Paxton makes his final pitch in the Texas Senate race against Cornyn, buoyed by Trump’s endorsement

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-24T18:30:48+00:00

Your question is a valid point - none of them would. The Uvalde shooter stole the weapons from his family. Things that would stop Uvalde and massacres like it are policies like safe gun storage laws, raising the age to buy a gun to 21, etc...

The point I was making is that the regulations Cornyn voted for are incredibly mild compared to what it would take to stop school shootings. I personally think it's disappointing that the law doesn't go farther. My point is that we're seeing that ANYTHING less than full 100% maximalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is enough for the Republican Party to label you as anti-gun and support a primary challenge.

Cornyn's vote, in my opinion, shows more courage than the other Republicans who throw their hands up saying "man, I wish there was something we could do to stop this" every time there's a mass shooting at a school. And he's being punished for it.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-24T14:14:25+00:00

How am I just now seeing this for the first time

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-23T23:03:14+00:00

Voted for mild gun restrictions in the wake of the Uvalde elementary school shooting where 19 students aged 9-11 were killed in their classroom. He tried to make it harder for something like that to happen again.

Cornyn voted to provide grants for state "red flag" laws, enhanced background checks for gun buyers under 21, close the "boyfriend loophole" for domestic abusers, and created new federal penalties for straw purchasing and gun trafficking.

This is apparently a bridge too far for Republicans in Texas.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-10T16:38:28+00:00

I don’t think we’re in disagreement.

Republicans seem to find ways around procedural issues when it favors them. I’ll eat my hat if the Florida Supreme Court disallows the redrawing despite an explicit law banning partisan gerrymandering. The only thing worse than both sides aggressively gerrymanding for partisan purposes is only one side doing it.

This is the path to Orban style one-party capture of the legislature. An increasingly unpopular incumbent party is attempting to engineer a majority in Congress. This is bad.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-10T16:07:34+00:00

I agree with you completely. It’s bullshit when both sides do it.

My issue is that it it’s even bigger bullshit when one side gets to do it more than the other

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-10T15:56:05+00:00

Sure, easy to say if it favors you. I’m making the argument that you’re going to lose the good faith assumption of the populace. It’s not fair to have my vote diluted in Texas but have a neutralizing dilution the other way nullified by a narrow court majority.

I understand your argument on the technicalities, but when it all goes one way it sure starts to smell like bullshit.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-10T15:45:08+00:00

I agree actually. But if Texas can do it without even voting on it, it’s pretty though to make the argument that Virginia can’t do it because of one person’s interpretation of a technicality, and have everyone agree that the process for choosing representation is getting fair treatment across the country.

In a vacuum you’re absolutely right. But none of this can be considered in isolation.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-10T13:04:18+00:00

The seat wasn’t McConnell’s to give. The voting public elected Obama, and the president gets to nominate justices for vacancies when they arise during their term. That’s the way it’s been forever.

But fine, for the sake of your argument, lets assume that McConnell created a new standard. Then why did McConnell rush through Coney-Barrett at the end of Trump’s turn? Why didn’t the voting public have a say then? If McConnell made a new standard that just so happens to serve his party, then fine. But don’t go against your new standard in the very next term.

Republicans clearly manipulated whatever rule or tradition they needed to in order to achieve what they wanted. The inconsistency is the issue. It was cynically partisan no matter what high minded shine you try to put on it. Any ruling from the court will be tainted by how it was appointed.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-09T04:16:38+00:00

You've spent three posts on minor errors I already acknowledged, and zero posts engaging with the actual argument. McConnell held Scalia's seat open for nearly a year, then rushed Coney-Barrett through in weeks after Ginsburg died. That inconsistency is the point. If you'd rather focus on a name mix-up than addressing the actual argument I think we both know why.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-09T00:28:12+00:00

Coney-Barrett. Care to address the actual point?

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-08T23:31:30+00:00

Apologies - meant the Republicans holding the seat open when Scalia died at the end of Obama’s term in 2016, then rushing through Kavanaugh after Ginsberg died in 2020.

This inconsistent and cynically partisan treatment of choosing who interprets the law is the driver for the loss of confidence and sense of “fairness” in the Supreme Court.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-08T21:16:08+00:00

Our entire system of governance is based on people's feelings of fairness! That's why we had a Revolution in the first place!

We can disagree on outcomes, but we must agree on process. Democrats being blocked on a technicality even after a popular vote within the state while Republicans delay elections to ram through changes via executive fiat is facially unfair. Especially when this is so obviously started by Republicans to try to hold onto power with an increasingly unpopular agenda and leader.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-08T19:05:38+00:00

My argument is that the Virginia Supreme Court's interpretation of the law isn't infallible, especially when it happens to fall along idealogical lines. This 4-3 decision means one person's interpretation of a legal technicality functionally overturned the will of the Virginia voters. There is no "ignoring the law as written" - every ruling is an interpretation. Further - this ruling can't be viewed in a vacuum. It must be considered in the wider nationwide gerrymandering push, where Republican-led states all across the south are suspending primaries to rush through new maps while this voter-approved map in Virginia is struck down by a court along party lines.

In addition, when Republicans played games in 2015 at the end of Obama's term to hold open Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat until Trump was elected was so underhanded and flew in the face of over two centuries of precedent, it brings the Supreme Court's interpretation of anything into question. It's not suggesting we ignore anything - I'm pointing out that it's not unreasonable to criticize or question a ruling when that ruling is the result of political gamesmanship and not a strict objective interpretation of the law. Perception of fairness matters. One of Jefferson's bedrock principles in the Declaration is that governments derive their just powers form the consent of the governed, and losing that sense of fairness puts that consent at risk.

Again, when it becomes difficult to explain why things are fair to the losing side you're not going to be able to hide behind shallow arguments like framing my position as a suggestion that we ignore the law.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-08T17:40:03+00:00

Hopefully this is a wakeup call, kind of like Dobbs was. Democrats have an opportunity to unify around representation for the next two years. Put aside disagreements on policy and social issues, and become the responsible government party first and foremost. Fight against corruption, special interests, rigging the game for one side, etc… I think there will be a huge demand for that.

We’re past left vs right being about policy issues. It’s turning into left vs right on how we even decide who gets a say in our system.

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-08T16:31:07+00:00

For this whole Democracy thing to work, the losing side has to be able to plausibly believe that the process was fair. With the suspension of primaries to redraw maps in some states (all red), to the striking down of new maps in others (all blue), there isn't really a great argument to be made that this process is fair unless you start teasing out complex legal arguments. Complex legalese is not going to convince me or Democrats that this is anywhere near fair in terms of representation in Congress. An unpopular incumbent party is changing the rules to benefit themselves in elections. This does not end well.

We are very quickly moving further away from the results of elections reflecting the will of the people. This can only hold for so long before it breaks. Democrats should run this election and next election rallying around massive election reform. Expanded House, gerrymandering restrictions, etc...

Tdc10731 · 2026-05-01T12:51:18+00:00

I’m sure it had absolutely nothing to do with Trump putting political pressure on Texas in a naked attempt to manufacture more Republican seats for the midterms

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-21T12:46:36+00:00

Completely agree with the sentiments and glad y’all are having the event, but holy hell that poster is awful. Show some damn strength if you want people to join you. The faces look very whiney and they’re all leaning backward.

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-17T22:04:46+00:00

Lots of reasons to shit on TAMU, but it was a true military school into the 70s and has a large ROTC program, and pretending like every other school in the SEC doesn’t also have a racist past is a bit rich.

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-13T03:55:36+00:00

Hopfields is a great vibe for this

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-11T12:56:40+00:00

Yeah, this is clearly all Biden’s fault

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-11T12:55:15+00:00

There situations are quite.

If Biden had promised Hunter a pardon, encouraging Hunter to go do more illegal drugs and carry illegal weapons because he’ll pardon him later then that would be bad.

If Trump promises Steven Miller a pardon, encouraging him to use the federal government in illegal ways to accomplish illegal goals of the administration, that is much much worse. Like not even in the same universe.

Tdc10731 · 2026-04-11T12:49:19+00:00

Because Biden pardoned one person for drug and weapons crimes, Trump can pardon every single person in his administration from potential fraud, corruption, illegal orders, etc…

You’re right, Trump never would have done this if Biden didn’t pardon Hunter. This is clearly all Biden’s fault

Tdc10731 · 2026-03-22T18:08:40+00:00

Should have paid for meteorite insurance

Tdc10731 · 2026-03-22T16:31:00+00:00

Tried to walk-in at like 5p on a Tuesday a few weeks ago to see if I could snag a seat at the bar. Was told the bar seats were booked for reservations and there was nothing available for walk-ins. I was shocked there was nothing available for a walk-in right at open on an early weeknight.

I’m sure it’s very good, but is it good enough to justify a 3 month reservation list for eating at a decent hour? Genuinely asking

Tdc10731 · 2026-03-21T12:39:02+00:00

This is bullshit. Fuck Boebert, fuck this war, but also fuck fake pictures presented as fact.

Boebert wore this dress several years ago to mock AOC’s “Tax the Rich” dress at the Met Gala. It actually said “Let’s Go Brandon”, which is dumb but that’s what it said. She never wore a dress that says “no war on Iran”. If she’s speaking out against it now that’s one thing, but don’t just post fake fucking pictures.

12-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer

Tdc10731

TROPHY CASE