Banning slavery was once thought of as unthinkable/radical. The political Overton window has shifted since then so that being firmly policy for just about everyone.

The same can be applied to any historical and current polical topic.

Make sense as to why it starts where it starts and how it can shift over time? And how advocating for the right side of today's Overton window to shift to the middle so we can "pull from a larger rope" or whatever terminology is flawed from the onset.

To show why it's relevant to OP, there are several people advocating for Cornyn in the primary over alternatives. Cornyn is a known RINO and not conservative, therefore those people are essentially willing to shift what they deem as an acceptable R candidate to the left away from conservativism. Which is what has been done the past several decades and the end result over time is conservative candidates becoming significantly harder to gain support since the populace has become conditioned to accepting RINO's and moderates instead.

Collins and Murkowski are more akin to a moderate D than any concept of a moderate R or independent.

And I am not calling for more moderates. I am calling for there to be more compromise within the party to achieve solidarity. That may be where we are missing each other on this.

With the razor thin margins, there is only so much pulling you can do. And it's impossible when die on their sword tards focused on their individual principles / agenda at the expense of the party.

I am not looking for a Ted Cruz to compromise more, i want Randy to consider compromising a little. Same for McConnell, Collins, Merkowski snd their ill who always seem to want to hold out or go against the grain.

And this is another reason why I say Overtons philosophy makes no sense here.

Yea, I don't think so.

In America in particularly, abolishing slavery may have seem radical to southern plantation owners, but for most it was an understood necessity of the southern economies.

And it was not a gradual shifting of views, it was a four year war to settle that and other differences between the Union and Confederacy.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So no compromise? Great.

Let's get NOTHING done so everything can fall apart and Dems can coast to victory.

Solid plan. Let's see how it works out for us.

---

That didn't answer my question. The democrats do not compromise and they have successfully pulled the country farther to the left to where socialists and communists are getting elected in places. Your solution is more republicans governing from the middle when that is what they have been doing for a long time and losing ground.

---

Why didn't the Tea Party succeed in becoming the dominant force in the GOP? It had a huge impact and changed the course, but much of that required those guys to compromise.

I think you and some others have an idea of your ideal R party. I asked you guys to share it but you guys want it to be a secret or something.

---

The Tea Party was infiltrated and killed by establishment type republicans.

My ideal republican party? Anti communist, anti socialist, anti illegal immigration, very limited and selective legal immigration, anti entitlements, pro American exceptionalism, a focus on preserving our culture and keeping out hostile cultures. A party that will fight the culture war that we have been losing to the left for years. Thats a few examples of my ideal republican party.

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

I think he wants the R party to be a WINNING party.

You can't get 218 conservative ideologues (which is what Massie and Paul are) elected in the House. You can't get 51 conservative ideologues elected in the Senate.

For some reason, you don't understand that not everyone is as hard core conservative as you are...

People like Massie and Paul want 100% hard core conservatism or nothing. And many times that means they get nothing...which generally gives the left what they want.

Getting 70% of what you want is ALWAYS better than getting 0%...

Great. I agree with the ideal.

My point is we live in reality. Doesn't mean we don't strive for ideal, doesn't mean we have to accept less than ideal, but we do have to deal with the less than ideal.

We have way too many focused on perfect that they sacrifice any progress. Abortion, spending cuts, immigration are all areas where this has cost Rs over the past few decades.

Drawing an absolutist position on abortion saying it should be 100% no exceptions was always going to be a losing position for the Rs as it's simply not as broadly supported as one would like to admit. It finally made some progress by getting it sent back to the states there the laws can more closely reflect the varying constituencies across the nation. But make no mistake for many that is a compromise, moderation of their actual position.

From an ideals position, I mostly agree with you, Tea Party, BigRobSA and others who are very vocal and steadfast on what a "true" conservative or republican is. I am saying that compromise has to occur within the party and sometimes across the aisle in order to achieve progress.

Back to the OP, I don't like Cornyn, total empty suit and too compromising. Paxton disgusts me. Hunt? If he could show he could beat Talarico or Crockett handily then I would go that direction. But Cornyn likely means the seat remains "safe" but if Dems return to power Cornyn will be back to supporting them when it makes non sense to do so.

No good options.

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

I think he wants the R party to be a WINNING party.

You can't get 218 conservative ideologues (which is what Massie and Paul are) elected in the House. You can't get 51 conservative ideologues elected in the Senate.

For some reason, you don't understand that not everyone is as hard core conservative as you are...

People like Massie and Paul want 100% hard core conservatism or nothing. And many times that means they get nothing...which generally gives the left what they want.

Getting 70% of what you want is ALWAYS better than getting 0%...

---

Yeah, the moderate dominated republican party sure has been doing a lot of "winning".

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No they are not reasonable. Have not been for quite some time. And yes i would like to see the Rs be as cohesive as them. The cracks in that seem to be on the far right with Massie and Randy, nit with any moderate.

---

Rand and Massie are strange. They seem more libertarian than conservative.

What do these people in the senate all have in common? McConnell, Murkowski, Collins, Cornyn, Lankford.

---

RINOs.

What would you call a Ted Cruz?

---

They are all moderates. Ted Cruz is a conservative who I think has started to lose his usefulness(I know I'll get bashed for that).

---

Moderates according to your personal perception or is there a chart we can reference of what makes them moderate?

---

They are not conservatives. Any one of them, depending on who's turn it is to take the heat, would kill any major conservative legislation or vote to help pass major liberal legislation.

---

Massie and Paul have voted numerous times based on their unbending ideology and helped the Dems get what they wanted.

How can you not even admit that slavery went from the policy range in the past to the unthinkable/radical range today????

It's probably the clearest example of the Overton window philosophy and how political views can shift over time.

Socialism was once thought to be unthinkable/radical in the U.S. yet now we pretty much have a third of the voting populace ok with it.

My point is if people constantly expect the conservative wing to be the side that has to move left, then over time there won't be enough support for the conservative wing to carry any weight. They will continue to fall out of the sensible/popular range and into the acceptable/unthinkable range. Hoping the moderates start to suddenly show signs of conservativism is naive because the last several decades have shown that the moderates have zero interest in moving to the right, thus it's insanity by definition to expect this time it will change if we "pull the rope from the middle".

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

I think he wants the R party to be a WINNING party.

You can't get 218 conservative ideologues (which is what Massie and Paul are) elected in the House. You can't get 51 conservative ideologues elected in the Senate.

For some reason, you don't understand that not everyone is as hard core conservative as you are...

People like Massie and Paul want 100% hard core conservatism or nothing. And many times that means they get nothing...which generally gives the left what they want.

Getting 70% of what you want is ALWAYS better than getting 0%...

---

He admitted that he wants the conservatives to compromise and be more like the moderates. If that is not admitting he wants the R party to be more moderate as a whole then they should clarify it.

And congrats on being a winning party if the end goal is being more moderate...

I have never said I expect 218 conservatvie ideologues but sure if you want to say that's what I believe then go right along with that nonsense. It's not helpful to the discussion.

And no Massie/Paul do not want 100% hard core conservatvism or nothing. That is naive of you to think that. That is impossible with the way our government is setup based on compromise. If your statement was true they would NEVER vote for any legislation because we do not have any legislation that is 100% hard core conservativism.

How will you know if Hunt can beat the dems if he doesn't make it out of the primary? I'd rather take a chance with him or Paxton than go with the safe Cornyn when we know exactly what he is. There wouldn't have to be near as much compromise within the party if we had more conservatives winning primaries.

Socialism had a pretty solid following in the USA pre-WWI and WWII. Heck, in 1912 Eugene Debs of the Socialist party received 6% of the national vote in the presidential election.

8 years later he received over 3%… running from his cell in federal prison.

And slavery continues to be a poor case for Overton. It was not resolved by war nor policy change (not in the traditional sense).

Quote:

---

Cornyn and his machine (John's team commits voter fraud at a level that would make LBJ blush.)

---

Details, plz.

Tea Party said:

---

Banning slavery was once thought of as unthinkable/radical. The political Overton window has shifted since then so that being firmly policy for just about everyone.

The same can be applied to any historical and current polical topic.

Make sense as to why it starts where it starts and how it can shift over time? And how advocating for the right side of today's Overton window to shift to the middle so we can "pull from a larger rope" or whatever terminology is flawed from the onset.

To show why it's relevant to OP, there are several people advocating for Cornyn in the primary over alternatives. Cornyn is a known RINO and not conservative, therefore those people are essentially willing to shift what they deem as an acceptable R candidate to the left away from conservativism. Which is what has been done the past several decades and the end result over time is conservative candidates becoming significantly harder to gain support since the populace has become conditioned to accepting RINO's and moderates instead.

---

Most would rather have someone other than Cornyn.

BUT...Paxton is damaged goods and has a lot of negatives.

He has the highest chance of handing that seat over to a Dem, especially if it's a slick talker like Talarico. In that case, you need to take the lesser of two evils...

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Banning slavery was once thought of as unthinkable/radical. The political Overton window has shifted since then so that being firmly policy for just about everyone.

The same can be applied to any historical and current polical topic.

Make sense as to why it starts where it starts and how it can shift over time? And how advocating for the right side of today's Overton window to shift to the middle so we can "pull from a larger rope" or whatever terminology is flawed from the onset.

To show why it's relevant to OP, there are several people advocating for Cornyn in the primary over alternatives. Cornyn is a known RINO and not conservative, therefore those people are essentially willing to shift what they deem as an acceptable R candidate to the left away from conservativism. Which is what has been done the past several decades and the end result over time is conservative candidates becoming significantly harder to gain support since the populace has become conditioned to accepting RINO's and moderates instead.

---

Most would rather have someone other than Cornyn.

BUT...Paxton is damaged goods and has a lot of negatives.

He has the highest chance of handing that seat over to a Dem, especially if it's a slick talker like Talarico. In that case, you need to take the lesser of two evils...

---

Agreed Paxton has more baggage than Hunt. Also agreed that Cornyn has a higher chance of winning the general, but I believe people overestimate the difference between Cornyn's odds and Hunt/Paxton's odds.

Just me spitballing, but being indifferent to the D candidate I'd guess the R candidates general odds of winning are:
75% Cornyn
70% Hunt
65% Paxton

That is not a big enough of a drop for me to vote for the known RINO in Cornyn vs take the gamble on a potentially more conservative candidate in Hunt or Paxton. Especially when you consider how the low information voters in the middle always stay in the middle and how if Cornyn wins again it just reinforces the notion that the middle should move to the left slightly next time.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

I think he wants the R party to be a WINNING party.

You can't get 218 conservative ideologues (which is what Massie and Paul are) elected in the House. You can't get 51 conservative ideologues elected in the Senate.

For some reason, you don't understand that not everyone is as hard core conservative as you are...

People like Massie and Paul want 100% hard core conservatism or nothing. And many times that means they get nothing...which generally gives the left what they want.

Getting 70% of what you want is ALWAYS better than getting 0%...

---

Yeah, the moderate dominated republican party sure has been doing a lot of "winning".

---

Well, they're better than a Dem dominated Congress and POTUS...which is what you'll get if you go too far right...

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Banning slavery was once thought of as unthinkable/radical. The political Overton window has shifted since then so that being firmly policy for just about everyone.

The same can be applied to any historical and current polical topic.

Make sense as to why it starts where it starts and how it can shift over time? And how advocating for the right side of today's Overton window to shift to the middle so we can "pull from a larger rope" or whatever terminology is flawed from the onset.

To show why it's relevant to OP, there are several people advocating for Cornyn in the primary over alternatives. Cornyn is a known RINO and not conservative, therefore those people are essentially willing to shift what they deem as an acceptable R candidate to the left away from conservativism. Which is what has been done the past several decades and the end result over time is conservative candidates becoming significantly harder to gain support since the populace has become conditioned to accepting RINO's and moderates instead.

---

Most would rather have someone other than Cornyn.

BUT...Paxton is damaged goods and has a lot of negatives.

He has the highest chance of handing that seat over to a Dem, especially if it's a slick talker like Talarico. In that case, you need to take the lesser of two evils...

---

Agreed Paxton has more baggage than Hunt. Also agreed that Cornyn has a higher chance of winning the general, but I believe people overestimate the difference between Cornyn's odds and Hunt/Paxton's odds.

Just me spitballing, but being indifferent to the D candidate I'd guess the R candidates general odds of winning are:
75% Cornyn
70% Hunt
65% Paxton

That is not a big enough of a drop for me to vote for the known RINO in Cornyn vs take the gamble on a potentially more conservative candidate in Hunt or Paxton. Especially when you consider how the low information voters in the middle always stay in the middle and how if Cornyn wins again it just reinforces the notion that the middle should move to the left slightly next time.

---

I'd say the odds for Paxton are lower than that.

Beto vs Cruz was a 51%-48% fight...

Paxton has a LOT more negatives than Cruz...

If you get Talarico as the Dem nominee, he's a slick talker like Beto was...and the Dems are going to toss **** tons of cash at this race if Paxton is the nominee...they won't if it's Cornyn (because they know that's a lost cause).


THAT is why I seriously worry about Paxton in that race...I don't want SIX years (minimum, since incumbents have a greater chance of winning) of a Dem Senator in TX.

Ag with kids said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

I think he wants the R party to be a WINNING party.

You can't get 218 conservative ideologues (which is what Massie and Paul are) elected in the House. You can't get 51 conservative ideologues elected in the Senate.

For some reason, you don't understand that not everyone is as hard core conservative as you are...

People like Massie and Paul want 100% hard core conservatism or nothing. And many times that means they get nothing...which generally gives the left what they want.

Getting 70% of what you want is ALWAYS better than getting 0%...

---

Yeah, the moderate dominated republican party sure has been doing a lot of "winning".

---

Well, they're better than a Dem dominated Congress and POTUS...which is what you'll get if you go too far right...

---

What is "far right"?

anyhoo, who here thinks Jazzy can eek out the primary win vs the newest shiny soy boy?

Is there any other choice for Lt. Gov. besides Danny G?

What is "far right"?

CampSkunk said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Voting for Cornyn. Can't take a chance with an own goal here in Texas.

---

And that's why things never change with the republicans. Texans do this to ourselves every primary. We vote for the useless moderate incumbent because the fear of possibly losing to the dems in the general. Then we complain when they inevitably stab us in the back.

---

Now go research Sharon angle, Herschel Walker, Todd akin, Kari lake, etc

---

And? That doesn't change what I said. People like you are why we continually get stuck with useless RINO's. Republican voters in Texas get gaslit every two years into voting for RINO's in the primaries. It's always the same crap. "But if we don't vote for the moderate, the dems may have a chance in the general". "I'd rather get 60% of what I want than nothing". "Texas could go blue". Nevermind the fact that the moderates dishonestly run on full blown conservative policy to win. A flawed, but actual conservative candidate can win the general in Texas. We are still a red state.

---

Cornyn has voted with Trump more than 90% of the time, but I understand when MAGA labels somebody who isn't 100% pure as a RINO. Which is okay, as long as the MAGA candidate doesn't turn out to be a loser like Herschel Walker or Dr. Oz. Both Paxton and Hunt have some baggage, and if I begin to think that either of them has the slimmest of a chance of losing to Talarico I'm sticking with Cornyn. I'm also hoping that the lunatics nominate Crockett, in which case I won't care who wins the Republican nomination because I'll deem them having no chance of losing. Which is why I might wait until March 3rd to vote in hopes that the polling will tell me something.

---

The Republican Senate primary is going to a runoff; the democrat one isn't.

Ferg said:

---

I was being kind. That said, are you guys for Paxton or one of the others?

---

I keep getting Ads on my Tv saying Wesley Hunt is a Hillary Clinton supporter, and I almost burst out laughing every time. Who is funding these ads, Cornyn or Paxton? I'd guess Cornyn, but idk since the experts say Hunt could beat Paxton in a runoff whereas Paxton should beat Cornyn in a runoff.

Tea Party said:

---

Thank you for finally admitting you want the R party to be a moderate party.

The "far right" as you call it like Massie and Paul etc are just normal conservatives with slight Libertarian leanings that don't want to go along with a moderate agenda when their party is in the majority.

---

Massie and Paul seem like some of the only normal people in Congress. Like not in a cult.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

What is "far right"?

---

Anyone copying policies of Russia and Hungary.

Ag1188 said:

---

Ferg said:

---

I was being kind. That said, are you guys for Paxton or one of the others?

---

I keep getting Ads on my Tv saying Wesley Hunt is a Hillary Clinton supporter, and I almost burst out laughing every time. Who is funding these ads, Cornyn or Paxton? I'd guess Cornyn, but idk since the experts say Hunt could beat Paxton in a runoff whereas Paxton should beat Cornyn in a runoff.

---

I just got a text with a video saying Hunt supported Obama and then Hillary. Nowhere in the video did it say what campaign the video was from. I paused it at the end to read the small print on the bottom, but it didn't say who.

Ag1188 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

What is "far right"?

---

Anyone copying policies of Russia and Hungary.

---

What policies are those?

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Banning slavery was once thought of as unthinkable/radical. The political Overton window has shifted since then so that being firmly policy for just about everyone.

The same can be applied to any historical and current polical topic.

Make sense as to why it starts where it starts and how it can shift over time? And how advocating for the right side of today's Overton window to shift to the middle so we can "pull from a larger rope" or whatever terminology is flawed from the onset.

To show why it's relevant to OP, there are several people advocating for Cornyn in the primary over alternatives. Cornyn is a known RINO and not conservative, therefore those people are essentially willing to shift what they deem as an acceptable R candidate to the left away from conservativism. Which is what has been done the past several decades and the end result over time is conservative candidates becoming significantly harder to gain support since the populace has become conditioned to accepting RINO's and moderates instead.

---

Most would rather have someone other than Cornyn.

BUT...Paxton is damaged goods and has a lot of negatives.

He has the highest chance of handing that seat over to a Dem, especially if it's a slick talker like Talarico. In that case, you need to take the lesser of two evils...

---

Agreed Paxton has more baggage than Hunt. Also agreed that Cornyn has a higher chance of winning the general, but I believe people overestimate the difference between Cornyn's odds and Hunt/Paxton's odds.

Just me spitballing, but being indifferent to the D candidate I'd guess the R candidates general odds of winning are:
75% Cornyn
70% Hunt
65% Paxton

That is not a big enough of a drop for me to vote for the known RINO in Cornyn vs take the gamble on a potentially more conservative candidate in Hunt or Paxton. Especially when you consider how the low information voters in the middle always stay in the middle and how if Cornyn wins again it just reinforces the notion that the middle should move to the left slightly next time.

---

I'd say the odds for Paxton are lower than that.

Beto vs Cruz was a 51%-48% fight...

Paxton has a LOT more negatives than Cruz...

If you get Talarico as the Dem nominee, he's a slick talker like Beto was...and the Dems are going to toss **** tons of cash at this race if Paxton is the nominee...they won't if it's Cornyn (because they know that's a lost cause).


THAT is why I seriously worry about Paxton in that race...I don't want SIX years (minimum, since incumbents have a greater chance of winning) of a Dem Senator in TX.

---

I worry about Paxton more than Hunt too and maybe Paxton's odds are lower than I guessed, but Hunt is right there too with similar odds as Cornyn. Whatever fear there is of 6 years of D should be more than offset by the chance at a potentially more conservative candidate in Hunt over Cornyn.

Otherwise you fall prey to the thought that "this election is the most important ever" type of mindset which prevents you from voting for your principles. Especially when a vote for those principles only comes with a slight increased risk in D odds but the potentially more conservative candidate is still heavily favored to win.

The same can be said for those that think Paxton has better odds than Hunt. It's a preference and both offer a chance at a more conservative candidate than the known RINO in Cornyn.

And the Cruz/Beto 51:48 outcome is not a reflection of the odds. Cruz's odds were greater than 51% of winning, probably closer to 65% and he did not campaign hard nor spend a significant amount of money, though he had the incumbency factor which helped. Whoever get the GOP nomination is going to have a sizeable warchest for campaigning and Talarico is Beto 2.0 like you said but that's been proven to be a loser.

Here is the debate for the individual voter, do you want to vote for the candidate that aligns best with your beliefs or the most electable candidate in the primary? The GOP primary is going to a run-off between Cornyn and Paxton in May, so I'm not really that interested in the March vote. That said, I haven't seen anything about the Dem primary going to a run-off. If Crockett wins, it really doesn't matter who wins the GOP primary. She is gonna lose, badly. Talarico could be a threat against Paxton, given his negative publicity the last couple of years. You'll see all the outside money coming in to prop Talarico up, like in Allred and Beto Senate races. I can't see the GOP losing this Senate seat, but Paxton - Talarico would be uncomfortably close, maybe closer than Beto and Cruz in 18'. Cornyn would beat Talarico by 7 + points and the Dems would likely spend their money elsewhere.

TLDR: wait to see who wins the Dem primary and reassess who to vote for in the runoff. Paxton has won state wide races before, but has baggage. If the economic numbers look good in November and the border/ immigration is still a losing issue for the Dems, Paxton will win not matter who the opponent is. If things aren't looking good for the GOP, the seat could flip. Crockett is an absolute moron, but Talarico is sneaky. Going to try to come off as a moderate. Cornyn votes with Trump 90+% of the time and really isn't a RINO, he's more of old school bland, vanilla country club Republican. He'd win both races comfortably. Paxton has more MAGA support and follows Trumps agenda, I've enjoyed him as our AG, but there are too many issues with him if he's going up against Talarico.

Tony Gonzalez in TX-23 is watching his career go down in flames like his side piece staffer.

BREAKING: Adrian Aviles broke months of silence on his wife's affair w/ Rep. @TonyGonzales4TX, R-San Antonio, today after we reported on a text message acknowledging the affair.

In an exclusive interview w/ @nancypjohnson, he said his wife showed him graphic texts w/ the rep 🧵

— Bayliss Wagner (@baylisswagner) February 19, 2026

If people would get behind Hunt, it resolves the Cornyn / Paxton dilemma. Hunt polls the best of all three of them against the dems. If you don't vote for Hunt, then you don't maximize the chances for a Republican win. I don't see the downside of voting Hunt in the primary. Conservative, without major baggage.

The Sun said:

---

Tony Gonzalez in TX-23 is watching his career go down in flames like his side piece staffer.

BREAKING: Adrian Aviles broke months of silence on his wife's affair w/ Rep. @TonyGonzales4TX, R-San Antonio, today after we reported on a text message acknowledging the affair.

In an exclusive interview w/ @nancypjohnson, he said his wife showed him graphic texts w/ the rep 🧵

— Bayliss Wagner (@baylisswagner) February 19, 2026

---

Tony has barely made it out of every primary he's been through. I'm hoping we can knock him out this time. This has been the quietest race for that seat in a number of years. I wonder if Tony and Brandon Herrera used up all of their campaign money in 2024.

It's frustrating to see so many posters labeling Cornyn as a "moderate" or RINO with few references to his actual voting record. (The gun control legislation being the one exception I have seen). So, I did a quick search on recent votes - which of these do you disagree with? If Cornyn votes the way would you like, is he still a moderate because he voted on one thing you disagree with? Is it okay for a legislator to compromise on occasion to get something he or she really wants? Or does he or she need to remain true and holy to keep the conservative label?

• Cornyn voted to prohibit the Federal Reserve from purchasing or selling the debt of any state or municipality.
• Cornyn voted to reduce federal spending by 5 percent, excluding military and border funding.
• Cornyn voted to prohibit funding in a bill from being used to fly illegal migrants into the United States.
• Cornyn voted to prohibit the use of fiscal 2024 funding to implement or enforce EPA rules on tailpipe emissions for vehicles.
• Cornyn voted against Biden's plan to cancel $4.65 billion in Ukrainian debt.

Of course, there are probably dozens of other votes in the last couple years that you could look at - these are just the first few I saw. Which ones do you like?

I'd rather restart our Senate seat with someone younger than Paxton. I know it always feels like we are forced to keep Cornyn, but this just isn't the right candidate strategically for the state imo.

It does seem Hunt is the most intriguing of the bunch, but Texas going to Texas here.

CampSkunk said:

---

It's frustrating to see so many posters labeling Cornyn as a "moderate" or RINO with few references to his actual voting record. (The gun control legislation being the one exception I have seen). So, I did a quick search on recent votes - which of these do you disagree with? If Cornyn votes the way would you like, is he still a moderate because he voted on one thing you disagree with? Is it okay for a legislator to compromise on occasion to get something he or she really wants? Or does he or she need to remain true and holy to keep the conservative label?

• Cornyn voted to prohibit the Federal Reserve from purchasing or selling the debt of any state or municipality.
• Cornyn voted to reduce federal spending by 5 percent, excluding military and border funding.
• Cornyn voted to prohibit funding in a bill from being used to fly illegal migrants into the United States.
• Cornyn voted to prohibit the use of fiscal 2024 funding to implement or enforce EPA rules on tailpipe emissions for vehicles.
• Cornyn voted against Biden's plan to cancel $4.65 billion in Ukrainian debt.

Of course, there are probably dozens of other votes in the last couple years that you could look at - these are just the first few I saw. Which ones do you like?

---

Any republican senator that was heavily involved in the negotiations of that horrible, failed bipartisan border act of 2024 is a RINO. Cornyn was involved and supported it until angry voters blew up his, and his fellow republican colleagues, office phonelines. He was completely dead to me for supporting that crap.