He's a false preacher we are worked about in the Bible!
Paxton vs Talarico
169,178 Views |
1799 Replies |
Last: 6 hrs ago by Ag with kids
Loser!
There's a difference between a man and defective being with male plumbing.
TAMUallen said:JWinTX said:
Talarico is literally talking himself out of winning this. Paxton has barely said anything about him. That's how bad of a candidate that Beto 2.0 is. He's a beta "male" that pretends to be Christian, but not any manner in which most Christians think of our faith.
Paxton has tons of baggage, no question, but Bill Clinton showed us decades ago that the personal infidelity stuff just doesn't matter. The Dems have no one to blame but themselves for all of this...again.
He is a Christian, just one based off of what he thinks he can define Christianity as being in his woke eyes and not the Bible
In other words, not a Christian.
Quote:
In other words,not a Christiansatan.
FIFY
LOL OLD
Wanna know why I'm inclined to believe the Paxton up 15% theory?
Here's why. I get a poll phone call every one or two months, usually right smack in the middle of the work day. That's when I'm busy, working. So I tell them I don't have time to do their little poll.
I imagine more Republicans are likely to respond like this than likely voter Democrats, who are more likely not to be as busy during working hours.
In a sample size of 1200, I can easily see that affecting the poll results by 10 points or more, and it tends to be borne out every actual election cycle.
Here's why. I get a poll phone call every one or two months, usually right smack in the middle of the work day. That's when I'm busy, working. So I tell them I don't have time to do their little poll.
I imagine more Republicans are likely to respond like this than likely voter Democrats, who are more likely not to be as busy during working hours.
In a sample size of 1200, I can easily see that affecting the poll results by 10 points or more, and it tends to be borne out every actual election cycle.
jrdaustin said:
than likely voter Democrats, who are more likely not to be as busy during working hours.
the largest block of free stuff welfare state gov-dependent socialist voters don't work, sooo.....
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
Sounds like Talarico wouldn't vote for Talarico.
Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Were sixty enough to convict him? It's a simple yes or no question.
Quote:
these are people with every political incentive to protect him
And if you know ANYTHING about Texas politics you know this isn't true. At all.
Thaddeus73 said:
Loser!
Yep, and just another pathetic liberal soy boy!
Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
allegations from whistleblowers in his office resulted in an impeachment. at the impeachment trial, it turned out they had no evidence. overhearing a conversation about a conversation about a kitchen remodel was it. he was acquitted of the impeachment charges and you know this. Biden DOJ was up his ass for four years and brought zero federal charges for anything and you know this too.
your boy Joe Biden was using pseudonyms to communicate with entities set up for his son and brother and other family members with offshore bank accounts and zero interest loan payments while his crackhead former lobbyist son was making multimillion dollar deals and sitting on boards in Russia, Ukraine, China, Romania, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, etc. You were probably never curious about what services Hunter was providing or what wares he was selling overseas and whether his dad was selling out the country for access or favors, but you're very concerned about a conversation about Paxton's alleged kitchen remodeling from 6 years ago despite evidence in court 3 years ago that his kitchen was not remodeled. Teliricco is the one who should really concern all sane people.
They weight by party distribution. They aren't just taking the first 1200 responses.
we had a secretary of state that had private off network server with classified, top secret, and secret info all over it and she had her own aides destroy the evidence with bleach.bit and destroy physical devices with literal hammers. ...and people still proudly voted for her for POTUS without any hesitation or even curiosity... and these same people are sooooo concerned about Paxton's kitchen in 2020. such corruption.
ignoring the biden stuff because whether they're corrupt or not has no bearing on paxtonoh no said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
allegations from whistleblowers in his office resulted in an impeachment. at the impeachment trial, it turned out they had no evidence. overhearing a conversation about a conversation about a kitchen remodel was it. he was acquitted of the impeachment charges and you know this. Biden DOJ was up his ass for four years and brought zero federal charges for anything and you know this too.
your boy Joe Biden was using pseudonyms to communicate with entities set up for his son and brother and other family members with offshore bank accounts and zero interest loan payments while his crackhead former lobbyist son was making multimillion dollar deals and sitting on boards in Russia, Ukraine, China, Romania, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, etc. You were probably never curious about what services Hunter was providing or what wares he was selling overseas and whether his dad was selling out the country for access or favors, but you're very concerned about a conversation about Paxton's alleged kitchen remodeling from 6 years ago despite evidence in court 3 years ago that his kitchen was not remodeled. Teliricco is the one who should really concern all sane people.
the case against paxton was never the kitchen remodel. that's the detail people reach for because it sounds petty and easy to dismiss. the spine of it was paxton bending his office around one donor, nate paul. a rushed late-night legal opinion that halted foreclosures paul was facing. a special prosecutor appointed to go after paul's perceived enemies. confidential law enforcement documents that ended up in paul's hands.
his own deputy, ryan bangert, testified under oath that paxton was acting like a man with a gun to his head.
these were paxton's handpicked senior staff, and what they saw alarmed them enough to walk into the fbi and report the person who hired them.
you can argue the senate acquitted him, but acquittal by a chamber his own party controlled answers a political question and not the factual one. the factual question is why the people closest to the work concluded he was selling his office to a donor.
Still my favorite political ad.
No bearing on Paxton but plenty of bearing on your hypocrisy.
yes of course you are.Old McDonald said:
[ignoring the biden stuff
Then excuse the people of texas ignoring the paxton stiff.
Telrico is preaching from a pulpit that everyone can make babies freely and then crush their babies' skulls with forceps and rip off their limbs with a vacuum because it's in the bible from the angel gabriel. Deranged false prophet is much worse for society and our legislative branch of government.
Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
So by this logic, as long as a jury member votes to convict, someone is guilty. Even if they're in the minority.
Do I have it right?
TAMUallen said:JWinTX said:
Talarico is literally talking himself out of winning this. Paxton has barely said anything about him. That's how bad of a candidate that Beto 2.0 is. He's a beta "male" that pretends to be Christian, but not any manner in which most Christians think of our faith.
Paxton has tons of baggage, no question, but Bill Clinton showed us decades ago that the personal infidelity stuff just doesn't matter. The Dems have no one to blame but themselves for all of this...again.
He is a Christian, just one based off of what he thinks he can define Christianity as being in his woke eyes and not the Bible
This is like saying that Bernie Sanders is a conservative, just one based on Socialist ideas on what he thinks about non-politician's rights to private property and the role of the government as a nanny state.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Nope. The House voted to have a trial where evidence was presented. The Senate voted not guilty after seeing the evidence.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Captn_Ag05 said:
They weight by party distribution. They aren't just taking the first 1200 responses.
Do they? I don't see that in this discussion of their methodology. It seems to be weighted on bases of gender, age, race, and education. I don't see party affiliation as part of the weighting methodology:
From the fine print...
The poll was conducted among 1200 self-reported registered voters June 5-12, 2026, with a margin of error of +/- 2.83% (3.47% adjusted for weighting). Data was collected by YouGov via the internet. The June poll is the 74th in a series of surveys by the Texas Politics Project initiated in 2008.
Sampling and Weighting Methodology for the June 2026 Texas Statewide Study For the survey, YouGov interviewed 1251 Texas registered voters between June 5th, 2026 June 12th, 2026 who were then matched down to a sample of 1,200 to produce the final dataset. The respondents were matched to a sampling frame on gender, age, race, and education.1 The frame was constructed by stratified sampling of a subset of Texas registered voters from the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample with selection within strata by weighted sampling with replacements (using the person weights on the public use file). In addition, 2024 presidential vote was weighted to the CNN exit polls. The matched cases were weighted to the sampling frame using propensity scores. The matched cases and the frame were combined, and a logistic regression was estimated for inclusion in the frame. The propensity score function included age, gender, race/ethnicity, years of education, and home ownership. The propensity scores were grouped into deciles of the estimated propensity score in the frame and post-stratified according to these deciles. The weights were then post-stratified on 2024 Presidential vote choice, a four-way stratification of gender, age (4-categories), race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), as well a two-way stratification of race (4-categories), and education (4-categories), to produce the final weight. The margin of error for the sample is +/- 2.83%, and +/- 3.47% accounting for the weighted data for registered voters.
To be fair, they do say that the "2024 presidential vote was weighted to the CNN exit polls.", which could indicate some political adjustment based on CNN exit polls. (Though that's not entirely clear.) Regardless, it does not clarify whether they used Texas exit polls or National exit polls, in which case the political affilliation at best would be approximately 51/49.
that logic is no more valid than the inverse logic that he's innocent because he was never convictedjrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
So by this logic, as long as a jury member votes to convict, someone is guilty. Even if they're in the minority.
Do I have it right?
Old McDonald said:jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
So by this logic, as long as a jury member votes to convict, someone is guilty. Even if they're in the minority.
Do I have it right?
that logic is no more valid than the inverse logic that he's innocent because he was never convicted
Sorry. But YOU jumped to the conclusion that he's more corrupt than any other politician based upon a minority vote.
I don't know that he's "innocent" and have not stated as such. That's a blatant straw man on your part. I do know he was not convicted by the Texas Senate, NOR was he indicted by a Biden DOJ.
impeachment in the house is the charge, and it carries a finding the conduct warranted removal. one republican chamber said he did it, the other wouldn't fire him. those don't cancel to zero. and if the evidence were nothing, sixty of his own never break his way to begin with.BusterAg said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Nope. The House voted to have a trial where evidence was presented. The Senate voted not guilty after seeing the evidence.
the impeachment passed 121 to 23. the majority of a republican house said he did it. you're calling it a minority by pointing at the senate, but the house impeaching him was the decisive majority action.jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
So by this logic, as long as a jury member votes to convict, someone is guilty. Even if they're in the minority.
Do I have it right?
that logic is no more valid than the inverse logic that he's innocent because he was never convicted
Sorry. But YOU jumped to the conclusion that he's more corrupt than any other politician based upon a minority vote.
I don't know that he's "innocent" and have not stated as such. That's a blatant straw man on your part. I do know he was not convicted by the Texas Senate, NOR was he indicted by a Biden DOJ.
Now that there are so many activist judges and LOTS of activist prosecutors I've noticed the left loves to bang the indicted or convicted (on Trumped up charges, pun intended) drum.
They do the same with university credentials now that DEI has completely taken over higher learning in this country. "You can't argue with me! I attended Harvard!"
Of course the above wouldn't be as effective without their lefty mouthpiece, the legacy media.
They do the same with university credentials now that DEI has completely taken over higher learning in this country. "You can't argue with me! I attended Harvard!"
Of course the above wouldn't be as effective without their lefty mouthpiece, the legacy media.
Old McDonald said:BusterAg said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Nope. The House voted to have a trial where evidence was presented. The Senate voted not guilty after seeing the evidence.
impeachment in the house is the charge, and it carries a finding the conduct warranted removal. one republican chamber said he did it, the other wouldn't fire him. those don't cancel to zero. and if the evidence were nothing, sixty of his own never break his way to begin with.
WRONG! Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. It assumes there's enough smoke to warrant a trial.
But just like when a Grand Jury only sees the prosecution's version of events, Paxton's impeachment took unverified stories - NOT testimony under oath - in order to gain the votes necessary for a trial. There was also no defense presented to the House. Just the allegations.
Once those same witnesses were put under oath in the Senate trial, the stories basically evaporated. That's the difference, and that's why a conviction was not secured. That's probably also why a Biden DOJ chose not to indict.
In the end, there was no there, there.
jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:BusterAg said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Nope. The House voted to have a trial where evidence was presented. The Senate voted not guilty after seeing the evidence.
impeachment in the house is the charge, and it carries a finding the conduct warranted removal. one republican chamber said he did it, the other wouldn't fire him. those don't cancel to zero. and if the evidence were nothing, sixty of his own never break his way to begin with.
WRONG! Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. It assumes there's enough smoke to warrant a trial.
But just like when a Grand Jury only sees the prosecution's version of events, Paxton's impeachment took stories - NOT testimony under oath - in order to gain the votes necessary for a trial.
Once those same witnesses were put under oath in the Senate trial, the stories basically evaporated. That's the difference, and that's why a conviction was not secured. That's probably also why a Biden DOJ chose not to indict.
In the end, there was no there, there.
Then why does state have to pay the whistleblowers over 8 million dollars if none of it is true? He literally told the court he would not dispute theur allegations because he did not want to go under oath. I am voting Paxton because we can't have freak Dem representing our state but to say Paxton is not a corrupt POS is not true. Hopefully we will have a better real conservative canindate in 6 years to take him down.
Old McDonald said:the impeachment passed 121 to 23. the majority of a republican house said he did it. you're calling it a minority by pointing at the senate, but the house impeaching him was the decisive majority action.jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
So by this logic, as long as a jury member votes to convict, someone is guilty. Even if they're in the minority.
Do I have it right?
that logic is no more valid than the inverse logic that he's innocent because he was never convicted
Sorry. But YOU jumped to the conclusion that he's more corrupt than any other politician based upon a minority vote.
I don't know that he's "innocent" and have not stated as such. That's a blatant straw man on your part. I do know he was not convicted by the Texas Senate, NOR was he indicted by a Biden DOJ.
Led by a turncoat liberal Republican who has since been shown the door. I find it amusing that Phelan's impeachment activity resulted in his own removal.
Keller6Ag91 said:
Talarico is going down always.
fify
Aggie97 said:jrdaustin said:Old McDonald said:BusterAg said:Old McDonald said:samurai_science said:Old McDonald said:4 said:
For all of you conservatives that keep saying Paxton is a horrible candidate, the guy has been staunchly conservative as our AG and unapologetically so.
If his history as AG is any guide, and he is elected to the senate, he would be the most conservative senator Texas has had an over 30 years.
And that includes Cruz.
It may be time to get over the fact that he is a sinner, unlike all of you I'm sure, who are pure as the driven snow and have never done anything wrong in your life.
Or his opponent in this race, who is clearly pure of heart.
he would also be the most corrupt senator texas has had in that span, which is a bigger reason he's disliked than anything else in your post
What corruption has he been convicted of?
sixty republicans in his own house voted he did it. these are people with every political incentive to protect him, and they looked at the evidence and said he abused his office anyway.
Nope. The House voted to have a trial where evidence was presented. The Senate voted not guilty after seeing the evidence.
impeachment in the house is the charge, and it carries a finding the conduct warranted removal. one republican chamber said he did it, the other wouldn't fire him. those don't cancel to zero. and if the evidence were nothing, sixty of his own never break his way to begin with.
WRONG! Impeachment is like a grand jury indictment. It assumes there's enough smoke to warrant a trial.
But just like when a Grand Jury only sees the prosecution's version of events, Paxton's impeachment took stories - NOT testimony under oath - in order to gain the votes necessary for a trial.
Once those same witnesses were put under oath in the Senate trial, the stories basically evaporated. That's the difference, and that's why a conviction was not secured. That's probably also why a Biden DOJ chose not to indict.
In the end, there was no there, there.
Then why does state have to pay the whistleblowers over 8 million dollars if none of it is true? He literally told the court he would not dispute theur allegations because he did not want to go under oath. I am voting Paxton because we can't have freak Dem representing our state but to say Paxton is not a corrupt POS is not true. Hopefully we will have a better real conservative canindate in 6 years to take him down.
Again, I am not and have not argued that he's completely innocent. I believe there was smoke there, too. I was simply answering the flawed claim that Paxton is the "most corrupt politician" in a pool of corruption. I voted for Hunt in the primary, and would have preferred to see him as the candidate.
Now, in a race between Paxton & Talarico, the choice is clear.
jrdaustin said:Captn_Ag05 said:
They weight by party distribution. They aren't just taking the first 1200 responses.
Do they?
Yes.
Impeachments have become a worthless political carnival. The only recent one that I thought was remotely legitimate was Mayorkis, and he was protected by Schumer and the Senate Dems. Paxton's impeachment will have zero impact on the election.