Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

Primaries are over. Complaining that Wesley Hunt didn't prove enough to be better or that someone you like more than Paxton didn't step forward to get corn brisket primaried is futile and moot.

Now, it's insane communist with zero accomplishments or dude with a track record of suing the crap out of feds for overreach that the establishment has programmed people to hate despite no accusations sticking and hypocritical uneven bars set on character. Seems pretty easy for anyone who pays attention.

The challenge is that many don't pay attention. Getting the truth out to the masses who either don't pay attention at all or only consume MSM because we live in two completely different worlds and many still don't realize just how far out there the commie candidate is or how dangerous it is cede control of the Senate to today's marxist democrat party.

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

That is definitely the standard leftists want the rest of us to live by.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

Well, I consider the current platform of the entire Democrat party, and particularly the policy positions of Talarico to be just that.

Given the two viable choices in front of us, Paxton could walk out into the street and cap some rando in the head and I'd still vote for him over Talarico.

There is nothing a Democrat could do to get me to vote for them because I find their entire platform to be absurd and anti-American.

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

Well, I consider the current platform of the entire Democrat party, and particularly the policy positions of Talarico to be just that.

Given the two viable choices in front of us, Paxton could walk out into the street and cap some rando in the head and I'd still vote for him over Talarico.

There is nothing a Democrat could do to get me to vote for them because I find their entire platform to be absurd and anti-American.

---

The difference between the right and left is that the right will still go out and pull the lever for the person on their team. The left will stay home or pull the lever for their feels.

And this is why the right wins more elections than the left, and this is the perfect example.

One may not like their choice, but they'll still go out and vote for them. The left, not gonna happen.

japantiger said:

---

twk said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

Paxton's problems were of his own making. If you think he's something other than an unscrupulous opportunist, you have been duped. Fortunately, we don't need much from senators except voting the right way, so he should fit right in.

---

I don't care. The Democrat candidate is INSANE

---

I feel the same way. I just have to laugh when people lionize Paxton as some kind of great conservative. He's the best candidate in this race, easily, but that's a really low bar given how bad Talafreako is.

twk said:

---

japantiger said:

---

twk said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

Paxton's problems were of his own making. If you think he's something other than an unscrupulous opportunist, you have been duped. Fortunately, we don't need much from senators except voting the right way, so he should fit right in.

---

I don't care. The Democrat candidate is INSANE

---

I feel the same way. I just have to laugh when people lionize Paxton as some kind of great conservative. He's the best candidate in this race, easily, but that's a really low bar given how bad Talafreako is.

---

He can be a great conservative in his actions on policy and still have a shady past. One can be separated from the other if you lay aside emotion and realize all the matters is his ability to fight progressives and grind them to dust.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

So like a literal nazi with a nazi tattoo on his chest or an antisemitic terrorist supporter could be elected? Is that the kind of evil and debauchery you were worried about if people didn't vote for "nice" people instead?

Quote:

---

He can be a great conservative in his actions on policy and still have a shady past. One can be separated from the other if you lay aside emotion and realize all the matters is his ability to fight progressives and grind them to dust.

---

An AG who has the kind of chummy relationship that he does with the plaintiff's bar is not a small "c" conservative. He'd have you believe otherwise, but it's just a fact that no principled conservative AG would do that. He's an opportunist, and a survivor. The latter is probably his strongest attribute.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

Well, I consider the current platform of the entire Democrat party, and particularly the policy positions of Talarico to be just that.

Given the two viable choices in front of us, Paxton could walk out into the street and cap some rando in the head and I'd still vote for him over Talarico.

There is nothing a Democrat could do to get me to vote for them because I find their entire platform to be absurd and anti-American.

---

The difference between the right and left is that the right will still go out and pull the lever for the person on their team. The left will stay home or pull the lever for their feels.

And this is why the right wins more elections than the left, and this is the perfect example.

One may not like their choice, but they'll still go out and vote for them. The left, not gonna happen.

---

So the left who has spent decades calling every republican candidate a nazi would decide not to turn out to support a candidate who had a nazi tattoo on his chest? Or would he win the democratic primary? The left that claims to want to "coexist!" wouldn't elect a candidate that was openly supportive of violence against jews? Or would they elect multiples at city, state, and national level offices? The left who told us to believe all women wouldn't elect an accused rapist would they? Or would they conveniently ignore the "political hits" because it was their guy who was the rapist this time?

There is not a difference between their side and ours except that we have never trumper concerned moderates who will wring their hands and withhold funding from candidates who were not pre-approved by the GOP-e and then tells us those candidates lost because "they were terrible candidates", not because they were denied funding by the party apparatus and the CMs stayed home.

Quote:

---

And let's be clear, by "image problem" what we're talking about is political disagreements with Donald Trump. He was seen as someone not in line with the current rabidly populist and isolationist subset of current republican voters that are really and more specifically Trump voters.

---

False.

The issues with Cornyn date back prior to Trump. Over his time in the Senate he became more and more of an insider who wanted to play safe and climb the ladder more than representing the needs of Texas. The Trump era simply highlighted it more. Most voters managed to overlook it and re-elected him multiple times. But eventually it caught up to him.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

I get what you're trying to say, but when the Dems keep putting up far-left candidates like Talarico, it compels us to vote for the other candidate who might be personally very flawed but is still reasonable politically.

If the Dems put up a reasonable, center-left candidate who didn't advocate crazy views, you would see less people hold their nose and vote for Paxton, and more who would actually vote for the Dem.

The bizarre thing about all of this is even though the R's have a pretty strong record of putting up very flawed candidates -- and I'll include Trump in that basket -- the Dems double-down on stupid with going further left to the point people hold their nose and vote for the flawed R instead. Not so much for the R, but to keep the Dem nut out of office.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

So what, we're just supposed to vote for the guy whose policy positions are opposite of our own because the other candidate is a bad person?

---

I'm not saying Paxton meets the threshold, and I'm gonna hold my nose and vote for him, but there does need to be SOME threshold beyond which you don't vote for a candidate just because they aren't a "crazy democrat". Otherwise your worldview is rooted solely in the value of power for its own sake and there's no limiting moral principles.

My point is it's EXTREMELY dangerous to vote with that mindset because it allows for the possibility of literally any and all form of evil and debauchery to be elected.

---

But we've seen a lot of politicians lose their morals after being elected as well.

I understand the need for a certain standard. Though I do find it kind of funny because back when Ted Cruz was running for the first time, there were a number of people that thought he was too "Jesusy" and Dewhurst had more experience of battling in the state of Texas which could help in DC. Many thought Cruz and his morals plus his conservative views would make him a pariah in the Senate and no one would work with him.

Paxton is probably a better fit as a governor or serving as an attorney in a Republican administration. The Senate does require a certain degree of diplomacy.

However, what makes him an a-hole as a person also makes him a very effective attorney and following through on issues of policy.

I also think in the current political climate, you are going to see fewer 'moral values' candidates running for office given the scrutiny and pressure it puts on their families. You are going to see more Trump/Paxton types running in the Republican party because the way they get put through the ringer.

the "rabidly populist and isolationist" trope is just that: trope. it's part of the msm narrative to the masses to foster and promote TDS and to scare people because the only alternative in our two party system right now self-destructive socialism.

finding fraud in USAID and shutting it down is not isolationist. threats to reduce funding or leave NATO or WHO or any other corrupt globalist communist organization is not isolationist. adding or increasing tariffs on countries that heavily tariff US-made products and using those levers to reciprocate vs countries that take advantage of us is not isolationist.

https://x.com/DaysPaxton/status/ 2085453001880109539

Edit: put in space before the tweet numbers since the word **** is in the tweet

on one hand, maybe Paxton's campaign hasn't really gotten going because it isn't adequately funded as the two biggest conservative PACs are playing chicken with each other to see who bites first as reported earlier... on the other hand, perhaps the Paxton campaign has some damning oppo research nukes for which they just need to sit on and drop right before early voting starts. There's already plenty of clips from sermons and podcasts and previous tweets that illustrate how crazy this guy is, but maybe there's something much worse than the psycho takes he already has on record.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

i mean, there was also the $100 million primary campaign against him which dragged him through the mud

One more thing on why Cornyn lost the primary - has to be at least 50% because of that ridiculous brisket post on social media..... which should have been prosecuted by Tootsie Tomanetz as Texas Culinary War Crime.

Old McDonald said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

i mean, there was also the $100 million primary campaign against him which dragged him through the mud

---

There is also your friends in the mainstream media which are more than happy to assail an effective true Conservative AG.... even if they have to link arms with the Bush era neo-cons........ I am old enough to remember when your ilk said Bush was literally Hitler too.

So of course, leftsts will help the allies of 'literally hitler from 2005' to harm 'literally hitler from 2026 and all his political allies'.

Am I getting that straight?

why would leftists have attacked paxton during the primary? they wanted him to win, he was the easier opponent for talarico

And anti God. They removed God from their platform which would have really miffed the original patriots who knew they needed God's greatness.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

twk said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

Paxton's problems were of his own making. If you think he's something other than an unscrupulous opportunist, you have been duped. Fortunately, we don't need much from senators except voting the right way, so he should fit right in.

---

I don't care. The Democrat candidate is INSANE

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

Nice strawman...he didn't kill anyone; he didn't commit treason; he's not an apostate and oh, yeah, he's not insane.

He cheated on his wife...probably like 50% of everyone in DC. Bill Clinton made that OK...I didn't make the rules, the Democrats did. So I'm certainly not going to treat our guy differently than their's.

And, oh, did I mention that Talarico is insane.

Old McDonald said:

---

why would leftists have attacked paxton during the primary? they wanted him to win, he was the easier opponent for talarico

---

It's worth the risk to get a true conservative in the seat. Cornyn is not conservative anymore. I still think Paxton going to win. Look at the Michigan results. The DSA Dem did not earn any counties where working class people are the majority. I think that trend is going to replicate throughout the country, including Texas. Talarico is going to lie about what he's for, disavow his DSA roots, but I think there will be plenty of Republican PACs picking up any slack in advertising to make sure everyone knows exactly what Talarico is for by using his own videos and words.

Is Paxton even alive at this point.....

shiftyandquick said:

---

What I hear from F16 is the that Paxton is going to blow away TalaFreako when the voting actually happens. No reason to freak out about the polls. Just stay the course and Paxton is going to win. EASILY.

---

Do you think a conservative like Ronald Reagan would vote for a Talarico?

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

What I hear from F16 is the that Paxton is going to blow away TalaFreako when the voting actually happens. No reason to freak out about the polls. Just stay the course and Paxton is going to win. EASILY.

---

Do you think a conservative like Ronald Reagan would vote for a Talarico?

---

japantiger said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

twk said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

Paxton's problems were of his own making. If you think he's something other than an unscrupulous opportunist, you have been duped. Fortunately, we don't need much from senators except voting the right way, so he should fit right in.

---

I don't care. The Democrat candidate is INSANE

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

Nice strawman...he didn't kill anyone; he didn't commit treason; he's not an apostate and oh, yeah, he's not insane.

He cheated on his wife...probably like 50% of everyone in DC. Bill Clinton made that OK...I didn't make the rules, the Democrats did. So I'm certainly not going to treat our guy differently than their's.

And, oh, did I mention that Talarico is insane.

---

I'm begrudgingly voting for Paxton, Im just saying the logic in question is rendered morally bakrupt when taken to its logical conclusion.

And Paxton didnt "just" cheat on his wife. He has taken bribes, used his office for financial gain and has committed multiple tax and other financial frauds.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

He has taken bribes, used his office for financial gain and has committed multiple tax and other financial frauds.

---

why isn't he in prison? Since you know so matter of factly, you should your evidence to the FBI because they've been after him for a decade and haven't come up with anything. They need your help.

He's too busy taking his 15th booster because, you know, the science to post actual facts.

One could say Paxton is a natural mutation away from Cornyn by Texas GOP voters.

I figure the state is about two to four election cycles out from getting a Lina Hildago. It won't be Talarico, unless the absurd THC law has some blowback.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

japantiger said:

---

twk said:

---

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

The only reason Paxton has any image problems is because the media is obsessed with attacking him. His legal troubles were complete internal corrupt Texas bs hit jobs. His marriage falling apart, while not great, would never be a big deal for a Democrat - Democrats with personal problems are never held to the same standard by the Texas Tribune, Texas Monthly, Crony Cronicle, DaMN, etc....

---

Paxton's problems were of his own making. If you think he's something other than an unscrupulous opportunist, you have been duped. Fortunately, we don't need much from senators except voting the right way, so he should fit right in.

---

I don't care. The Democrat candidate is INSANE

---

I mean sure, fine, but this logic has no limiting principle. There's literally nobody on the right too extreme or too morally unscrupulous for this to apply to.

---

Nice strawman...he didn't kill anyone; he didn't commit treason; he's not an apostate and oh, yeah, he's not insane.

He cheated on his wife...probably like 50% of everyone in DC. Bill Clinton made that OK...I didn't make the rules, the Democrats did. So I'm certainly not going to treat our guy differently than their's.

And, oh, did I mention that Talarico is insane.

---

I'm begrudgingly voting for Paxton, Im just saying the logic in question is rendered morally bakrupt when taken to its logical conclusion.

And Paxton didnt "just" cheat on his wife. He has taken bribes, used his office for financial gain and has committed multiple tax and other financial frauds.

---

Convictions?

This is the choice some will vote for:

🚨BREAKING TEXAS: VOTE LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT - STOP JAMES "JIHADI" TALARICO

Texans must turn out in force for Ken Paxton or watch this state become the next Michigan-style Islamic/Marxist experiment.

James Talarico is the smiling radical Democrat in the Capitol photo… https://t.co/09vtv5G9yx pic.twitter.com/LZPblyvs4M

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) August 7, 2026

🚨JIHADI TALARICO 🚨

THE SMILING FACE OF THE RED-GREEN ALLIANCE THAT SPITS ON CHRISTIANS & JEWS TO ELEVATE ISLAM

James Talarico isn’t just another progressive Democrat. He is the living embodiment of the Red-Green Alliance - the toxic marriage of radical leftists and Islamic… https://t.co/lkTwiEyiyO pic.twitter.com/ptnKcafYSr

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) August 7, 2026

Quote:

---

The population claim is a lie (typical for him). The real goal is clear: hand more institutional power to his Islamic allies. Allahu Akbar Texas!

He publicly thanked the controversial Muslim activists who wrote the bill and singled out radical Insiya Aziz of the terror-tied Muslim advocacy group Emgage Action.

Aziz had clerked for a foreign Islamic terrorist group - CAIR's national office - and pushed hardline Shia causes through the American Muslim Bar Association, and testified for Emgage.

Emgage is the political arm of a Muslim Brotherhood influence operation co-founded by Khurrum Wahid, a longtime CAIR legal advisor who made his name defending clients in national-security cases - including jihadi Sami Al-Arian.

Jihadi Al-Arian was the University of South Florida professor who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the State Department-designated terrorist group behind suicide bombings.

He served prison time and was deported. That is the pedigree of the organization Talarico partnered with.

Aziz's own X banner even shows a nighttime Shia Muharram/Ashura street procession - the kind of mass takeover with banners and public self-flagellation that we have been documenting taking over the streets of Texas.

---

The irony of a homosexual partnering with these groups is lost on many.

BBRex said:

---

I figure the state is about two to four election cycles out from getting a Lina Hildago. It won't be Talarico, unless the absurd THC law has some blowback.

---

Meh. Texas has been turning blue since it turned red in the late 90's. While you're worried about the Republicans retaining power the Democrats are being taken over by their communist and jihadist wings. I'm of the belief we see the Democrat party split in the next 10 years. If the communists lose this round of elections we're going to see some real focus on where that party is currently. At some point they can't be made up of Jews and Jew haters, LGBTQ and LGBTQ haters yet currently that's exactly what they are. They can't be a bunch of radical minority women married to a bunch of normal white guys. That party is a complete mess and it can't go on forever that way.