GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[Frodo]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

[Unelectable Bystander]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

[Calthrina950]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/JacobRubashkin/status/1578866455591821312

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

Just next door Matthews has said much less and has been called on to resign and drop out by multiple Dems, including Gov candidate Cunningham.

Granted, Menendez still being in the senate can be used as a counter on that, but clearly it's not universal among Dems as it seems to be with Rs.

[Calthrina950]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours.  

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.  

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

Just next door Matthews has said much less and has been called on to resign and drop out by multiple Dems, including Gov candidate Cunningham.

Granted, Menendez still being in the senate can be used as a counter on that, but clearly it's not universal among Dems as it seems to be with Rs.

I would agree, and I do recall that Alvin Greene, who was Jim DeMint's opponent in 2010, received only 27.65%, with Tom Clements, the Green Party nominee, receiving 9.21% (almost all of which would have gone to a Generic D nominee). Perhaps we could see something like that again in SC? I wonder if Scott will reach the 60% mark again, as he did in 2014 and 2016. I have a feeling that he won't, but he should get into the upper 50s at least.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

Just next door Matthews has said much less and has been called on to resign and drop out by multiple Dems, including Gov candidate Cunningham.

Granted, Menendez still being in the senate can be used as a counter on that, but clearly it's not universal among Dems as it seems to be with Rs.

I would agree, and I do recall that Alvin Greene, who was Jim DeMint's opponent in 2010, received only 27.65%, with Tom Clements, the Green Party nominee, receiving 9.21% (almost all of which would have gone to a Generic D nominee). Perhaps we could see something like that again in SC? I wonder if Scott will reach the 60% mark again, as he did in 2014 and 2016. I have a feeling that he won't, but he should get into the uppers 50s at least.

I know I'm writing in.

Off topic for the thread, but while Matthews is here,  I don't think anyone's brought it up but Matthews represents the same seat Scott did in the state house.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Walker will still get votes from the Christian Right because of his policies, not his actions

This is why I think Walker will still get ~45% or so of the vote in Georgia at the end. This is not a Todd Akin situation, where he would lose by double digits - a scenario that might have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but is not possible now, due to increased polarization. But I think that this move on the part of evangelicals could be one of the reasons why religiosity in the United States is declining, as many younger people view them as hypocrites who don't actually live up to their moral standards.

Todd Akin would win if the identical situation happened today, though. That kind of comment isn't damaging to Republicans anymore.

It seemed pretty damaging to Yesli Vega.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Walker will still get votes from the Christian Right because of his policies, not his actions

This is why I think Walker will still get ~45% or so of the vote in Georgia at the end. This is not a Todd Akin situation, where he would lose by double digits - a scenario that might have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but is not possible now, due to increased polarization. But I think that this move on the part of evangelicals could be one of the reasons why religiosity in the United States is declining, as many younger people view them as hypocrites who don't actually live up to their moral standards.

Todd Akin would win if the identical situation happened today, though. That kind of comment isn't damaging to Republicans anymore.

It seemed pretty damaging to Yesli Vega.

Yes but that was in the suburbs where people care. White evangelical Republicans have time and time again showed they don't care about this.

[Senator Incitatus]

Do you really think a klansman came up to Herschel Walker and said he was wrong because of Herschel? Does that make sense? Note that John Lewis was from a different generation and was admired across the aisle. Walker… isn’t.

I am 100% certain Herschel Walker was more widely admired than John Lewis for a time, especially in Georgia. (That doesn't mean I applaud this fact or believe politicians' stories.)

[Horus]

Walker will still get votes from the Christian Right because of his policies, not his actions

This is why I think Walker will still get ~45% or so of the vote in Georgia at the end. This is not a Todd Akin situation, where he would lose by double digits - a scenario that might have happened 20 or 30 years ago, but is not possible now, due to increased polarization. But I think that this move on the part of evangelicals could be one of the reasons why religiosity in the United States is declining, as many younger people view them as hypocrites who don't actually live up to their moral standards.

Todd Akin would win if the identical situation happened today, though. That kind of comment isn't damaging to Republicans anymore.

It seemed pretty damaging to Yesli Vega.

Yes but that was in the suburbs where people care. White evangelical Republicans have time and time again showed they don't care about this.

True, but an increasingly large share of Georgia's electorate is now comparable to Spanberger's district demographics.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Do you really think a klansman came up to Herschel Walker and said he was wrong because of Herschel? Does that make sense? Note that John Lewis was from a different generation and was admired across the aisle. Walker… isn’t.

I am 100% certain Herschel Walker was more widely admired than John Lewis for a time, especially in Georgia. (That doesn't mean I applaud this fact or believe politicians' stories.)

lol

[OSR stands with Israel]

Do you really think a klansman came up to Herschel Walker and said he was wrong because of Herschel? Does that make sense? Note that John Lewis was from a different generation and was admired across the aisle. Walker… isn’t.

I am 100% certain Herschel Walker was more widely admired than John Lewis for a time, especially in Georgia. (That doesn't mean I applaud this fact or believe politicians' stories.)

lol

key word is was and star athletes are generally admired across the board. Like its probably very likely more people knew who Hershel Walker was than John Lewis in 1988

[Frodo]

I will say though, that Republicans, in justifying their continued support for Walker, have brought up the examples of not only Menendez, but also Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Their reasoning is this: Why should they abandon Walker (and Trump) over concerns about their moral character when the Democrats did not abandon Kennedy or Clinton? Why should they turn over when Democrats have stood firmly behind their own candidates who have been accused of moral impropriety? What comparison can be drawn between how Democrats have responded to scandals like this, involving their own candidates, and how Republicans have responded?

There is an easy answer to that -because they are (supposedly) morally superior to us, why shouldn't Democrats demand that Republicans live up their own claims and standards? Beginning with the alignment of the Christian Right to the GOP, Republicans have been claiming that God is on their side, even that He is a Republican, placing themselves on a moral pedestal from which they have been claiming moral superiority over the Democratic Party for electoral gain.  Is it therefore so unreasonable to judge them accordingly, to expect that Republicans should be held to a higher moral standard than Democrats?  

For them, politics is a game of winners and losers, and it is more important to win than it is to lose. Hence, why white evangelicals held their noses for Trump and will hold their noses for Walker, because they see policy priorities - such as proscribing abortion - as more important than the morality of their candidates. But how justified can this stance be? Does this mean Republicans are hypocritical? Or that they are realistic?

It means that evangelicals have become morally bankrupt in their desire to retain power and influence over the direction of the United States, driven perhaps by desperation in the knowledge that the country is moving past them.  So they back morally compromised candidates like Donald Trump that they may not have stooped to in earlier decades when they were more confident they stood for the 'silent majority'.  

“I demand that you live up to your own self-imposed standards! The ideals that I don’t agree with and actively oppose. You better follow those! I would totally do the same thing. I’d even vote for nice gentleman Mitt Romney for president if he was facing a democrat that had objected in 2000/2016 or had an affair!”

I expressed my displeasure at this situation and no longer support Walker, but let’s not kid ourselves. A good chunk of democrats here have no standing other than that they like things that hurt republicans and help democrats gain power.

Republicans did that to themselves the moment they began parroting the rhetoric of the Christian Right.  I understand they are irritated they are being called out for their hypocrisy and double-standards, but that's their problem.  Not ours. 

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. 

You’re directing that at me but I’m not irritated because I am in agreement that Walker is not fit to be a senator. I was jesting because a huge number of democrats would never vote for a respectable or well-behaved republican over a scandalous or incompetent democrat. They believe that electing democrats is a matter of life and death. I disagree but that is their right. All I’m saying is that everybody has that right.

You are certainly correct. The vast majority of Democrats would still vote for a controversial candidate, even if such candidate (like Walker may) loses thanks to more moderate members of the party and to independent voters who couldn't stomach such a candidate's scandals.

We are not the ones with a holier-than-thou stance putting ourselves on a pedestal claiming that God is on our side.  The onus is therefore on Republicans, not us.  I make no apologies demanding they live up to their own rhetoric. 

[wbrocks67]

Herschel now says he knows who it is, but she's a liar

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1579924433149767680

[Matty]

Didn’t see this posted yet.

Feel bad for the 70 year old evicted over a $28 late fee

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewKerrNC/status/1579803765628055558

[wbrocks67]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

[Matty]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I could care less if Warnock's church tried to evict people. Some people deserved to be evicted!

[It’s so Joever]

Didn’t see this posted yet.

Feel bad for the 70 year old evicted over a $28 late fee

https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewKerrNC/status/1579803765628055558

Ah, I see as a conservative who believes in landlord rights, you are now switching your endorsement to Warnock.

[Calthrina950]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

[wbrocks67]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

... as it should be. Free Beacon is a right wing hack website.

[Ferguson97]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

It's almost like people value credibility.

[Calthrina950]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

It's almost like people value credibility.

Sure, but there seems to be a double standard on this forum with regards to stories that might be damaging to one party or the other.

[wbrocks67]

ah yes, Free Beacon. Totally not a hit piece from a rightwing outlet!

The article has solid receipts and on the record quotes; what are your specific problems with the article?

Any source that is not from one of the mainstream media outlets is regarded with great skepticism on this forum.

It's almost like people value credibility.

Sure, but there seems to be a double standard on this forum with regards to stories that might be damaging to one party or the other.

There really isn't. If a reputable source about this came out with, I would take it seriously.

But also - it's clearly Rs on this forum trying to find negative stories on Warnock to whataboutism the Walker scandal. The intent is clear.