Talk:Paxton Impeachment

We disclose political motivations here. Abbott's political incentive to try to destroy Paxton can hardly be denied, and hence its restoration to the introductory part of this entry.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:06, June 23, 2023 (EDT)

That's fine. I've left your allegations in the article when you've provided sources and haven't duplicated things, even gave you an entire section. But you claim that this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia", yet you write the article as if it were an op-ed with clear bias toward one viewpoint. I don't care if this is your site -- your minions have already suspended me twice on false allegations of "non-communication" and "using a false identity" (the latter was another person in my complex who was trying to join your group; she's moved on elsewhere) -- so if you want to drop me again it really won't matter. I'm facing major surgery in two months and likely won't survive the hospital stay, so once I'm gone you can do whatever you want. Quidam65 (talk) 18:34, July 2, 2023 (EDT)

Oh and if Abbott's incentive is to destroy Paxton, why did he replace him with someone who is doing the same thing? I'm from DFW -- and actually attend the same church where Paxton claims to be a member -- and his dirty deeds are well-known. Shouldn't we try to clean our own house? Or is it OK to ignore corruption on our side, on the basis that "well, Democrats would ignore it"? Quidam65 (talk) 18:37, July 2, 2023 (EDT)

The reason is obvious: Trump-endorsed Paxton is a strong rival to Abbott's reelection in 2026, when Abbott will not have Trump's endorsement. Abbott plays very petty politics with a ruthless vengeance, as illustrated merely a few weeks later when he vetoed a record number of bills enacted by his party, many unanimously, simply based on who had sponsored them.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:45, July 2, 2023 (EDT)