Paxton vs Talarico

169,180 Views | 1799 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by Ag with kids
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 Old McDonald • 3:13p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.

You had a Speaker and his hit men with a vendetta that rushed the impeachment vote through in the closing minutes of a session with a ton of pressure that only the Speaker can exert, and with "facts" that were nothing more than hearsay, assertions, and third hand information. He misrepresented the truth to his caucus and then said trust me. Unfortunately, a lot of his Republican colleages got played for fools.
Reply Quote
7
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 • 3:14p, 6/27/26
Keep drinking the Koolaid!
Reply Quote
4
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 • 3:17p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.


No, it won't. Recent polling momentum has been with Paxton as the state sees what a lunatic fruitcake HIV+ Talarico is. This was probably the year you actually had a punchers chance and you wasted it running that idiot.
Reply Quote
22
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 • 3:24p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.


So, everyone that is indicted is guilty?

If not, who decides?
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
Reply Quote
10
BTKAG97
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 • 3:31p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.

Flawed premise. Paxton wasn't "one of their own".
Quote:
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.

Oh no! He allegedly failed to disclose to potential investors he was receiving a commission. The Horror! The Horror! Compared to Congressional insider trading, that is nothing.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Ag with kids
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 • 3:50p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.

So how did that all work out for the prosecution?

How many crimes has he been convicted of?
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
8
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 • 3:57p, 6/27/26
Old McDonald said:
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.

No evidence was presented and the FBI and Democrat DOJ did nothing because they had nothing. Stop lying

No one cares about who or didn't recuse, its noise and means nothing. They walked into the FBI WITH NO EVIDENCE, its was based on "good faith belief". Take the L

Reply Quote
11
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
In reply to Ag with kids • 3:59p, 6/27/26
Ag with kids said:
Old McDonald said:
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.

So how did that all work out for the prosecution?

How many crimes has he been convicted of?

But someone visited the FBI with no evidence!!!
Reply Quote
7
Ag with kids
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 • 4:01p, 6/27/26
AG
samurai_science said:
Ag with kids said:
Old McDonald said:
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.

So how did that all work out for the prosecution?

How many crimes has he been convicted of?

But someone visited the FBI with no evidence!!!

Sounds like Old McDonald is guilty of PERJURY!!!


We should report him!!!!
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
6
Law-Apt_3G
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:12p, 6/27/26
Talrico yard sign is like "look at me, I'm unstable!"
Reply Quote
22
txags92
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 • 4:16p, 6/27/26
AG
Old McDonald said:
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.

Tell me you don't understand how Phelan wielded his power without telling me…
Reply Quote
8
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 txags92 • 4:45p, 6/27/26
AG
txags92 said:
Old McDonald said:
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.

Tell me you don't understand how Phelan wielded his power without telling me…


The amusing political consequence of all this is it cost Phelan much more than Paxton who will soon become our next US Senator.
Reply Quote
6
Ellis Wyatt
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 • 10:43p, 6/27/26
Bull****
Reply Quote
4
mjschiller
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:55p, 6/27/26
AG
Texas has a choice. Vote for a gay communist or a straight American. Muslim islamis will vote for the communist.
Marvin J. Schiller
Reply Quote
12
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 • 10:56p, 6/27/26
AG
If Democrats had Beto or Allred running this would be close. It's mind boggling they've thrown their machine behind Talarico and will blow the best chance they've had in years.
Reply Quote
5
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aglaw97 • 11:02p, 6/27/26
They mistakenly thought Christians would believe Talafreako is one of us. We don't. He isn't.
Reply Quote
32
BadMoonRisin
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 mjschiller • 11:24p, 6/27/26
AG
mjschiller said:
Texas has a choice. Vote for a gay communist or a straight American. Muslim islamis will vote for the communist.

It really is that simple. This guy could probably get elected in Oregon, Washington, California, or on the Eastern seaboard, but his campaign is DOA in Texas.

The gay thing and being obsessed with childrens sexuality is probably not as bad as the fact that he is a weird failure-to-launch mama's boy, at the age of 37, and has not actually worked an honest day in his life, and shares a checking account with his mom after all these years.

Are people really going to turn out to vote for someone who says he has all of the answers, yet cant even basically take care of himself or his finances?

I guess we will see. He will get BTFO by 6 pts or better
i'm sorry i dont laugh at the right times.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
AggieVictor10
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:38a, 6/28/26
AG
paxton is a lock in texas
“…What?”

- Joe Biden
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AggieVictor10 • 1:44a, 6/28/26
Yes. He isn't masquerading as a Christian scholar.
Reply Quote
6
91AggieLawyer
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aglaw97 • 3:10a, 6/28/26
AG
Aglaw97 said:
If Democrats had Beto or Allred running this would be close. It's mind boggling they've thrown their machine behind Talarico and will blow the best chance they've had in years.


People saying this said Cornyn was going to win the nomination due to the fear of this.

What was the runoff margin again?
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:22a, 6/28/26
AG
The biggest threat to Paxton isn't the dems and Talarico, it is the rino wing of the GOP-E that are going to play the "he lost a winnable seat because he was a terrible candidate" game. That is the game where somebody other than the rino's preferred GOP-E candidate wins the primary. In response, the national level funding from places like the Republican Senate Campaign Committee gets cut off, the primary candidate who lost goes full bitthurt and starts helping the other team, and all the rino GOP-E types stay home and don't vote because they are too butthurt that their candidate lost the primary. And when that lack of financial support and their unwillingness to turn out to vote causes the D to win, they all sit around afterward telling us it was because "he or she was a terrible candidate" instead of owning up to the fact that they (rinos and GOP-E types) are responsible for the loss.

We have seen it over and over when Rs lose winnable seats and I fully expect them to run that playbook against Paxton.
Reply Quote
16
1 edit
BuddysBud
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 7:12a, 6/28/26
AG
Hence the GOP really doesn't care if they subject their grandchildren to another failed Marxist regime.
Their butthurt over losing a primary is more important to them than the good of the country.

Yet another reason these old school republicans need to be removed from office.
Reply Quote
14
Gaeilge
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 Law-Apt_3G • 7:24a, 6/28/26
Law-Apt_3G said:
Talrico yard sign is like "look at me, I'm unstable!"


Live in the Heights in Houston. Nowhere near as many signs around here as when Beto was running.
Reply Quote
7
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gaeilge • 7:40a, 6/28/26
Gaeilge said:
Law-Apt_3G said:
Talrico yard sign is like "look at me, I'm unstable!"


Live in the Heights in Houston. Nowhere near as many signs around here as when Beto was running.

The MSM is doing their best to convince us he's the best candidate ever. The more that keeps coming out about him the more wacky he appears. He'd be a great candidate in Maine or Vermont but a terrible statewide candidate in Texas.
Reply Quote
5
LegalDrugPusher
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:41a, 6/28/26
Reply Quote
12
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 7:41a, 6/28/26
txags92 said:
The biggest threat to Paxton isn't the dems and Talarico, it is the rino wing of the GOP-E that are going to play the "he lost a winnable seat because he was a terrible candidate" game. That is the game where somebody other than the rino's preferred GOP-E candidate wins the primary. In response, the national level funding from places like the Republican Senate Campaign Committee gets cut off, the primary candidate who lost goes full bitthurt and starts helping the other team, and all the rino GOP-E types stay home and don't vote because they are too butthurt that their candidate lost the primary. And when that lack of financial support and their unwillingness to turn out to vote causes the D to win, they all sit around afterward telling us it was because "he or she was a terrible candidate" instead of owning up to the fact that they (rinos and GOP-E types) are responsible for the loss.

We have seen it over and over when Rs lose winnable seats and I fully expect them to run that playbook against Paxton.

The swampy part of the GOP is only a hair better than a democrat. They are no friends to conservatism.
Reply Quote
11
ts5641
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LegalDrugPusher • 7:41a, 6/28/26
LegalDrugPusher said:

Things are starting to trend a little better.
Reply Quote
6
BQ78
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 ts5641 • 8:07a, 6/28/26
AG
Nothing has changed but fake polls.
Reply Quote
6
Hubert J. Farnsworth
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txags92 • 8:52a, 6/28/26
txags92 said:
The biggest threat to Paxton isn't the dems and Talarico, it is the rino wing of the GOP-E that are going to play the "he lost a winnable seat because he was a terrible candidate" game. That is the game where somebody other than the rino's preferred GOP-E candidate wins the primary. In response, the national level funding from places like the Republican Senate Campaign Committee gets cut off, the primary candidate who lost goes full bitthurt and starts helping the other team, and all the rino GOP-E types stay home and don't vote because they are too butthurt that their candidate lost the primary. And when that lack of financial support and their unwillingness to turn out to vote causes the D to win, they all sit around afterward telling us it was because "he or she was a terrible candidate" instead of owning up to the fact that they (rinos and GOP-E types) are responsible for the loss.

We have seen it over and over when Rs lose winnable seats and I fully expect them to run that playbook against Paxton.


Bingo. The moderates that always tell the conservatives that we have to vote for the RINO(or the democrats will win) and to just hold our noses and do it are a bunch of hypocrites.
Reply Quote
10
MAROON
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:04a, 6/28/26
AG
In coastal Maine for a vacation. Was talking to a local and he was like "man I really like that Talarico guy. He has common sense. Any chance he can win?" I just laughed.

Coastal Maine is full of gray haired cat women, low T men, and lesbians. Most liberal place I've ever been.

And the number of signs for Planter makes me think Susan Collins doesn't have a chance. This is a weird place - beautiful, but weird.
What do you boys want for breakfast BBQ ?.....OK Chili.
Reply Quote
12
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MAROON • 9:21a, 6/28/26
AG
MAROON said:
In coastal Maine for a vacation. Was talking to a local and he was like "man I really like that Talarico guy. He has common sense. Any chance he can win?" I just laughed.

Coastal Maine is full of gray haired cat women, low T men, and lesbians. Most liberal place I've ever been.

And the number of signs for Planter makes me think Susan Collins doesn't have a chance. This is a weird place - beautiful, but weird.
Don't say too much, or they'll run you out of their little restaurant before you finish your lobster dinner.

Then you'll still be hungry as you walk by their car with the Coexist bumper sticker.
Reply Quote
9
2 edits
Mas89
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 6/28/26
AG
The Bush family and their family compound fit right in.
Reply Quote
4
Tailgate88
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 jrdaustin • 9:25a, 6/28/26
AG
I saw this somewhere the other day … "Seems like the people with Coexist bumper stickers don't want to anymore. "
Reply Quote
11
MAROON
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 Mas89 • 9:45a, 6/28/26
AG
Was there yesterday
What do you boys want for breakfast BBQ ?.....OK Chili.
Reply Quote
1
HtownAg92
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 MAROON • 11:03a, 6/28/26
AG
MAROON said:
Was there yesterday

Love Maine. People are weird but friendly. We went many summers ago on a lobster boat cruise in Kennebunkport and the captain said we had just missed 41 -- that he left in his new boat a little while ago. We cruised around, went by the compound, picked up some traps and then a Secret Service boat goes flying by followed by 41 ripping it in his new fishing boat. Pics are on my phone so I may post another Maine derail later.

/csb

Back to the OP, Maine would make Talarico president.

Paxton really doesn't need to do anything in his campaign but let the freak keep talking and then replaying his words.
Reply Quote
5
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.