GA-SEN 2022 Megathread: Werewolves and Vampires

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

[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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

Mainstream sources are that for a reason, but they are not infallible and have made many reporting errors in the past.

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.

I've made my views about the Walker scandal clear, and I don't believe Warnock is a saint either, although I have endorsed his reelection bid. But there seems to be a consistent pattern of dismissing any negative stories about Democrats as a "right-wing hitjob", "whataboutism", "#bothsidesism", or some variation or combination of the above themes. The consensus on this forum seems to be that one political party is inherently good and praiseworthy, and the other is a coven of traitorous, anti-American scum. Unfortunately, you'll find this same consensus, but with the parties reversed, elsewhere on the Internet.

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

Mainstream sources are that for a reason, but they are not infallible and have made many reporting errors in the past.

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.

I've made my views about the Walker scandal clear, and I don't believe Warnock is a saint either, although I have endorsed his reelection bid. But there seems to be a consistent pattern of dismissing any negative stories about Democrats as a "right-wing hitjob", "whataboutism", "#bothsidesism", or some variation or combination of the above themes. The consensus on this forum seems to be that one political party is inherently good and praiseworthy, and the other is a coven of traitorous, anti-American scum. Unfortunately, you'll find this same consensus, but with the parties reversed, elsewhere on the Internet.

I mean yeah partisan Dems are gonna be a bit more favorable to their side and Rs will to theirs, thats life. But the overall request for reliable sources isn’t a bad thing.

And no there is not a consensus the GOP is a coven of traitorous anti-American scum. Plenty of posters still are in denial on that one

[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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

Mainstream sources are that for a reason, but they are not infallible and have made many reporting errors in the past.

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.

I've made my views about the Walker scandal clear, and I don't believe Warnock is a saint either, although I have endorsed his reelection bid. But there seems to be a consistent pattern of dismissing any negative stories about Democrats as a "right-wing hitjob", "whataboutism", "#bothsidesism", or some variation or combination of the above themes. The consensus on this forum seems to be that one political party is inherently good and praiseworthy, and the other is a coven of traitorous, anti-American scum. Unfortunately, you'll find this same consensus, but with the parties reversed, elsewhere on the Internet.

I mean yeah partisan Dems are gonna be a bit more favorable to their side and Rs will to theirs, thats life. But the overall request for reliable sources isn’t a bad thing.

And no there is not a consensus the GOP is a coven of traitorous anti-American scum. Plenty of posters still are in denial on that one

The problem though is that you rarely, if ever, see this call if the story in question is about a Republican. But when it concerns a Democrat, the refrain almost inevitably is trotted out.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

Mainstream sources are that for a reason, but they are not infallible and have made many reporting errors in the past.

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.

I've made my views about the Walker scandal clear, and I don't believe Warnock is a saint either, although I have endorsed his reelection bid. But there seems to be a consistent pattern of dismissing any negative stories about Democrats as a "right-wing hitjob", "whataboutism", "#bothsidesism", or some variation or combination of the above themes. The consensus on this forum seems to be that one political party is inherently good and praiseworthy, and the other is a coven of traitorous, anti-American scum. Unfortunately, you'll find this same consensus, but with the parties reversed, elsewhere on the Internet.

I mean yeah partisan Dems are gonna be a bit more favorable to their side and Rs will to theirs, thats life. But the overall request for reliable sources isn’t a bad thing.

And no there is not a consensus the GOP is a coven of traitorous anti-American scum. Plenty of posters still are in denial on that one

The problem though is that you rarely, if ever, see this call if the story in question is about a Republican. But when it concerns a Democrat, the refrain almost inevitably is trotted out.

Maybe Republicans just have a lot more scandals.

[It’s so Joever]

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.

Thats…how it always should be? “Mainstream” sources are mainstream for a reason, (but Fox and MSNBC still should be held with a bit of awareness of bias)

This is like bringing in a sick note you drew in crayon and signed “Mom” to your second grade teacher and then throwing a fit over double standards when the teacher is skeptical.

Im not disputing this story itself, but using crap sources will always merit skepticism and further scrutiny.

Mainstream sources are that for a reason, but they are not infallible and have made many reporting errors in the past.

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.

I've made my views about the Walker scandal clear, and I don't believe Warnock is a saint either, although I have endorsed his reelection bid. But there seems to be a consistent pattern of dismissing any negative stories about Democrats as a "right-wing hitjob", "whataboutism", "#bothsidesism", or some variation or combination of the above themes. The consensus on this forum seems to be that one political party is inherently good and praiseworthy, and the other is a coven of traitorous, anti-American scum. Unfortunately, you'll find this same consensus, but with the parties reversed, elsewhere on the Internet.

I mean yeah partisan Dems are gonna be a bit more favorable to their side and Rs will to theirs, thats life. But the overall request for reliable sources isn’t a bad thing.

And no there is not a consensus the GOP is a coven of traitorous anti-American scum. Plenty of posters still are in denial on that one

The problem though is that you rarely, if ever, see this call if the story in question is about a Republican. But when it concerns a Democrat, the refrain almost inevitably is trotted out.

I mean yeah Atlas skews Dem, no surprises there. After all, most posters here do a decent amount of research on the issues and what’s actually going on in Washington, so the skew makes perfect sense.

[wbrocks67]

There is even more

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1579963686130659329

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1580213759640862721

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1580213759640862721

Which is about what you would expect in this environment.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/1580306494519934982

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/aterkel/status/1580306494519934982

I seem to remember Republicans thinking this was a firing offense for U.S. Senators. What nickname will Trump give Walker?

[wbrocks67]

It's quite interesting I see no political pundits or people on TV discussing Walker's cognitive abilities and if he's fit to serve?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Wow, he really pulled an Elizabeth Warren.

[Spectator]

It's quite interesting I see no political pundits or people on TV discussing Walker's cognitive abilities and if he's fit to serve?

Walker’s scandals have been all over national news.

[new_patomic]

Wow, he really pulled an Elizabeth Warren.

Claims native heritage.

Loves abortion.

Promises to persist in the face of opposition.

Yup Walker is a Warren Dem.

[wbrocks67]

It's quite interesting I see no political pundits or people on TV discussing Walker's cognitive abilities and if he's fit to serve?

Walker’s scandals have been all over national news.

That's not what I asked.

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

It's quite interesting I see no political pundits or people on TV discussing Walker's cognitive abilities and if he's fit to serve?

Walker’s scandals have been all over national news.

That's not what I asked.

Well because they have other things to focus on. RNC research used the Fetterman gun incident but that didn't work, so now they have instructed their media allies to go after his health, whereas Walker provides plenty of material.

[Del Tachi]

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1580213759640862721

Small swings that could all just be statistical noise.  We'll start seeing more Walker-friendly polls next week, I bet.

Walker was already a scandal-plagued candidate (as was Warnock, FWIW.)  The number of voters that could be swayed by new allegations was always going to be pretty small.

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

https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1580213759640862721

Small swings that could all just be statistical noise.  We'll start seeing more Walker-friendly polls next week, I bet.

Walker was already a scandal-plagued candidate (as was Warnock, FWIW.)  The number of voters that could be swayed by new allegations was always going to be pretty small.

Yep, the visible shift consistent throughout different polls is just statistical noise, not (perhaps) the GOP losing ground here.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/SollenbergerRC/status/1580888826293035008

[GeorgiaModerate]

A reminder that the (probably only) Warnock-Walker debate is tonight at 7pm EDT.  Preview here: https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/the-jolt-what-to-watch-in-tonights-walker-warnock-debate/U4ZHMAVEEFHGXHWNZ6UWON32GA/

[Not Me, Us]

A reminder that the (probably only) Warnock-Walker debate is tonight at 7pm EDT.  Preview here: https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/the-jolt-what-to-watch-in-tonights-walker-warnock-debate/U4ZHMAVEEFHGXHWNZ6UWON32GA/

This is going to be an absolute train wreck and I couldn’t be more excited.

[Nutmeg]

Walker was already a scandal-plagued candidate (as was Warnock, FWIW.)

[Orwell]

Walker was a strong candidate from the onset, but these recent revelations damaged him pretty badly. He could still definitely win though. Sports star to Politics has been pretty successful for a lot of people, mainly coaches though, Osborne and Tuberville are 2 big examples. Steve Largent, Heath Shuler, Burgess Owens, Colin Allred, and Anthony Gonzalez all too. Though I think the best comparison for Walker would be Tom Osborne since he was a super popular football coach in Nebraska.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Walker was a strong candidate from the onset, but these recent revelations damaged him pretty badly. He could still definitely win though. Sports star to Politics has been pretty successful for a lot of people, mainly coaches though, Osborne and Tuberville are 2 big examples. Steve Largent, Heath Shuler, Burgess Owens, Colin Allred, and Anthony Gonzalez all too. Though I think the best comparison for Walker would be Tom Osborne since he was a super popular football coach in Nebraska.

?? No he wasn't. He was always a super risky candidate from the start.