Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.

I am sure you are and were equally concerned about Nancy Pelosi's stock trading, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton's speaking fees and were front and center calling for Menendez's defeat in 2018. It is not a clean business. Note that not many in Congress are out there calling for rule changes to restrict this type of Stock Trading.

Loeffler and Perdue certainly do seem ethically challenged but what the actual law is and whether you followed it does make a difference. In the end I doubt it will make much of a difference in the race as people will vote for the candidates whose Senate votes they think they will prefer. I think the Democrats would be better off weighting their effort more in that direction. Right now they seem to be rerunning their November election playbook which they may have missed was not that successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.

I am sure you are and were equally concerned about Nancy Pelosi's stock trading, Hunter Biden, and Hillary Clinton's speaking fees and were front and center calling for Menendez's defeat in 2018. It is not a clean business. Note that not many in Congress are out there calling for rule changes to restrict this type of Stock Trading.

Loeffler and Perdue certainly do seem ethically challenged but what the actual law is and whether you followed it does make a difference. In the end I doubt it will make much of a difference in the race as people will vote for the candidates whose Senate votes they think they will prefer. I think the Democrats would be better off weighting their effort more in that direction. Right now they seem to be rerunning their November election playbook which they may have missed was not that successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ossoff stays stepping on that neck. I can't wait to see Trump live in 20 minutes! Burn it down baby.

The Paris Hilton of the Democratic Party is upset that the self-made millionaire son of two school teachers lives in a mansion. This twit who has never had to work or keep a job in his life is going to solve the problems of ordinary Georgians. LMFAO.

Occasionally I read the posts of Republicans like you (oh, sorry, “independents” LMFAO) and wonder if your brains have been replaced with some kind of post-generating bot mind. Desperately out of date and inaccurate metaphor as insult for the Democratic candidate, check. Name calling, check. Biographical inaccuracies, check. Vast misunderstanding of the issues, check. Totally and completely missing the forest for the trees, check.

The fact is that both Perdue and Loeffler have lost all pretense at being self made. They have committed the crimes of insider trader (and probably several more, judging by the amorality of the GOP). They’re the insanely wealthy. If you had actually listened to the one minute long speech by Ossoff, you would know that he’s talking about the fact that Perdue literally will not speak, meet or interact with his constituents - unless they pay him. If you think he understands the problems of “ordinary Georgians,” let alone cares, you are crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guys watching the debate? Kelly keeps repeating the same thing over and over. She sounds like a puppet.

What was with her. She sounded like a 3rd grader reciting the part in a play. Plastic. Stilted. Is she the best Rs could do? Or did she buy the seat?

Hmmm why would corrupt good ole boy Kemp appoint the richest couple in Georgia?

I got it! Because that would help the most Georgians!

Right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you guys watching the debate? Kelly keeps repeating the same thing over and over. She sounds like a puppet.

What was with her. She sounded like a 3rd grader reciting the part in a play. Plastic. Stilted. Is she the best Rs could do? Or did she buy the seat?

Anonymous wrote:Are you guys watching the debate? Kelly keeps repeating the same thing over and over. She sounds like a puppet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.

PP here. I wasn't saying how a person should vote. I was responding to this comment: "They have committed the crimes of insider trader."

Insert “allegedly” and PP is correct. They both smell to high heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.

PP here. I wasn't saying how a person should vote. I was responding to this comment: "They have committed the crimes of insider trader."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have not been convicted. The evidence that there was wrongdoing is strong. The timing of Purdue’s prolific trades of companies his committees had oversight of is appalling. I am a federal employee and would lose my job if I did a single trade of an entity that my agency has oversight of. Yes, his actions are shady and morally repugnant.

Strong evidence isn't the same as a conviction. Not at all.

OMG. The bar to get someone’s vote shouldn’t be that “they weren’t convicted.” It’s clear that even if they weren’t convicted, it’s clear that they personally benefitted from the knowledge they received before the general public. That tells me that their moral compass is set to care more about themselves and their financial benefit and *not* the good of the general American public. To me, that is disqualifying for my vote.