Greg Abbott, who is by most accounts quite intelligent, has a complete and utter disdain for the intelligence of the average Texas voter (and a nearly complete lack of moral compass), which he has measured quite accurately.
I know him as the guy who sends immigrants to Illinois in the winter, via a bus that stops on the shoulder of the highway, 40 miles outside of Chicago, in the winter, and this is where you get off. Good luck.
Seems to me his brain works as well as his legs.
That being a feature, not an error, his brain is working perfectly fine.
His heart, OTOH…
Your taxes squandered for some snowflake ICE guy.
After starting with a felony assault charge, going through 3 failed indictments, we’re wasting all this tax-payer dollars for a misdemeanor assault.
Imagine going through years of law school and then being handed this sh*t-stain of a case and being told to secure a guilty verdict. What a laughably sad use our of money, time and judicial system. Everyone from the agent on up ought to be embarassed by this.
The money would be better spent debating whether it’s assault with a ‘deli weapon’ or a 'breadly weapon.
I think it’s just Trump. Both parties understand that tariffs don’t accomplish what Trump argues they do, and that tariffs should be used judiciously if at all because of their often unintended consequences. But once their idiot god is all in on them, then by God, they are too.
Brain works fine. The base ate up the bussing stunts.
His soul, on the other hand, he sold off long ago for dubious returns.
The fuck does that even mean?
I wondered the same thing. I came up with confiscating all their luggage and putting it in storage before leading them to a shower.
If there was ever a time for jury nullification.
Jury nullification, also known as jury equity [1] or as a perverse verdict,[2][3] is a decision by the jury in a criminal trial resulting in a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury’s reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[4][5] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant’s case,[6] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. It has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War. [7][8][9]
I don’t even think that’s required. I bet the trump prosecutors can lose the case on merit alone. No way they can prove their case.
In a normal world, yes. We have not been in a normal for about ten months now. Rule of law has been declared null and void by executive order.
Yes. They don’t have the first fucking clue about what a tariff is. At this point, it’s just become some kind of magic talisman.
The prosecution seems to be focused on the fact it was a meat sandwich. Thrown at “point blank range” Not a vegan one. A MEAT sandwich.
Which, to my disturbed mind, sounds like a rude euphemism:
“How did your date go?”
“Well let’s just say that later that night I threw a meat sandwich at point blank range.”
“Duuuude!”
It means “My hovercraft is full of eels”. Duh.
That sounds so violent. Back in my day we slip her (or him) the hot beef injection.
What ever Greg Abbott is on, I don’t want any.
The new Platform/Ideology of the GOP should be “It’s hard to leave when you can’t find the door”
I’ve never had an economics or business class in my life. But I can surely see that this is not logic, and… well.. WTF?
Folks, this isn’t hard. Maybe it’s the nature of this board? But you don’t have to accept everything people say at anything close to resembling face value.
In this particular case, Abbott isn’t trying to make a rational statement backed by anything more than how it makes his constituents feel. He clearly has utter contempt for their intelligence and knows he’s better off saying nonsensical things they will lap up. Unfortunately, he’s right about their intelligence.
And this is absolutely logical - if he can more easily achieve his personal and political goals by saying nonsensical things, why wouldn’t he? Perhaps he wouldn’t due to some lingering twinge of conscience or morals but from a purely cynical point of view, it’s absolutely logical to say ridiculous nonsense if it works better than sounding like a rational, conscientious human being.
If they had a theme song, perhaps it would be “Hotel Alabama”.
Good one. 
Not welcome at the Hotel Alabama
Such a swampy place
Such a punchable face
Tariffs galore at the Hotel Alabama
If you plan to go
We take all your dough
Exactly, because…
That mostly applies to voters.