Walker in Georgia

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

It would seem to me that voters are starting to care less and less about supposed indiscretions committed by candidates in their private lives, which I think I think is a net good.

If the founding fathers lived in the world of social media, cell phone camera's, and excessive litigation lord knows what we would have found out about them. Ben Franklin was a creep and a half, but also a brilliant political mind.

An acknowledgement that we're all messy, flawed and fail to live up to our best selves often is healthy I think for the country. We're going to need it, because anyone running for office now days is going to have some skeletons out there that have been documented digitally, and if they don't that's even more worrisome imo.

While holding people to impossible standard is bad, I don't think we should be electing the worst of the worst either. These are the people we think should be able to come up with laws. Not sure I want someone who can't abide by the laws to be in that position.

 

[stollcpa]

While holding people to impossible standard is bad, I don't think we should be electing the worst of the worst either. These are the people we think should be able to come up with laws. Not sure I want someone who can't abide by the laws to be in that position.

Do you care whether Biden and his family have broken the law?

FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful, Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden Family Business Arrangements | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is calling on the FBI...

www.grassley.senate.gov

 

[IUCrazy2]

Why have Democrats turned into what they've turned into? Something you HATE?

Do you see any correlation between that and your attitude towards them? Could the correlation be in part cause and effect?

No. You want to know why? For the most part most of us just want to kind of be left to our own devices to live how we want to live. You included. You know who doesn't ascribe to that? Progressives. And right now, it isn't Dick Gephardt and Evan Bayh and/or people like you who are pushing the legislative narrative from the left. It is "Progressives". And modern "Progressives" are not capable of live and let live. You MUST be in lock step with them. The "Woke" movement, modern "Cancel Culture", these are currently of the left.

They are Russia and we are Ukraine. Any hostility going back that direction is deserved.

 

[IUCrazy2]

It would seem to me that voters are starting to care less and less about supposed indiscretions committed by candidates in their private lives, which I think I think is a net good.

If the founding fathers lived in the world of social media, cell phone camera's, and excessive litigation lord knows what we would have found out about them. Ben Franklin was a creep and a half, but also a brilliant political mind.

An acknowledgement that we're all messy, flawed and fail to live up to our best selves often is healthy I think for the country. We're going to need it, because anyone running for office now days is going to have some skeletons out there that have been documented digitally, and if they don't that's even more worrisome imo.

In a normal world I care. We live in clown world now so until we can get back to normal world, sometimes you have to lay with the dogs and get some fleas to make sure the flock isn't being eaten by the lions.

 

[Indianaftw]

Not sure I want someone who can't abide by the laws to be in that position.

Omg nominee for post of the year? Lmao. The irony.

 

[stollcpa]

No. You want to know why? For the most part most of us just want to kind of be left to our own devices to live how we want to live. You included. You know who doesn't ascribe to that? Progressives. And right now, it isn't Dick Gephardt and Evan Bayh and/or people like you who are pushing the legislative narrative from the left. It is "Progressives". And modern "Progressives" are not capable of live and let live. You MUST be in lock step with them. The "Woke" movement, modern "Cancel Culture", these are currently of the left.

They are Russia and we are Ukraine. Any hostility going back that direction is deserved.

Well said.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think a lot of the strong emotion and reason why people will vote for a guy like Walker and to some extent will look the other way on things Trump said and did is because of this AND, maybe just as importantly, the WAY in which that wing of the Democratic party goes about "defending" its position.

That "defense"--as argued by people as diverse as Freddie deBoer and Justice Alito (as seen in CoH's signature quote)--is just to sling ad hominem attacks at anyone who disagrees with their positions. Instead of trying to persuade people who disagree, they just state what the supposed "right" position is and attack the motives of anyone who pushes back. Instead of trying to see things from their opponents POV, and maybe try to reach some common ground, they try to use shame and disdain and mockery to "convince" people.

When you use shame, disdain, and mockery against people, they don't change their viewpoints; they become entrenched in their positions and hate you.

That is part of it and the other part is that I just view that far portion of the left as wrong.

Discussing economic matters and disagreeing over things like that is a different realm than the culture stuff. I know people hate the culture back and forth, particularly those in the middle, but the reality is that is the main thing politicians talk about and it is functionally the biggest difference between the parties. Additionally it bumps up against things that people feel is foundational to them. Ethics, morals, world view, religion, cultural norms, sex, patriotism, etc. all get wrapped into that.

So not only are you doing what is described above but you are doing it against things that are foundational to how people view themselves and it is a full court press. Schools, media, work, your neighborhood are all filled with the loud percentage of people who use those tactics to shut people up. Progressives are the most aggressive evangelists for their religion in this country.

 

[bailey777]

Looks like the hit pieces did not work. Worst case for Walker is it heads to a runoff.

U.S. Senate:

* Walker has narrowed the race by a point in one week.
* Warnock has not received above 46% in any recent InsiderAdvantage poll of the race.
* Walker increased his share of the African American vote by 8 points in one week.
* Warnock continues to have a large lead among women voters and Walker a substantial lead among men.
* Republican voters now unified behind Walker.

“I don’t see Warnock as an incumbent who is under 47% winning this on election day,” says Towery. “If Walker were to keep rising at his current pace it is conceivable he could win outright given the lift Kemp is giving Republicans, (Kemp leads Abrams 50% to 43%). The most likely result if Walker keeps rising is a runoff. Incumbents don’t win runoffs in Georgia.”

Governor:

* Kemp leads in every age demographic.
* Kemp has 66% of the white vote and 17% of the African American vote.
* Abrams has suddenly become a weight for the Warnock campaign which could have serious ramifications for the November vote.

Towery: “Absent an 11th hour political lightning strike, Kemp appears headed for a resounding re-election.”

Also, in InsiderAdvantage’s first survey in the Georgia lt. governor’s race:

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

That is part of it and the other part is that I just view that far portion of the left as wrong.

Discussing economic matters and disagreeing over things like that is a different realm than the culture stuff. I know people hate the culture back and forth, particularly those in the middle, but the reality is that is the main thing politicians talk about and it is functionally the biggest difference between the parties. Additionally it bumps up against things that people feel is foundational to them. Ethics, morals, world view, religion, cultural norms, sex, patriotism, etc. all get wrapped into that.

So not only are you doing what is described above but you are doing it against things that are foundational to how people view themselves and it is a full court press. Schools, media, work, your neighborhood are all filled with the loud percentage of people who use those tactics to shut people up. Progressives are the most aggressive evangelists for their religion in this country.

IUCrazy2, you and I probably don't see eye to eye on many things--religion, etc. But I think we can have--and have had--constructive conversations that could lead to understanding and would tamp down emotions and maybe enlighten each other. I firmly believe that is possible.

And I don't think you hate me.

 

[DANC]

Why have Democrats turned into what they've turned into? Something you HATE?

Do you see any correlation between that and your attitude towards them? Could the correlation be in part cause and effect?

"Don't make me be an asshole". lol

 

[Sope Creek]

No. You want to know why? For the most part most of us just want to kind of be left to our own devices to live how we want to live. You included. You know who doesn't ascribe to that? Progressives. And right now, it isn't Dick Gephardt and Evan Bayh and/or people like you who are pushing the legislative narrative from the left. It is "Progressives". And modern "Progressives" are not capable of live and let live. You MUST be in lock step with them. The "Woke" movement, modern "Cancel Culture", these are currently of the left.

They are Russia and we are Ukraine. Any hostility going back that direction is deserved.

I think you're in denial about Reagan and the social right.

 

[DANC]

It would seem to me that voters are starting to care less and less about supposed indiscretions committed by candidates in their private lives, which I think I think is a net good.

If the founding fathers lived in the world of social media, cell phone camera's, and excessive litigation lord knows what we would have found out about them. Ben Franklin was a creep and a half, but also a brilliant political mind.

An acknowledgement that we're all messy, flawed and fail to live up to our best selves often is healthy I think for the country. We're going to need it, because anyone running for office now days is going to have some skeletons out there that have been documented digitally, and if they don't that's even more worrisome imo.

Benjamin Franklin would be considered a leacherous old man these days.

Jefferson was banging the help and fathering children outside his marriage.

We're all flawed, but nowdays it's public knowledge. It depends on whose ox is being gored as to whether it makes a difference to how one votes.

 

[IUCrazy2]

IUCrazy2, you and I probably don't see eye to eye on many things--religion, etc. But I think we can have--and have had--constructive conversations that could lead to understanding and would tamp down emotions and maybe enlighten each other. I firmly believe that is possible.

And I don't think you hate me.

I don't. I don't hate Sope either. That is why I have tried to be extremely clear about whom I am talking about on the left. I won't name any other names on this forum but there is a clear delineation in my mind as to who falls in the "we mainly disagree but we could come to an agreement where we would both be content" portion of the Democrats and those who are of the "lost cause" variety.

That is true of most topics. Take the LGB issues for instance (I am out on the T and Q, sorry), there is a wide swath of territory that exists between a Pete Buttigieg gay guy and the stuff you see in pride parades. A standard of, "would this be gross if heterosexual people were doing similar in public" should apply. The problem is that the people I would label as modern Progressives are at the forefront of obnoxiously pushing all they do. If you find yourself fighting for racial justice by arguing for segregated safe spaces, I can't get with that. If you want to have an intellectual disagreement over what is more important to Black underachievement in this country, historical reasons or otherwise, that is different.

Having someone who I don't align with politically or religiously making the arguments you make regularly on the board indicates that there is some rational common ground that could be staked out between the left and right but I think the biggest hindrance to that these days sits to the left of you politically and those are the types that need sidelined.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Do you care whether Biden and his family have broken the law?

FBI Possesses Significant, Impactful, Voluminous Evidence of Potential Criminality in Biden Family Business Arrangements | U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley is calling on the FBI...

www.grassley.senate.gov

Yup but that is a load of gop bull

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think you're in denial about Reagan and the social right.

Ronald Reagan left office 32 years ago. We are talking the here and now. Every issue you can say that the social right is up in arms about right now is because of a push against the status quo. Abortion, schools, gender, sexuality, views on race, etc. are all a reaction to the far left. They push the ball. Always. Never stops.

"We got gay marriage, now let's have men dressed like strippers reading books to kids and doing what amounts to burlesque shows in school. We have that, now let's wipe out centuries of language and let people pick pronouns and do away with mothers and call them birthing people. We cannot define women anymore. Saying you are colorblind is now racist. You must agree that minorities need to be segregated from whites at times in order to process their trauma or else you are racist."

That isn't social conservatives and that sure as hell wasn't Reagan. That is the whackadoodle nonsense that used to percolate on college campuses amongst the highly "educated" do nothing class that has leaked out into the mainstream. Those types need to be shoved back to the fringes instead of having "The Message" everywhere people go.

Respectfully, when guys like Dave Chappelle or Bill Maher become too "conservative" for the left, it isn't the right that has the problem.

 

[Sope Creek]

I don't. I don't hate Sope either. That is why I have tried to be extremely clear about whom I am talking about on the left. I won't name any other names on this forum but there is a clear delineation in my mind as to who falls in the "we mainly disagree but we could come to an agreement where we would both be content" portion of the Democrats and those who are of the "lost cause" variety.

That is true of most topics. Take the LGB issues for instance (I am out on the T and Q, sorry), there is a wide swath of territory that exists between a Pete Buttigieg gay guy and the stuff you see in pride parades. A standard of, "would this be gross if heterosexual people were doing similar in public" should apply. The problem is that the people I would label as modern Progressives are at the forefront of obnoxiously pushing all they do. If you find yourself fighting for racial justice by arguing for segregated safe spaces, I can't get with that. If you want to have an intellectual disagreement over what is more important to Black underachievement in this country, historical reasons or otherwise, that is different.

Having someone who I don't align with politically or religiously making the arguments you make regularly on the board indicates that there is some rational common ground that could be staked out between the left and right but I think the biggest hindrance to that these days sits to the left of you politically and those are the types that need sidelined.

My guess is that you vote against Democrats as much as you vote for Republicans. Then you "justify" your vote by looking at the GOP policies you can get behind and tout those.

If that's the case - and it's just a guess - then we might have something in common. The problem is that the people the GOP nominates are candidates who are unacceptable to me. Period. Trump, Gaetz, Greene, Walker, Boebert and more . . . you and Mc want to justify those folks based on their "policies" that coincide with those policies you'd prefer. Those folks are not acceptable because they're not reasonable candidates. They're not reasonable people. They're extremists. Fix that and maybe we can talk . . . until then . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Ronald Reagan left office 32 years ago. We are talking the here and now. Every issue you can say that the social right is up in arms about right now is because of a push against the status quo. Abortion, schools, gender, sexuality, views on race, etc. are all a reaction to the far left. They push the ball. Always. Never stops.

"We got gay marriage, now let's have men dressed like strippers reading books to kids and doing what amounts to burlesque shows in school. We have that, now let's wipe out centuries of language and let people pick pronouns and do away with mothers and call them birthing people. We cannot define women anymore. Saying you are colorblind is now racist. You must agree that minorities need to be segregated from whites at times in order to process their trauma or else you are racist."

That isn't social conservatives and that sure as hell wasn't Reagan. That is the whackadoodle nonsense that used to percolate on college campuses amongst the highly "educated" do nothing class that has leaked out into the mainstream. Those types need to be shoved back to the fringes instead of having "The Message" everywhere people go.

Respectfully, when guys like Dave Chappelle or Bill Maher become too "conservative" for the left, it isn't the right that has the problem.

Yep, and he was old and had dementia . . . but he got the ball rolling on the social issues. Up to then we left well enough alone. Then Reagan figured that if he'd just agree to enter the bedroom and raise hell about what had been considered a privacy issue, he could get political support for that. And we've had nothing but trouble since then.

And don't get me started on Reagan breaking open the national piggy bank with his tax cuts . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Yup but that is a load of gop bull

Maybe . . . let's see how the DOJ investigation plays out.

If we want a nation of laws, rather than one of men, we've got to see where the investigation takes us. Same as with Trump.

 

[anon_6hv78pr714xta]

My guess is that you vote against Democrats as much as you vote for Republicans. Then you "justify" your vote by looking at the GOP policies you can get behind and tout those.

If that's the case - and it's just a guess - then we might have something in common. The problem is that the people the GOP nominates are candidates who are unacceptable to me. Period. Trump, Gaetz, Greene, Walker, Boebert and more . . . you and Mc want to justify those folks based on their "policies" that coincide with those policies you'd prefer. Those folks are not acceptable because they're not reasonable candidates. They're not reasonable people. They're extremists. Fix that and maybe we can talk . . . until then . . . .

When you say "Fix that and maybe we can talk" are you referring to the idea that maybe you'd vote for a Republican candidate?

Because whether or not the entire GOP is nominating only racist, pedophile, Kentucky basketball fans who believe the Earth is flat or not, I think we should be able to talk about the issues in a civilized way, without reference to the character of the politicians. Do you disagree?

 

[IUCrazy2]

My guess is that you vote against Democrats as much as you vote for Republicans. Then you "justify" your vote by looking at the GOP policies you can get behind and tout those.

If that's the case - and it's just a guess - then we might have something in common. The problem is that the people the GOP nominates are candidates who are unacceptable to me. Period. Trump, Gaetz, Greene, Walker, Boebert and more . . . you and Mc want to justify those folks based on their "policies" that coincide with those policies you'd prefer. Those folks are not acceptable because they're not reasonable candidates. They're not reasonable people. They're extremists. Fix that and maybe we can talk . . . until then . . . .

I think we all do what you said in the first paragraph. I can give you a whole host of things I think went incorrect on the right as well, particularly with regard to the economic health of the country.

I can only directly vote for one of the people you mentioned and he isn't my choice the next go around. My representatives are Victoria Spartz, Mike Braun, and Todd Young. You probably would not agree with them on much but none of those 3 are extreme and they are who I can (and have) voted for. My point on Walker is that in order for people like those 3 to get things done, it is generally more beneficial to have GA pick a Walker than it is to have a Warnock there. Legislatively I think Walker provides nothing but a vote. Warnock is a negative.

Indiana doesn't generally send the crazy to Washington. Even when we disagree guys like Bayh and Donnelly aren't nuts. Braun and Young and Pence are standard Republicans. We have our house as clean as we can. You Georgians need to get on the ball. 😜

 

[bailey777]

With this likely going to a runoff that is not good for Warnock. Incumbents usually lose in a runoff.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yep, and he was old and had dementia . . . but he got the ball rolling on the social issues. Up to then we left well enough alone. Then Reagan figured that if he'd just agree to enter the bedroom and raise hell about what had been considered a privacy issue, he could get political support for that. And we've had nothing but trouble since then.

And don't get me started on Reagan breaking open the national piggy bank with his tax cuts . . . .

The sexual revolution started in the late 60's and Roe v. Wade was passed in the early 70's. And really Roe is the catalyst that kicked all this off. Abortion wasn't viewed as a privacy issue until the Supreme Court unilaterally overturned numerous state laws that restricted abortion and made it a "privacy issue" out of whole cloth.

What you mention was a reaction as I pointed out.

 

[stollcpa]

Yup but that is a load of gop bull

You can’t be that blind

 

[IUCrazy2]

You can’t be that blind

Don't underestimate him.

 

[Sope Creek]

When you say "Fix that and maybe we can talk" are you referring to the idea that maybe you'd vote for a Republican candidate?

Because whether or not the entire GOP is nominating only racist, pedophile, Kentucky basketball fans who believe the Earth is flat or not, I think we should be able to talk about the issues in a civilized way, without reference to the character of the politicians. Do you disagree?

Yes. The character of the politicians is a major issue for me. The policies less so.

And I have voted for a GOP candidate before, one that Republicans today would call a RINO. And I have voted for Republicans before in Georgia primaries.

 

[Sope Creek]

The sexual revolution started in the late 60's and Roe v. Wade was passed in the early 70's. And really Roe is the catalyst that kicked all this off. Abortion wasn't viewed as a privacy issue until the Supreme Court unilaterally overturned numerous state laws that restricted abortion and made it a "privacy issue" out of whole cloth.

What you mention was a reaction as I pointed out.

Roe wasn't "passed", it was decided based on the "penumbra" found in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Is Griswold next? Do you want to overturn a right to privacy applicable to birth control? The same legal principles apply . . . just a slightly different context.

 

[stollcpa]

So your position is essentially, "Biden's an idiot so no harm in putting an idiot (or, more aptly, another idiot) in the Senate. Great logic. Way to raise the bar.

Walker isn't fit for any office let alone the preeminent legislative body in the nation. But we all know who hand-picked him and why he got the nomination. And an "R" at any cost, and whatever it takes. In Trump We Trust. God help America.

Preeminent? Are you shitting me? It’s a clown show. All you have to do is watch the democrat hearings. F’n clowns!!

Why do you keep bringing up Trump? He’s not in office and won’t be in the future. Let’s keep the discussions on your clowns running this shit show. Head clown is a demented old white man spelling DOT for us off a teleprompter.

 

[Sope Creek]

Why do you keep bringing up Trump? He’s not in office and won’t be in the future.

That appears to be the choice we are faced with right now . . . Trump or Biden.

What assurances can you make to us right now that Trump won't run/win in 2024?

 

[stollcpa]

Yes. The character of the politicians is a major issue for me. The policies less so.

And I have voted for a GOP candidate before, one that Republicans today would call a RINO. And I have voted for Republicans before in Georgia primaries.

Does Biden’s character earn him your vote?

Republicans need to stop the internal name calling and include all republicans under one tent.

 

[stollcpa]

That appears to be the choice we are faced with right now . . . Trump or Biden.

What assurances can you make to us right now that Trump won't run/win in 2024?

Can’t make any assurances but all republicans I know who voted for him don’t want him to run again. Including me.

 

[Sope Creek]

I think we all do what you said in the first paragraph. I can give you a whole host of things I think went incorrect on the right as well, particularly with regard to the economic health of the country.

I can only directly vote for one of the people you mentioned and he isn't my choice the next go around. My representatives are Victoria Spartz, Mike Braun, and Todd Young. You probably would not agree with them on much but none of those 3 are extreme and they are who I can (and have) voted for. My point on Walker is that in order for people like those 3 to get things done, it is generally more beneficial to have GA pick a Walker than it is to have a Warnock there. Legislatively I think Walker provides nothing but a vote. Warnock is a negative.

Indiana doesn't generally send the crazy to Washington. Even when we disagree guys like Bayh and Donnelly aren't nuts. Braun and Young and Pence are standard Republicans. We have our house as clean as we can. You Georgians need to get on the ball. 😜

With that attitude, I suggest you stay the hell out of here.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

You can’t be that blind

You can't be that gullible to political hit jobs.


Oh wait, you are a Trumper nevermind

 

[Sope Creek]

Does Biden’s character earn him your vote?

Republicans need to stop the internal name calling and include all republicans under one tent.

Trump's lack of character earned my vote for Biden. And will continue to do so . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Can’t make any assurances but all republicans I know who voted for him don’t want him to run again. Including me.

Then you can't say he won't be in office again, can you?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Roe wasn't "passed", it was decided based on the "penumbra" found in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Is Griswold next? Do you want to overturn a right to privacy applicable to birth control? The same legal principles apply . . . just a slightly different context.

Yeah I obviously know that. Just used the wrong language.

 

[Sope Creek]

Preeminent? Are you shitting me? It’s a clown show. All you have to do is watch the democrat hearings. F’n clowns!!

Why do you keep bringing up Trump? He’s not in office and won’t be in the future. Let’s keep the discussions on your clowns running this shit show. Head clown is a demented old white man spelling DOT for us off a teleprompter.

He's talking about the senate, while you're talking about the house. Different animals . . . .

 

[Sope Creek]

Yeah I obviously know that. Just used the wrong language.

OK . . . what about Griswold?

 

[Crayfish57]

My guess is that you vote against Democrats as much as you vote for Republicans. Then you "justify" your vote by looking at the GOP policies you can get behind and tout those.

If that's the case - and it's just a guess - then we might have something in common. The problem is that the people the GOP nominates are candidates who are unacceptable to me. Period. Trump, Gaetz, Greene, Walker, Boebert and more . . . you and Mc want to justify those folks based on their "policies" that coincide with those policies you'd prefer. Those folks are not acceptable because they're not reasonable candidates. They're not reasonable people. They're extremists. Fix that and maybe we can talk . . . until then . . . .

The absolute ****ing irony of this post.

 

[IUCrazy2]

OK . . . what about Griswold?

I don't have a problem overturning Griswold because I think it would quickly be followed by legislation making contraceptives legal (and I think they should be legal).

I don't think the pill is going anywhere. I am a social con and the position it should be illegal is a minority position among us as well.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer and I am not going to be able to get into a deep discussion about legal theory with you. I mean this with no ill intentions, I think lawyers and judges definitely have their place in our world, BUT...but I think that they overly complicate things way too often.

 

[stollcpa]

He's talking about the senate, while you're talking about the house. Different animals . . . .

I am talking about both. Should have made that clear.