Will Herschel Win?

538 gives Walker a 55 out of 100 chance of winning and Warnock a 45 out of 100 chance.

Some polls show a tie - some show Warnock with an edge.

Is the power of celebrity an important factors in elections moving forward?

A few quotes from Walker:

“So what we do is we’re going to put, from the ‘Green New Deal,’ millions or billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. So all of a sudden China and India ain’t putting nothing in there – cleaning that situation up. So all with that bad air, it’s still there. But since we don’t control the air, our good air decide to float over to China, bad air. So when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. And now we’ve got to clean that back up.”

“I supervise six hospitals around the United States.”

“And people say, ‘Herschel, you played football.’ But I said, ‘Guys, I also was valedictorian of my class. I also was in the top 1% of my graduating class in college.”

“I spent time at Quantico at the FBI training school. Y’all didn’t know I was an agent?”

“While ⁦@ReverendWarnock was calling law enforcement ‘thugs and bullies’ I was proud to serve the blue as an Honorary Agent and Special Deputy Sheriff of Cobb County for many years,”

On the allegations against him: “If that had happened, there’s nothing to be ashamed of.”

On women's issues: “I think there’s no doubt: Crime is very, very important. This economy is tough, because they’ve got to buy groceries.”

-----------------------------------

So maybe we need Jon Stewart to run with Tom Hanks as VP in 2024.


Hoping he will lose and of course I'll be relieved, but I'm still left with the disturbing fact that half of the voters are behind this candidate. Add that to the other crazies that are running, and we are looking at a country gone mad.


Stop hoping please. Start doing. Make phone calls. Seriously.

You don't need to live in the state to volunteer! I was one of many who helped get out the vote for Warnock in 2020. Again, stop hoping. Start doing. And yes I will keep repeating it on these threads. Thanks for listening.


Warnock wins again. I’m not even worried. 


Jaytee said:

Warnock wins again. I’m not even worried. 

you should be if not for him then for plenty of other races.


Walker will win.   

There's now only one drop box per 100k voters; this takes away 75% of drop boxes in Black communities. The chair of the State Election Board is now chosen by the GA legislature.  The new state election board can  suspend county election officials. 

The new election law will also require voters for the first time to provide proof of identify when requesting an absentee ballot.

More than 272,000 registered voters don't have a driver's license or state ID on file with election officials; most are Black and live in Democratic-leaning counties, according to an analysis of voter data by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.


As Dave says, efforts to discourage or even prevent voting are helping Walker.


Jaytee said:

Warnock wins again. I’m not even worried. 

Warnock won last time by less than 2 percentage points. This is not in the bag.


Which is why I strongly encourage you all to make phone calls. 


Some people in Pennsylvania wonder how Fetterman would function in the Senate because of his stroke.

How do people in Georgia think Hershel would function in the Senate?


STANV said:
How do people in Georgia think Hershel would function in the Senate?

He would vote party line.  What more would they need from him?

A lot of people thought T**** was a horrible guy - but if he was there to pack the courts and overturn Roe - did it really matter what his mental capacity was?


jamie said:

He would vote party line.  What more would they need from him?

A lot of people thought T**** was a horrible guy - but if he was there to pack the courts and overturn Roe - did it really matter what his mental capacity was?

But it was not to overturn Roe. That was a side effect.

Its to create a very corporate friendly SC.

A court that allows businesses to do as they want. Such as empowering business to do as they will with their properties no matter what the EPA says. To enable businesses to easily file bankruptcies while upholding laws that hobble private individuals who are forced to  jump though hoops. To castrate labor laws.

During the 1920's the SC ruled more than once that child labor laws are unconstitutional. While this court may not go that far we are moving in that direction.


RTrent said:

But it was not to overturn Roe. That was a side effect.

Its to create a very corporate friendly SC.

A court that allows businesses to do as they want. Such as empowering business to do as they will with their properties no matter what the EPA says. To enable businesses to easily file bankruptcies while upholding laws that hobble private individuals who are forced to  jump though hoops. To castrate labor laws.

During the 1920's the SC ruled more than once that child labor laws are unconstitutional. While this court may not go that far we are moving in that direction.

I took jamie as meaning that for Trump voters, a significant portion of whom overturning Roe was the explicit goal, Trump's defects didn't matter so long as he ended up appointing justices that would overturn Roe.

OTOH, it turns out that for all their protests otherwise, it seems that a lot of these defects - the racism, the cruelty -- may have actually been the point.


He’s a liar, a hypocrite, and dumb as a post. The Republicans love him. Each election cycle I think it can’t get worse, but it does.


terp said:

Read This

as opposed to a god that succeeded?

no thanks.


In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

dave said:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

he seems nice


Hoppe isn't one to worry about his readers PC sensibilities. In fact, he will go pretty far in the other direction for effect.  The passage dave has shared is a controversial one.  Hoppe is saying there could be small communities based on specific principles that the members of that community would be expected to adhere to.  Essentially, freedom of association means you can associate with those you'd like to and not associate with those you don't.  


terp said:

Hoppe isn't one to worry about his readers PC sensibilities. In fact, he will go pretty far in the other direction for effect.  The passage dave has shared is a controversial one.  Hoppe is saying there could be small communities based on specific principles that the members of that community would be expected to adhere to.  Essentially, freedom of association means you can associate with those you'd like to and not associate with those you don't.  

He talks about removing undesirables "from society".

That doesn't sound like "small community" to me.


Just make sure to set things up so that you're born into an association that already owns a lot of property. Otherwise the ability of property owners to exclude you might lead you to the heretical idea that maybe freedom based on property isn't all that free.


drummerboy said:

terp said:

Hoppe isn't one to worry about his readers PC sensibilities. In fact, he will go pretty far in the other direction for effect.  The passage dave has shared is a controversial one.  Hoppe is saying there could be small communities based on specific principles that the members of that community would be expected to adhere to.  Essentially, freedom of association means you can associate with those you'd like to and not associate with those you don't.  

He talks about removing undesirables "from society".

That doesn't sound like "small community" to me.

read the first part of your quote: In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenant...


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Hoppe isn't one to worry about his readers PC sensibilities. In fact, he will go pretty far in the other direction for effect.  The passage dave has shared is a controversial one.  Hoppe is saying there could be small communities based on specific principles that the members of that community would be expected to adhere to.  Essentially, freedom of association means you can associate with those you'd like to and not associate with those you don't.  

He talks about removing undesirables "from society".

That doesn't sound like "small community" to me.

read the first part of your quote: In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenant...

And ignore the rest? Has he redefined what "society" means? Is every town now a society?

Anyway, never mind. The idea is still abhorrent.

But I wanted to thank you for the mention of Hoppe, whom I hadn't heard of before. Reading about him just convinces me more and more that libertarian theorists are the worst.


dave said:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

So, a world ruled by homeowners' associations?

Seems like the antithesis of freedom to me. 


This Hoppe guy sounds a lot like Dr Strangelove.


dave said:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

This is so disturbing.  It sounds like the intellectual underpinnings of some variation on the Nazi's final solution for Jews, Gypsies and gay men.


tjohn said:

dave said:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

This is so disturbing.  It sounds like the intellectual underpinnings of some variation on the Nazi's final solution for Jews, Gypsies and gay men.

And terp tosses it off as Hoppe simple being non-pc.

Scary.

Wonder what terp wanted us to get out of that link?


Can we please forget terp, Hoppe and all this. It's a distraction. If you have time today do some phone banking for Warnock or someone in a close race. Covenant appears like a crock of you know what.


drummerboy said:

tjohn said:

dave said:

In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, . . . naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too,   -- H-H Hoppe (from that book).

This is so disturbing.  It sounds like the intellectual underpinnings of some variation on the Nazi's final solution for Jews, Gypsies and gay men.

And terp tosses it off as Hoppe simple being non-pc.

Scary.

Wonder what terp wanted us to get out of that link?

You have taken one paragraph out of context from a full book and write off someone.  This is the way of the progressive.  Anyone who disagrees is a Nazi.  No need to look at the argument. 

The book makes the case that "democracy" as we know it in the west has not served us as well as we treat it.   Our centralized institutions have been corrupted and are ineffectual.  They do not serve the people. This is true both in the public & private sector. 

Hoppe suggests decentralization.  Relatively small private communities will form w/ their own norms, rules, etc.   He also thinks this will happen eventually through passive succession as the central institutions slowly collapse. 

Look at tomorrow's election.  The DNC seems to be saying that if they don't win, it could be the end of democracy.  How sustainable is all this?  Each side only seems to believe in democracy when their side wins. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business