He did say "regard anyone as" so didn't actually say the GP lied, but that their arguments are so one-sided you can just assume they are lying until it's proven they're not. I don't really agree with that way of approaching things but I can see why you might do that.
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.
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.
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?
