Greg Abbott Threatens to Expel Texas Democrats as They Thwart Redistricting

[OldBaldy1701E]

38. "Real Texans do not run from a fight."

Sure they don't. Just ask your AG, right?

Texans may not run from a fight, but only an idiot would stand in front of a train and call it 'fighting'.



So, I decided to play around with the Google A.I. and ask it about Abbott's failures to his constituents.

This was what it said...

how many times has greg abbott run from his responsibilities (my question)

Public officials, like Texas Governor Greg Abbott, are often subject to criticism regarding their leadership during crises or in response to policy issues. Determining whether Governor Abbott has "run from his responsibilities" is a matter of interpretation and depends on individual perspectives.

For example, Governor Abbott has been criticized for:
Reliance on executive orders: Some legal experts argue his use of executive orders goes beyond his authority and has been challenged by lawsuits.

Response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Abbott was criticized for contradicting his stance on individual responsibility by issuing executive orders related to the pandemic.
Response to disasters: He faced scrutiny during flooding in July 2025, with critics raising questions about the lack of emergency warning systems.

It's important to consider different viewpoints when evaluating a public official's performance. You can find detailed information on these and other issues through the provided search results to form your own conclusions.

(I am sorry... 'different viewpoints'??)

So, I asked this:

How are people starving and dying under Abbots administration a 'different viewpoint' of his malicious actions?

Arguments and accusations surrounding a governor's policies and their impact on vulnerable populations, including claims of starvation and death, are serious and often part of a larger political discourse. It's important to understand the complexities involved when discussing these issues.

Here's why attributing these outcomes solely to "malicious actions" of an administration and dismissing any other perspective as simply a "different viewpoint" can be problematic:

Complexity of causation: Issues like starvation, poverty, homelessness, and related deaths are rarely caused by a single factor. They are often the result of complex interactions between economic conditions, social safety nets, individual choices, access to resources, and broader societal challenges.

Role of state vs. other factors: While state policies can have a significant impact, they don't operate in isolation. Federal policies, local governance, global economic trends, and even individual and community actions also play a role.

Intent vs. outcome: Critics may accuse a governor of malicious intent, but policy decisions often have unintended consequences, and differing opinions exist on the most effective solutions to complex social problems. For example, the decision to veto federal food aid funding was justified by some on the grounds of potential long-term fiscal ramifications, while others saw it as directly contributing to hunger.

Disagreement on solutions: Even among those who agree that issues like hunger and homelessness are serious problems, there may be fundamental disagreements about the best approaches to address them. Some may advocate for expanded social programs and safety nets, while others may emphasize individual responsibility or market-based solutions.

Difficulty in quantifying direct impact: While statistical correlations between poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and mortality rates can be drawn, establishing a direct causal link between specific policies and individual cases of death or starvation is often very difficult to prove definitively, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Therefore, while it's crucial to acknowledge and address the suffering of individuals, framing the issue as solely a matter of a governor's malicious actions oversimplifies a multifaceted problem. It's more productive to engage in a discussion that considers the various contributing factors, policy alternatives, and the broader social and economic context.

Since I have never heard of anyone who chose to be homeless and destitute, I decided to just stop right there.

I also had to laugh out loud over this bit, as this succinctly shows how these animals are getting away with their evil:

Difficulty in quantifying direct impact: While statistical correlations between poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and mortality rates can be drawn, establishing a direct causal link between specific policies and individual cases of death or starvation is often very difficult to prove definitively, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

This is why we are where we are. (By the way, what this indicates is 'bureaucracy', which is the ultimate excuse for evil in our society.) We are creating situations whereby people are wasting away, yet we cannot 'prove it'.

What a horror show. And, Abbott is all about it. He revels in it. The suffering of others is what gets his little pecker off.