Paxton vs Talarico

169,181 Views | 1799 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by Ag with kids
Aglaw97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 12:04p, 6/24/26
AG
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


Thank God I don't live in a country governed by this logic.
Reply Quote
10
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 12:34p, 6/24/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.

There is no place in the law where a charge ever "carries a finding."

A charge is an accusation, nothing more. To make it out for anything more than an accusation is a lie.

A charge is the beginning of a trial. The House voted for a trial. The House voted to bring a charge. Nothing more.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
21
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 12:35p, 6/24/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
jrdaustin said:
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.

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.

None of the Republicans in the house said he did anything. They voted to bring a charge. A charge is not a finding. A charge is an accusation.

The House voted, based on whistleblower testimony, to bring a charge and have a trial. Nothing more.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
17
oh no
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:37p, 6/24/26
AG
It's all a distraction to get the American-hating communist false prophet weirdo elected to help destroy this thing.
Reply Quote
15
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie97 • 12:37p, 6/24/26
AG
Aggie97 said:
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.

There is lots of MSM reporting and zero actual evidence that the bold statement is correct.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 12:40p, 6/24/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
that logic is no more valid than the inverse logic that he's innocent because he was never convicted

Well, he was convicted, by the MSM. That is enough for some people.

We are asking for actual evidence to decide for ourselves, and all you bring is an indictment. That's not evidence.

On a separate note, was there any fraud in the 2020 election?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
11
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 1:16p, 6/24/26
AG
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.


The Speaker, you know, the guy that runs the house, didn't have witnesses under oath. Because the reason for the impeachment was his personal vendetta against Paxton.

In the Senate, where he had zero control, had the witnesses under oath so the testimony changed.

I get that this may be a complicated topic, so I tried to help you out.
LOL OLD
Reply Quote
15
Line Ate Member
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Science Denier • 1:22p, 6/24/26
AG
Science Denier 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.


The Speaker, you know, the guy that runs the house, didn't have witnesses under oath. Because the reason for the impeachment was his personal vendetta against Paxton.

In the Senate, where he had zero control, had the witnesses under oath so the testimony changed.

I get that this may be a complicated topic, so I tried to help you out.
Hey now. You are bringing logic and facts into this conversation. That will not be allowed when discussing Talarico. How dare you!?!?
Reply Quote
10
ArbAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 3:14p, 6/24/26
AG
BusterAg said:
Old McDonald said:
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.

There is no place in the law where a charge ever "carries a finding."

A charge is an accusation, nothing more. To make it out for anything more than an accusation is a lie.

A charge is the beginning of a trial. The House voted for a trial. The House voted to bring a charge. Nothing more.


Thank goodness that the Senate threw it out like the MSM garbage it was. The so-called evidence wilted under scrutiny with no witnesses willing to testify under oath…
Reply Quote
7
Danny Vermin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:18p, 6/24/26
Quit arguing with this clown. He's paid to be here and make a fool of himself.
#FJB
Reply Quote
21
1 edit
aggieforester05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie97 • 3:54p, 6/24/26
AG
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.

I once served on a jury where the defendant took the stand. I don't care whether you are guilty or innocent, subjecting yourself to interrogation by a prosecutor in front of a jury is a terribly bad idea. It's not as simple as the truth will set you free. An aggressive prosecutor will tear you to shreds and twist the truth to fit their narrative by setting traps that you could never expect. If the jury gets even the slightest idea that you're not being truthful, you are toast. Never talk to the police and never testify in your own trial, regardless of your guilt or innocence. I don't blame any Republican or Democrat for refusing to go under oath in an impeachment hearing, that's wisdom.
Reply Quote
5
TX_COWDOC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Danny Vermin • 5:33p, 6/24/26
AG
Danny Vermin said:
Quit arguing with this clown. He's paid to be here and make a fool of himself.


No kidding. He's got stars… use them. #Instablock
www.southpawprecision.com
Type 07 FFL / Class 2 SOT
Nightforce Optics Dealer
AGM Night Vision Dealer
Reply Quote
2
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 7:43p, 6/24/26
Old McDonald said:
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.

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.



Stop lying, the evidence was exposed as fake and based on "good faith belief".
Reply Quote
16
2 edits
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 7:47p, 6/24/26
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

He is innocent of crimes until proven guilty in a court of law, that is what we go by in this country. Everything else is noise.
Reply Quote
14
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 7:48p, 6/24/26
Old McDonald said:
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.

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.

"Remember, the House didn't put the staffers who reported Ken Paxton to the FBI under oath, but the Senate did during trial where they admitted they had no evidence of any crime. The FBI didn't find any either."
Reply Quote
14
1 edit
Whoop2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 8:09p, 6/24/26
The FBI found nada and they wanted to get rid of Paxton!
Reply Quote
14
sanangelo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:44a, 6/25/26
AG
It's over unless Paxton can turn this around:

San Angelo LIVE!
https://sanangelolive.com/
Reply Quote
1
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sanangelo • 11:49a, 6/25/26
Only in your dreams and in a Sip/Texas Tribune push poll.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
24
1 edit
Reginald Cousins
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sanangelo • 11:51a, 6/25/26
S
sanangelo said:
It's over unless Paxton can turn this around:



Poopslap?
Reply Quote
3
SuhrThang
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:54a, 6/25/26
The biggest problem Talarico has is TALARICO!
“A drunkard’s dream if I ever did see one”
Reply Quote
10
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sanangelo • 11:56a, 6/25/26
sanangelo said:
It's over unless Paxton can turn this around:


That poll again?
Reply Quote
7
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sanangelo • 11:59a, 6/25/26
AG
sanangelo said:
It's over unless Paxton can turn this around:



Remember folks, this guy is totally a conservative news reporter
Reply Quote
19
ArbAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:17p, 6/25/26
AG
Remember folks that momma's soy boy democrat will lose to weak Republican candidate. IOW, the dems are wasting their best statewide election opportunity in years due selection of their own extremely weak and pathetic candidate.
Reply Quote
4
Noctilucent
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to samurai_science • 12:31p, 6/25/26
AG
samurai_science said:
Old McDonald said:
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.

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.



Stop lying, the evidence was exposed as fake and based on "good faith belief".

This is SOP for DemonRats. Character assassination honed over the years to it's finest. Any weak-kneed Republicans or Moderates should get the memo that Paxton isn't as dirty as the DemonRats and their Enemedia cohorts are pushing by November. Besides, they ought to get an earful of exactly how weird Talarico is by then, AND in his own words! No need for a character assassination middle man necessary.
Reply Quote
10
BadMoonRisin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:03p, 6/27/26
AG
i'm sorry i dont laugh at the right times.
Reply Quote
11
4
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BadMoonRisin • 1:30p, 6/27/26
AG
Unfortunately for him, that guy is right about at least one of those things.

Reply Quote
4
Scotty Appleton
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:55p, 6/27/26
Is he wearing the new Stetson El Transidente?
Reply Quote
4
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Science Denier • 2:08p, 6/27/26
AG
Science Denier 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.


The Speaker, you know, the guy that runs the house, didn't have witnesses under oath. Because the reason for the impeachment was his personal vendetta against Paxton.

In the Senate, where he had zero control, had the witnesses under oath so the testimony changed.

I get that this may be a complicated topic, so I tried to help you out.

I would add that Phelan pushed the impeachment vote through at the very end of the session, with limited time for questions or debate. As Speaker, his wants carried more weight because there are a lot of Representatives that hoped to stay on the good side of the person that sets the agenda and chooses committee chairs. With all the pressure he exerted, and lack of actual facts to back up his assertions, it's clear to anyone with a brain that this was a railroad job that thankfully got exposed.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:17p, 6/27/26
Reply Quote
16
Line Ate Member
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to samurai_science • 2:51p, 6/27/26
AG
samurai_science said:
never thought I would see a Dragonball Z comparison to James Talarico. But dang if that isn't absolutely amazing
Reply Quote
5
Old McDonald
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 2:55p, 6/27/26
BusterAg said:
Old McDonald said:
jrdaustin said:
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.

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.

None of the Republicans in the house said he did anything. They voted to bring a charge. A charge is not a finding. A charge is an accusation.

The House voted, based on whistleblower testimony, to bring a charge and have a trial. Nothing more.
a republican house didn't have to bring the charge at all. the default for a party is to bury this kind of thing, quietly, and never let it reach a floor vote. instead a majority of them voted to publicly accuse one of their own and drag him into a trial. you can call that only an accusation. it's still an accusation his own side chose to make when looking away was the easier path.

and the impeachment was never the whole case. he was separately indicted on securities fraud back in 2015. his own senior deputies went to the fbi. those are independent of anything the house did.
Reply Quote
1
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 3:00p, 6/27/26
AG
Quote:
the default for a party is to bury this kind of thing, quietly, and never let it reach a floor vote.


Maybe that's the default of your party. Which tells you all you need to know about who really cares about "muh corruption"
Reply Quote
8
Old McDonald
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Science Denier • 3:02p, 6/27/26
Science Denier 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.


The Speaker, you know, the guy that runs the house, didn't have witnesses under oath. Because the reason for the impeachment was his personal vendetta against Paxton.

In the Senate, where he had zero control, had the witnesses under oath so the testimony changed.

I get that this may be a complicated topic, so I tried to help you out.
the key whistleblowers, bangert and vassar, testified under oath in the senate and stuck to their accounts. bangert's "man with a gun to his head" line was sworn senate testimony. if the story had flipped under oath the way you're describing, the acquittal would have been framed as the witnesses recanting. it wasn't. it was framed as not meeting the two-thirds bar in a chamber his own party ran.

the phelan vendetta angle also has a problem. a personal grudge by the speaker doesn't explain sixty other republicans voting to accuse. phelan didn't have sixty members' careers in his pocket. and it definitely doesn't explain paxton's own deputies walking into the fbi back in 2020, years before any of this reached the house floor.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Whoop2
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Old McDonald • 3:06p, 6/27/26
And you are a liberal who claims to be a Republican! Lying is a sin ( it's called bearing false witness). If you are in favor or children's trans surgeries, I think that shows your moral character. So keep bashing Paxton and ask your grandkids if they think trans surgeries are okay for children and explain to them how you are voting for Talarico.
Reply Quote
5
Old McDonald
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sanangelo • 3:12p, 6/27/26
sanangelo said:
It's over unless Paxton can turn this around:

paxton's nomination gives the dems a puncher's chance in what should be a comfortably safe seat for republicans. this will be the closest senate race texas has seen since 2018.
Reply Quote
1 edit
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.