4 ms·

When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a

When you say "Paxton is a crook", do you mean you believe he steals, or do you mean he was convicted, or that he should be convicted? Was Paxton convicted of a crime? Was Paxton accused of a crime you believe he is guilty of?

mikeyouse 2y ago
He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6cd062c995ced91e9d2542199 https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks -- https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-ryan-bangert/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme... That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment... Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...
- muaytimbo 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.
    - muaytimbo 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - burkaman 2y ago
    In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dboreham 2y ago
    Do you have any recent examples where this happened?
- EricE 2y ago
  You mean he's faced multiple trumped up and politically motivated persecutions that have all failed.
infamouscow 2y ago
[flagged]
- tristan957 2y ago
  Where was the lie in OP's comment?
  - stctw 2y ago
    I have a better question: where's the balance in it? All I see are links to biased, left-wing sources. Not a source from the right or center, and not a mention of the defendant's counterclaims. So the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from it is that the commenter thinks that Paxton is a crook--not that Paxton is one. But, of course, anyone taking even a neutral position here is heavily downvoted, because Paxton is a Republican, therefore he is guilty. And so the echo chamber echoes.
    - tristan957 2y ago
      What makes my variety of sources left leaning? What is a right wing news source? Why don't you post them yourself? I trust the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press, and the other sources I posted. If you're going to tell me to use a right wing news source like Alex Jones, Breitbart, True North, Newsmax, or OANN, then I would tell you to get better news sources. Everything I posted can be easily confirmed, yet you choose not to. Why won't you confirm everything I've posted? I live in Texas, specifically Austin, and know first hand how terrible Ken Paxton is as a person, lawyer, and politician. How many times is he going to sue cities from decriminalizing marijuana usage? Citizens of those cities voted for it, yet he chooses to waste taxpayer money on disrespecting the will of the people.
      - infamouscow 2y ago
        You're falling into a common trap: assuming that presenting people with information will automatically persuade them. Jonathan Haidt, in his insightful work The Righteous Mind, demonstrates that there's scant scientific evidence for this belief. While some individuals can indeed be swayed by facts, the vast majority are not. This explains why effective marketing often appeals to emotions rather than relying solely on rational arguments. It's crucial to recognize that the will of the people varies significantly across Austin, Travis County, and Texas as a whole. The map clearly shows Amarillo and Odessa within Texas, granting their residents the right to expect state laws to be enforced within Texas borders. Similarly, inhabitants of Spicewood and Cedar Valley can rightfully anticipate Travis County's enforcement of municipal ordinances within its jurisdiction. Austinites, naturally, should expect their local authorities to uphold city ordinances. Your point about localized governance is well-taken. It's worth noting that Attorney General Paxton has ardently advocated for local control regarding the Texas-Mexico border, despite federal preferences. This raises an intriguing question -- should Paxton maintain consistency in his stance, or does this situation reveal a fundamental flaw in the federal government's approach?
tristan957 2y ago
[flagged]
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
  I think he is a real POS with bad beliefs, but I am not sure that say 4 & 7 are directly relevant to being a crook.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    A crook is someone who is dishonest. You don't think someone cheating on their wife is dishonest?
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Not playing a game of word association. When accusing a public figure of being a criminal, focus on explicitly illegal, not immoral acts.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        The accusation was that he was a crook, not necessarily (or limited to) being a criminal. You don't have to break the law to be a crooked person, a "crook".
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I find that people say it is dishonest when they otherwise oppose the person doing it, and normal minor things not to worry about if they agree with that person.

mikeyouse 2y ago

He's a well known crook.. he's been repeatedly indicted for serious financial crimes but due to his position in government, the charges either were dropped for nonsense reasons or just never prosecuted for over 9 years... https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6cd062c995ced91e9d2542199 https://apnews.com/article/paxton-indictment-texas-d5e57fc6c... Then afterwards nearly a dozen of his staffers whistleblew to the FBI about his relationship with an Austin-based real estate developer who was committing serious crimes with Paxton's blessing and likely with kickbacks -- https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachment-trial-ryan-bangert/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/07/ken-paxton-impeachme... That developer was indicted on a number of serious Federal charges where it came out that he renovated Paxton's home for free and covered up Paxton's affair with one of his other staffers: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment-ken-paxton/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/11/08/nate-paul-indictment... Which ultimately resulted in an impeachment trial where the Texas GOP compeletly beclowned itself to acquit an obvious crook because they agree with him politically. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted-impeachment-texas-attorney-general/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/16/ken-paxton-acquitted...

muaytimbo 2y ago
[flagged]
- mikeyouse 2y ago
  Cool - which is why I expanded the post to include all sorts of other evidence of crimes. And indictments don't mean "literally nothing" -- they mean that a prosecutor convinced a grand jury that they had enough evidence to bring charges against you, no matter how catchy the slogan from some judge from 40 years ago happens to be. As I'm sure you can appreciate, the rules of evidence and general criminal case law has changed pretty dramatically since the 1980s.
  - muaytimbo 2y ago
    [flagged]
- burkaman 2y ago
  In this case he narrowly avoided trial by agreeing to pay significant restitution to his victims, do community service, and attend a legal ethics education course. He is a rich person with significant resources, he would not have agreed to this settlement if there wasn't a good chance of conviction.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dboreham 2y ago
  Do you have any recent examples where this happened?
EricE 2y ago
You mean he's faced multiple trumped up and politically motivated persecutions that have all failed.

infamouscow 2y ago

[flagged]

tristan957 2y ago
Where was the lie in OP's comment?
- stctw 2y ago
  I have a better question: where's the balance in it? All I see are links to biased, left-wing sources. Not a source from the right or center, and not a mention of the defendant's counterclaims. So the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from it is that the commenter thinks that Paxton is a crook--not that Paxton is one. But, of course, anyone taking even a neutral position here is heavily downvoted, because Paxton is a Republican, therefore he is guilty. And so the echo chamber echoes.
  - tristan957 2y ago
    What makes my variety of sources left leaning? What is a right wing news source? Why don't you post them yourself? I trust the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press, and the other sources I posted. If you're going to tell me to use a right wing news source like Alex Jones, Breitbart, True North, Newsmax, or OANN, then I would tell you to get better news sources. Everything I posted can be easily confirmed, yet you choose not to. Why won't you confirm everything I've posted? I live in Texas, specifically Austin, and know first hand how terrible Ken Paxton is as a person, lawyer, and politician. How many times is he going to sue cities from decriminalizing marijuana usage? Citizens of those cities voted for it, yet he chooses to waste taxpayer money on disrespecting the will of the people.
    - infamouscow 2y ago
      You're falling into a common trap: assuming that presenting people with information will automatically persuade them. Jonathan Haidt, in his insightful work The Righteous Mind, demonstrates that there's scant scientific evidence for this belief. While some individuals can indeed be swayed by facts, the vast majority are not. This explains why effective marketing often appeals to emotions rather than relying solely on rational arguments. It's crucial to recognize that the will of the people varies significantly across Austin, Travis County, and Texas as a whole. The map clearly shows Amarillo and Odessa within Texas, granting their residents the right to expect state laws to be enforced within Texas borders. Similarly, inhabitants of Spicewood and Cedar Valley can rightfully anticipate Travis County's enforcement of municipal ordinances within its jurisdiction. Austinites, naturally, should expect their local authorities to uphold city ordinances. Your point about localized governance is well-taken. It's worth noting that Attorney General Paxton has ardently advocated for local control regarding the Texas-Mexico border, despite federal preferences. This raises an intriguing question -- should Paxton maintain consistency in his stance, or does this situation reveal a fundamental flaw in the federal government's approach?

tristan957 2y ago

[flagged]

0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
I think he is a real POS with bad beliefs, but I am not sure that say 4 & 7 are directly relevant to being a crook.
- vel0city 2y ago
  A crook is someone who is dishonest. You don't think someone cheating on their wife is dishonest?
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Not playing a game of word association. When accusing a public figure of being a criminal, focus on explicitly illegal, not immoral acts.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      The accusation was that he was a crook, not necessarily (or limited to) being a criminal. You don't have to break the law to be a crooked person, a "crook".
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I find that people say it is dishonest when they otherwise oppose the person doing it, and normal minor things not to worry about if they agree with that person.