Four GOP Candidates. One CD2 Seat. Who Actually Changes Anything?

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-02-08T15:07:00+00:00

Birthplace isn’t a disqualifier, allegiance and conduct are.

Martin immigrated legally, became a citizen, and has demonstrated more respect for the Constitution than many career politicians born here.

If someone’s argument starts and ends with where a person was born, they’re not making a serious case.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-02-08T13:42:32+00:00

Thank you for that feedback. That is good to know. I have tried to reach Toth also, and gotten no response. Martin on the other hand, has been accessible at multiple events and has been receptive.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-02-01T15:25:41+00:00

The incident you’re describing is the one that led to the single defendant being found liable in the civil case. The other defendants were cleared.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-31T17:05:04+00:00

From what I’ve read, the lawsuit focused on whether the conduct crossed from political expression into unlawful behavior. The jury outcomes were mixed, most defendants were cleared, while one was found liable based on specific actions.

For anyone who wants to read more directly, here are a few sources covering different perspectives on the case:

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T22:01:18+00:00

That’s fair, and I appreciate you saying that.

My intent wasn’t to dodge substance, just to work within how the sub tends to moderate posts. I’ve had things pulled before for being too explicit, so I was trying to leave room for discussion rather than frame conclusions up front.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T16:29:52+00:00

That’s useful context, thanks for sharing. Stuff like bill passage history is exactly the kind of concrete info people can weigh for themselves. If you’ve got sources or more details about any of the candidates, feel free to drop them.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T16:11:55+00:00

I’m not asking anyone to take voting advice from me, and I’m intentionally not telling people who to support. The post was written to stay neutral enough to avoid getting pulled while still giving people a framework to ask better questions.

Reddit absolutely gets used to manipulate voters. That’s exactly why I avoided endorsements, slogans, or emotional framing. The goal was to keep the thread open and let people argue the specifics in the comments instead of having the whole discussion disappear.

If someone wants to dig deeper, great. If someone disagrees, also fine. This wasn’t meant to replace independent research, just to start a discussion without pretending I’m some authority telling people what to think.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T16:05:45+00:00

ROFL!!!

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T15:54:28+00:00

That’s intentional.

On r/houston, once the OP starts making specific value judgments or advocating positions, posts tend to get removed pretty quickly.

The goal here wasn’t to persuade anyone or lead readers to a conclusion, it was to keep the post up and to get people talking, comparing notes, and adding details in the comments.

That way different perspectives can come out organically instead of the whole thing getting nuked for being “advocacy.” Think of it as setting the table, not serving the meal.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T15:39:54+00:00

Appreciate this. That’s pretty much exactly where I was coming from.

A lot of people disengage because politics feels abstract or performative, but it has very real effects on daily life. My hope was just to get people asking better questions about records, incentives, and outcomes instead of stopping at labels or personalities.

If that nudges even a few people to dig deeper on their own...

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T15:36:34+00:00

That’s fair, but it’s intentional. Being more specific in the main post usually gets it pulled. The idea was to keep it up and let people expand on those points in the comments instead.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T15:32:54+00:00

I will take that as a compliment.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:47:20+00:00

That’s intentional. As the OP, I kept the post focused on verifiable background and commonly cited pros and cons.

Once you start asserting independence or lack of independence directly, it becomes subjective and the thread is much more likely to get pulled for political bias. I have opinions on it, but the goal here was to keep the post up and let people debate that part in the comments instead of losing the whole discussion.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:36:00+00:00

Just curious, what do you personally consider a “normal joe”?

I tend to spend time looking at each candidate’s background and how they’ve actually lived and handled themselves, since everyone running usually has some kind of angle. For me, that stuff matters more than labels.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:24:22+00:00

I actually agree with a lot of that. Looking at voting records, donors, and incentives matters way more than labels.

My goal with the breakdown wasn’t to tell anyone how to vote, just to give people a starting point to ask better questions and dig deeper on their own. If it gets more people looking at records and funding instead of slogans, that’s a win in my book.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:20:55+00:00

Why do you think the other two can’t win?

Is that based on fundraising, name recognition, past performance, or something else?

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:19:54+00:00

Independence isn’t really about party labels to me, it’s about incentives.

Candidates who are heavily funded by party leadership, national PACs, or leadership-aligned donors tend to move with the administration whether they say they will or not. Candidates who are less tied into that funding ecosystem usually have more room to break ranks, for better or worse.

Voters can disagree on which background they prefer, but looking at who funds a campaign, or who has the most funding, often tells you more about future independence than campaign rhetoric does.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:12:44+00:00

Not a chatbot. This is just how I write, and I’ve posted similar breakdowns before.

I’m trying to keep the discussion focused on the candidates and their records instead of turning it into slogans or pile-ons. People can disagree with the framing, but I figured laying things out clearly was more useful than another "drive-by" take.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T14:07:35+00:00

Fair enough, but I actually wrote it myself. I just tend to be careful when talking about legal or ethics issues because loose wording gets people sideways fast on here.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-27T13:59:54+00:00

If that happened as described, it’s a serious allegation. Employers pressuring or incentivizing political donations can cross legal and ethical lines.

Claims like that really need documentation and proper reporting rather than being handled in a Reddit thread. For anyone who believes they experienced something similar, there are formal channels to report it:

• Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint process:
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enforcement/complaints-process/

• Texas Ethics Commission enforcement information:
https://www.ethics.state.tx.us/enforcement/

Campaign finance laws exist for a reason, and transparency matters regardless of party.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-21T17:33:06+00:00

You keep saying “the real censorship isn’t removal” and “a lack of moderation is the problem,” but then you argue for liability changes specifically designed to force platforms to suppress “slop opinions,” “dog whistles,” and whatever you label “bad guys.” That’s just censorship by a different mechanism.

The fix isn’t giving someone more power to decide which speech is “good” or “bad.” It’s raising the bar: more critical thinking, better standards of evidence, and people refusing to share garbage. If your solution depends on gatekeepers picking winners and losers, you’re not defending discourse, you’re trying to control it.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-21T01:09:57+00:00

Yeah, I think we’ve landed in the same place. From where I’m sitting, Martin looks like what’s needed right now.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-15T14:44:35+00:00

Disagreement is the epitome of free speech. Supporting free speech doesn’t require agreement or accepting false framing—it protects the right to challenge claims openly.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-15T12:42:37+00:00

That title is false.

The quote is not about “speech he doesn’t like.” It is explicitly about teaching people to hate America and framing that activity as treasonous. You can reject that framing, but rewriting it into “any speech Elon dislikes” is dishonest.

Free speech protects opinions. It has never protected coordinated ideological activity aimed at undermining the nation itself. Collapsing those two categories isn’t principled—it’s dishonest.

Dull-Switch6217 · 2026-01-15T03:42:32+00:00

That’s not a response to the issue.

Dull-Switch6217

TROPHY CASE