirico is a far-left extremist trying to disguise himself behind the veil of his version of "Christianity".

This isn't even a hard choice. I don't like Paxton personally, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

---

If Richard Nixon rose from his San Clemente grave and established residency in Texas I'd vote for him over this freak.

Tramp96 said:

---

I'm voting for Ken Paxton solely due to his conservative position on policies and political issues, not on his personal morality.

Talirico is a far-left extremist trying to disguise himself behind the veil of his version of "Christianity".

This isn't even a hard choice. I don't like Paxton personally, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

---

Yes, he is no different than the VA Govenor they trotted out as "moderate" and she is far from it…all of her policies are tax more….

K2-HMFIC said:

---

DG-Ag said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

txags92 said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

K2-HMFIC said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sure. You could abstain. Then you for sure will get what you absolutely don't want.

Again, you've got 2 choices and one is clearly, by a long amount, more likely to produce the results I want. The other is 1000% likely to produce the results i don't want.

So, abstain all you want. Its stupid and self defeating. If you want tceh to ruin your day twice, go for it

---

Better to abstain, wait six years to get the right person in office than elect Paxton and have him in office in perpetuity.

---

That's what the primary was for. Paxton won and now is your choice if you prefer anl candidate more oriented towards the right.

It's that or real disaster

---

Given the nature of party primaries its difficult to get someone out once they get in.

I mean the success rate is atrocious.

We are better of losing...and making up for it now than have the stain of Ken Paxton perpetually hanging over us.

---

You keep saying "we". Are you talking about the democrats? Because sure, voting in Talarico is surely better for them. There is no planet on which 6 years of Talarico in the senate representing Texas is better for the Rs.

---

I'll take 6 years of Talarico over 24 of Ken Paxton.

---

Good luck with that, comrade!

---

Folks aren't focused enough on the long game…we need to get the Republican Party right, and if we tolerate corruption, then we will become that.

---

Can't play the logn game if you don't play the short game. Talarico in the modern senate that is so likely to be a majority by only a couple votes either way would be both a short and long game disaster.