Turning Texas Blue: Tim Dunn and the Wilks Brothers

Why is it that a victim of rape or incest can’t get an abortion in Texas?

Why is it that this Texan, who had an ectopic pregnancy, almost died because she couldn’t find a doctor or hospital that would help her?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...pregnancy.html

Why is Ken Paxton, who’s been repeatedly bribed by Austin developer Nate Paul, still Texas Attorney General?

Because of Tim Dunn and the Wilks Brothers, that’s why! Dunn and the Wilks have spent huge sums of money forcing moderate Republicans out of office, and replacing them with people who will vote exactly as they tell them to.

Dunn and the Wilks are promoting policies and candidates that don't appeal to the majority of Texans. Like overturning Roe vs. Wade and picking candidates Trump likes who can't win general elections, their actions contribute to the demise of the Republican Party.

The Wilks pumped millions into Ted Cruz's campaigns, and Dunn did the same in a smaller way for Trump. But to date their focus has mostly been statehouse Texas politics.

Based on the WSJ article below, it looks like Dunn, soon-to-be flush with billions from the sale of his company to Occidental Petroleum, now looks to play on the national stage. He may be surprised by Trump. In his heart, Trump's more of a social liberal than most Republicans. He won't have re-election hanging over his head if he wins in 2024. And unlike many Texas House members, he'll take Dunn's money, but he won't do what he says.

Here are a couple of recent articles about Dunn.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-po...nn-runs-texas/

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/...tions-0bbe2dfe

The 25 year old Women with the ectopic pregnancy should have been granted treatment even if it meant Physicians had to perform an Abortion because it was a Medical emergency and her life was threatened.

They all should be granted the ability to get an abortion.

Congress has no right to diagnose medical conditions.

And Paxton is the worst kind of scum.

This right here is why money shouldn’t equal speech. It allows people with money to empower their own beliefs over others.

Dunn is quoted as saying “I don’t have one approach in business and another approach in ministry and another approach in church . . . I work for God, and God has given me a bunch of jobs to do.”

Too often money and religion are used to pervert the good of society to feed the beliefs and power of the minority.

PS. Ken Paxton IS the worst kind of scum.

This right here is why money shouldn’t equal speech. It allows people with money to empower their own beliefs over others. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

We have similar opinions of Dunn although I disagree on this point. People should be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights. Take Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. He's a very wealthy person who started a newspaper that was critical of the Hong Kong government. He's languishing in a prison cell. We don't want that kind of thing happening in the United States of America. I'd argue the concept you're describing should extend to the right for people with money to support political candidates.

Dunn is quoted as saying “I don’t have one approach in business and another approach in ministry and another approach in church . . . I work for God, and God has given me a bunch of jobs to do.”

Too often money and religion are used to pervert the good of society to feed the beliefs and power of the minority. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Agreed, except I'd strike the "money" part. Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker's doing something similar as you'll see if you take the Tiny Challenge over in VitaMan's embryo thread, to read the Alabama justices' opinions. Parker's not rich.

We have similar opinions of Dunn although I disagree on this point. People should be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights. Take Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong. He's a very wealthy person who started a newspaper that was critical of the Hong Kong government. He's languishing in a prison cell. We don't want that kind of thing happening in the United States of America. I'd argue the concept you're describing should extend to the right for people with money to support political candidates. Originally Posted by Tiny

I would argue that starting a newspaper so you could spread your speech widely is much different than giving unlimited amounts of cash to a political campaign. Too many times in the past couple of decades a single candidate has held onto their campaign solely via a super donor. A few times that candidate won. You would have a hard time convincing me that the candidate would not feel indebted to said donor.

Agreed, except I'd strike the "money" part. Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker's doing something similar as you'll see if you take the Tiny Challenge over in VitaMan's embryo thread, to read the Alabama justices' opinions. Parker's not rich. Originally Posted by Tiny

But Chief Justice Tom Parker is an elected official. He may not be rich but who’s money was he taking to get elected.

I don’t want to see campaign contributions go away but I do think reasonable limits should be placed on individual donors and especially corporations.

I respect your position but I’ll have to disagree with you on this point.

Incredible thread. Must get back to it when sober.

Gracias Chiquito. Happy Saturday night!

They all should be granted the ability to get an abortion.

Congress has no right to diagnose medical conditions.

And Paxton is the worst kind of scum. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Abortion isn't just about so called "Women's Rights" it's also about Medical Ethics. Abortion should only be performed in the event of a medical emergency.

Abortion isn't just about so called "Women's Rights" it's also about Medical Ethics. Abortion should only be performed in the event of a medical emergency. Originally Posted by Levianon17

And who is qualified to define medical emergency? Some dipshit legislator from rural Alabama elected by 1500 people?
Or medical professionals?

To Return to the Original Topic . . .

#6 - Respect the topics presented by those who start a thread. Attempts to derail a thread or change it's direction is referred to as thread hijack and will be discouraged. Attempts to guide a thread in the right direction are appreciated, while responses to posts which hijack a thread are not.

The longer abortion rights are being suppressed in Texas the more likely the state will turn blue. National Organization of Women ranks Texas as seventh worst state in the country for women.

Fifteen worst states for women to live in.
https://now.org/blog/the-fifteen-wor...y-the-numbers/

I wonder how many of those 15 states are governed by republican governors and legislatures.

I would argue that starting a newspaper so you could spread your speech widely is much different than giving unlimited amounts of cash to a political campaign. Too many times in the past couple of decades a single candidate has held onto their campaign solely via a super donor. A few times that candidate won. You would have a hard time convincing me that the candidate would not feel indebted to said donor.



But Chief Justice Tom Parker is an elected official. He may not be rich but who’s money was he taking to get elected.

I don’t want to see campaign contributions go away but I do think reasonable limits should be placed on individual donors and especially corporations.

I respect your position but I’ll have to disagree with you on this point. Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Another well argued post. You've got me questioning what I said, "I'd argue the concept you're describing should extend to the right for people with money to support political candidates." I'm not sure I really believe that. And I definitely chose my words poorly.

We have limits at the federal level on campaign contributions, and I do think that helps cut down on corruption.

In Texas, contributions are unlimited, except to judges. Nate Paul was making sizeable donations to Ken Paxton's campaign before he just started out and out bribing him. I suspect limiting contributions to Texas state candidates would make it more difficult for people like Dunn and the Wilks to promote agendas that run contrary to the best interests and wishes of many Texans.

What I don't want to see are prohibitions against free speech. And I agree 100% with Chief Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." And if Tim Dunn or Farris Wilks or George Soros or Tom Steyer wants to pay for commercials promoting a candidate, independently from that candidate's campaign, I believe he should be free to do it. I don't like Dunn's and Wilks' positions on social issues, or George Soros' and Tom Steyer's on economic and climate issues, but this is the United States of America. People have the right to say what they want (within reason) and spend money so it will be shouted from the rooftops. Figuratively speaking.