Ossoff/Handle Runoff Now Predicted in GA

Something, something Russians

It's over. www.nytimes.com... just called the race a runoff between Ossoff and Handel.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carewemust

They are desperate....

Clinging to anything that represents a whisper of oxygen.

a reply to: neo96

Probably. Not Prolly. That's not a word.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

They are desperate....

Clinging to anything that represents a whisper of oxygen.

If President Trump can get tax-reform passed, and everyone's Federal Tax liability lowered, all the oxygen will be removed from Democrat's balloon of hope.

a reply to: carewemust

WTF does this Democrat's losing a race have to do with Trump's popularity? Democrats have been losing most every race in this country for the past 8 years...well before Trump arrived on the political scene.

It doesn't.

I think most of the Trump supporters are just watching. They placed their faith in Trump and are willing to give him a chance. But they also want him to have that chance, as well as an appreciable number who did not vote for him. The DNC has decided they want to deny him that, by obstructing, obfuscation, blaming, and denigrating him at every conceivable opportunity. By doing so, the DNC has placed their platform at direct odds with the voters. They were, in many cases, already at odds with their continually extremist actions over the last couple of decades... now they are even more so.

But I think they also realize that, should Trump manage to do a good job, his popularity will soar and possibly carry the Republicans up with it. So they're rightfully scared. They refuse to move more toward mainstream America, so they either stand to lose by opposing every move Trump makes, or by letting Trump succeed. From their actions, I would say letting Trump succeed is considered the largest threat.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
But I think they also realize that, should Trump manage to do a good job, his popularity will soar and possibly carry the Republicans up with it. So they're rightfully scared. They refuse to move more toward mainstream America, so they either stand to lose by opposing every move Trump makes, or by letting Trump succeed. From their actions, I would say letting Trump succeed is considered the largest threat.

I think your definition of success and mine might differ. I am not optimistic that Trump will do a good job, given the constant tone-deafness of his actions. He shows little signs of changing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Whelp...
Democrats should fold up their tents and vamoose.

(probably won't though)

a reply to: Byrd

My definition is pretty simple: more controlled immigration, less intrusive regulation, a more prosperous economy, and less obvious corruption in government.

I think that's accurate for a large number of his supporters.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Would be nice, wouldn't it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Byrd
I think your definition of success and mine might differ. I am not optimistic that Trump will do a good job, given the constant tone-deafness of his actions. He shows little signs of changing.

They claim it though. For example, Hannity yesterday was claiming that Trump ended the war on coal. The only thing Trump did, was remove a regulation affecting Appalachia that Obama put into place... a regulation that hadn't even taken effect yet.

All while people are ignorant of the fact that all of Appalachia combined only produces about 20% of the nations coal, and 40% of it actually comes from Wyoming.

But, I guess the realities of a "victory" don't matter, as long as you can loudly claim you're winning.

I'm disappointed that it wasn't a clear victory, but looking at the numbers, I think he has an excellent chance in June. This would be the first flip in that state in a long time, if memory serves.

We need to do the same in Texas. My district is Democrat, but we've got a lot of office holders who need to be given their walking papers.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Byrd

My definition is pretty simple: more controlled immigration, less intrusive regulation, a more prosperous economy, and less obvious corruption in government.

I think that's accurate for a large number of his supporters.

But aren't you being unusually forgiving of his not cutting ties with his own businesses and using the Presidency to enhance his family brand and line his pockets.... and install rich cronies in government positions?

And aren't the regulations he's removing deleterious to US? I don't see how we benefit from removing the Clean Power Plan (restricting coal power plant emissions), removing restrictions on financial advisers to put clients' interests first over personal and corporate interests, allowing Keystone Pipeline to go ahead over the protests of ...a lot of folks including the Native Americans of the area, hiring freeze on federal government (your tax returns will take longer to process next year because of this), etc.

(note that I'm avoiding other topics that I know will provoke fights.)

I'm not forgiving of putting rich businessmen in the business of making laws. It's been done in other countries and other civilizations and has yet to end well.

I wish Ossoff well. Georgia has long been lumbered with some very unpleasant politicians.

a reply to: Byrd
Why is it more important to get a Democrat in office than it is to get a geniune candidate in office regardless of party affilication?

a reply to: Byrd

But aren't you being unusually forgiving of his not cutting ties with his own businesses and using the Presidency to enhance his family brand and line his pockets.... and install rich cronies in government positions?

I happen to believe he has divested from his businesses... in a more thorough fashion that was requested.

As far as his family and 'cronies' profiting from his actions, when in history has that not happened? Did Chelsea and Hillary not rise in power during Bill Clinton's administration? George 'Dubya' Bush's daughter has a main spot on the Today Show; tell me that would happen if she were not the daughter of a President. Dubya himself got a nice little boost in politics from his father's administration existing. Heck, remember Billy Carter? He made a freakin' fortune off cheap beer sold as a premium brand, just because he was Jimmy's brother!

I see nothing in this administration that is unusual or dangerous to the country in that respect, and honestly cannot think of a way for family or close friends of any administration to not profit in some way.

And aren't the regulations he's removing deleterious to US?

Some may be; others aren't. Trump did make a black mark with me over the Internet privacy regulation, and I thought his idea of a health-care plan was ridiculous. On the other hand the regulations on coal plants may be excessive. I know many regulations are such in a de facto sense, intended to criminalize an activity without actual passage of a law due to economic concerns.

I wouldn't take my car to a mechanic, then fire him as soon as he picked a wrench because it was the wrong brand. I won't hire a President, then want to fire him because he's doing something I find questionable. I'm waiting on results, not overly concerned about details to get those results, just like I want a mechanic to fix my car; I don't care which bolt he loosens first.

Until he loses my trust... Trump hasn't lost my trust yet.

I'm not forgiving of putting rich businessmen in the business of making laws.

Two points:

I'm not exactly happy with our record of rich politicians making laws. The rich argument makes zero sense. Everyone in the US government is already rich, and trying to get richer. The only difference is we went from a politician (whose job is to control what others do) to a businessman (whose job is to make money supplying goods or services).

I believe the height of hypocrisy is to condemn someone over their wealth. I know of no one who does not want more money, regardless of what they may say. Some may be unwilling to do what it takes to make more, but they do want more. Add to that the hypocritical aspect of claiming to want prosperity for the country (or at least for oneself) while simultaneously demanding that others be denied that very thing. I WANT rich folks in this country! Without them, I have much less chance to prosper myself, and will be condemned as they are if I do.

I wish Ossoff well. Georgia has long been lumbered with some very unpleasant politicians.

That is a true statement.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: carewemust

They are desperate....

Clinging to anything that represents a whisper of oxygen.

If President Trump can get tax-reform passed, and everyone's Federal Tax liability lowered, all the oxygen will be removed from Democrat's balloon of hope.

Good luck with that. There are enough regular GOPe who have no interest in seeing him succeed that it will be practically impossible to get his agenda through congress.

Lol @ TheRedneck

You are exactly the kind of people the Ultra-Wealthy want in this country. Keep on believing that the wealthy will empower you to be wealthier. That is obviously why the middle class has grown in leaps in bounds over the past 40 years, while the wealthy have made only moderate gains, right?

The wealthy didn't become so by sharing their wealth with you or empowering you to make more wealth. You are a pawn for them to milk more wealth for themselves from. But since you've already sold your soul to the devil for the 'promise' of more wealth, keep on believing in that golden goose!

"This is already a victory for the ages"
-Jon Ossoff

Riiiiiight.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Everything you do to stick it to the man makes it harder for you to ever become the man in your own right. In fact, it just keeps you down.

But please keep right on voting to punish people whom you think have too much and therefore must have somehow stolen it from you instead of trying to make your own.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I believe the height of hypocrisy is to condemn someone over their wealth. I know of no one who does not want more money, regardless of what they may say. Some may be unwilling to do what it takes to make more, but they do want more. Add to that the hypocritical aspect of claiming to want prosperity for the country (or at least for oneself) while simultaneously demanding that others be denied that very thing. I WANT rich folks in this country! Without them, I have much less chance to prosper myself, and will be condemned as they are if I do.

I don't know about that. I take something similar to a Buddhist philosophy on this (and many other aspects of life). A good life is one where you're comfortable and not suffering. Having more money can make things easier, but at the same time if you're consumed with the desire to have more, that same desire can also cause suffering. The key is to temper your wants so that you don't forget about what you have in a never ending drive to have more. Luckily for me, being a minimalist I'm pretty simple on the wants spectrum of things.

I certainly wouldn't turn down a billion dollars if it were offered (if for no other reason than I could use it to help others), though I did turn down a million a couple years ago... but I'm not going to sacrifice my happiness in life to get it either as long as other paths to being comfortable and meeting my goals exist.