Republican lieutenant governor says he did not vote for Herschel Walker

Let's do some very basic math. Let's suppose the there are 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Some of the Republicans stay home or fail to cast a ballot for certain Republicans feeling that they are "worthless". So, of those 50 Republicans, only 40 actually vote or only 40 vote for ALL Republican candidates.

Now let's suppose that some of the Democrats do the same. To make it easy, we're going to say that only 45 Democrats voted for ALL Democrat candidates.

So you have 45 Democrat votes versus 40 Republican votes. Guess who will "win" the election? The Democrats!

In essence, failing to vote at all or failing to vote for certain candidates ensures that the other candidate/party will "win" the election.

Perhaps, 10 of the republics and and 5 of the democrats are worthless.
They have voted (or not) as they wished.

Or do you now want to force everyone to vote for whoever you want?

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:Walking out of the voting booth without voting for either candidate is the same as voting for the Communist, (i.e. Democrat).

To claim that not voting somehow makes you superior or that you have more integrity is just kidding yourself. I am sure that the people who did nothing against the Nazi's tried to claim that they had more integrity also.

Evil prospers when good people do nothing.

You condemn the left for voting for incompetent Democrats but are happy with doing the exact same thing on your side just to follow party lines?   You know what that's called?  It's called hypocrisy and I see no integrity in such actions from either side.

First off, I "condemn" no one. If anyone feels guilty that is their problem, I merely stated the truth. Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, ALL Democrats are incompetent because they represent only special interests NOT the majority.

What you may call "hypocrisy" is your opinion and not the truth. I'm not commenting to win your praise, I was commenting to put an air of truth into this discussion. If that bothers you, I cannot help that. Liberals throw around words like "integrity", "hypocrisy", "rights", "Constitutional Crisis", "Democracy" and other buzz words to stir up emotions and get their socialist policies rammed through rather than actual truth and facts.

You judge and condemn by your very words but you don't see it, and that's fine, but I'm hardly a "liberal" because I don't agree with your every word and your truth is not necessarily THE truth.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

2cent wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:There are only 2 candidates in run-offs by design. I'm not even from Georgia and I get it. He either voted Democrat and is lying, or he's dumber than shit.

Why is it dumb to refrain from voting for a person you have no faith in to execute the duties of the job?

If what Duncan is saying is true, he went to the ballot box not knowing that the only options would be Walker and Warnock. That would be dumb because run-off elections are specifically designed to eliminate the third party. A politician from Georgia should know that.

Instead, it looks like he's just grandstanding to hurt Walker. Duncan damn sure voted for Warnock. The Republicans who run Georgia, much like my own state, are anti-Trump. They're okay with Warnock winning because he's an evil, bought and paid for establishment fuckwad and Walker isn't. Walker is going to lose, but it'll be through voter fraud, not voters.

I can't blame the guy for not voting for Walker, but I think you're right about his grandstanding.


Something I don't get. Why all this talk about the vote now, when the vote isn't until Dec. 6th? Is this early voting? Or are Georgians voting on more than just the runoff Sen. seat as of whenever this thread started.

Casey Jones wrote:In the general election, most times the voter is voting AGAINST something or someone.  

It may well be that the preferred-party candidate is subpar; but the reality is, the Other candidate is often far worse.

By withholding a vote, or voting third-party or write-in...you help the candidate you're LEAST likely to pick.  A withheld R vote helps the D.  A withheld D vote, helps the R.

NO candidate is perfect.  You have to go with the lesser of two evils...and yes, you'll always have the lesser of two evils.  The only perfect candidate...to me, IS ME.  No one can do it as good, as righteously, as I can.

But I'm not in any election.  So I have to choose between deeply-flawed persons who often have lived for a time in the Swamp.  Or who have worked in other unsavory businesses...like, say, Trump.  I wasn't enthused about him (he did far better than I expected) but the alternative was magnitudes worse.

So I voted.  Voted R.

Just out of curiosity; after repeating this behavior for years on end, did you ever expect a different result?

And some wonder why things never change, and we've a Swamp so deep, there's likely little chance of ever clearing it.

2cent wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:

2cent wrote:

Wyatt Earp wrote:There are only 2 candidates in run-offs by design. I'm not even from Georgia and I get it. He either voted Democrat and is lying, or he's dumber than shit.

Why is it dumb to refrain from voting for a person you have no faith in to execute the duties of the job?

If what Duncan is saying is true, he went to the ballot box not knowing that the only options would be Walker and Warnock. That would be dumb because run-off elections are specifically designed to eliminate the third party. A politician from Georgia should know that.

Instead, it looks like he's just grandstanding to hurt Walker. Duncan damn sure voted for Warnock. The Republicans who run Georgia, much like my own state, are anti-Trump. They're okay with Warnock winning because he's an evil, bought and paid for establishment fuckwad and Walker isn't. Walker is going to lose, but it'll be through voter fraud, not voters.

I can't blame the guy for not voting for Walker, but I think you're right about his grandstanding.


Something I don't get.  Why all this talk about the vote now, when the vote isn't until Dec. 6th?  Is this early voting?  Or are Georgians voting on more than just the runoff Sen. seat as of whenever this thread started.

I don't care that he voted for neither one, as is his right, but I too question his timing in broadcasting it at this point.

2cent wrote:
Just out of curiosity; after repeating this behavior for years on end, did you ever expect a different result?

And some wonder why things never change, and we've a Swamp so deep, there's likely little chance of ever clearing it.

Nope, it's not going to change. Government -->> Corruption. Always.

The thing that must change, is the force UPON the government, the limits of the Constitution.

THAT can only be done by a series of steps: First, remove this lifetime-sinecure stuff. Those who want money without work, will have to find someplace else. Those who want to micromanage others, will have to address their compulsion with psychiatrists. No more spending a lifetime, acting-out in CONgress.

THEN, return the structure of Congress to its original, Constitutionally-prescribed, form. The House is the democratic body. The Senate is the voice of the States. And the Presidency is the Head Administrator's office. Not the Dictatoriat. Not the office of an elected king. Not an elected OFFICE!

Once this is done...the citizen-legislators, all of them aware of the cost and burden of government intrusion...can push the Deep State back in its cage, and proceed to pare it down. With only temporary Congress-cretins, it'll be easy to get the general consensus that the bureaucracy needs to be reduced. Because there will no longer be much profit from the graft that comes of Regulatory Capture - not for someone in office for eight or ten years, at most.

But to the original point: We cannot elect a government to clean itself up. And if you pick the pie-eyed Anarchist off the row of fringe-party candidates, you've just withheld your vote from the person opposing the DemoMarxist Party.

We can only take the power AWAY from government - which was not intended this power, anyway. We can only work, as we can, to Constitutional limits. Including, of course the Or-Else - State Secession, or, if you like it better, a National Divorce.

Casey Jones wrote:

2cent wrote:
Just out of curiosity; after repeating this behavior for years on end, did you ever expect a different result?

And some wonder why things never change, and we've a Swamp so deep, there's likely little chance of ever clearing it.

Nope, it's not going to change.  Government -->> Corruption.  Always.

The thing that must change, is the force UPON the government, the limits of the Constitution.

THAT can only be done by a series of steps:  First, remove this lifetime-sinecure stuff.  Those who want money without work, will have to find someplace else.  Those who want to micromanage others, will have to address their compulsion with psychiatrists.  No more spending a lifetime, acting-out in CONgress.

THEN, return the structure of Congress to its original, Constitutionally-prescribed, form.  The House is the democratic body.  The Senate is the voice of the States.  And the Presidency is the Head Administrator's office.  Not the Dictatoriat.  Not the office of an elected king.  Not an elected OFFICE!  

Once this is done...the citizen-legislators, all of them aware of the cost and burden of government intrusion...can push the Deep State back in its cage, and proceed to pare it down.  With only temporary Congress-cretins, it'll be easy to get the general consensus that the bureaucracy needs to be reduced.  Because there will no longer be much profit from the graft that comes of Regulatory Capture - not for someone in office for eight or ten years, at most.

But to the original point:  We cannot elect a government to clean itself up.  And if you pick the pie-eyed Anarchist off the row of fringe-party candidates, you've just withheld your vote from the person opposing the DemoMarxist Party.

We can only take the power AWAY from government - which was not intended this power, anyway.  We can only work, as we can, to Constitutional limits.  Including, of course the Or-Else - State Secession, or, if you like it better, a National Divorce.

As long as there are people who feel "superior" to everyone else and who "abstain" from voting for Republicans because they have too many "ethics", thereby supporting the Democrat/Communists, the law and Constitution will be negated, circumvented, altered, deviated from and basically ignored. Abstaining from voting for a Republican is the same as supporting a Communist regardless of how they try to portray it, condone it or claim that it's not true.

If you continue to vote in people who either aren't up to the job or don't consider the people they are meant to represent just because they are Republicans then you deserve what you get and shouldn't complain about them  ...  because you put them there ... and nothing will ever change.

Red Lily wrote:If you continue to vote in people who either aren't up to the job or don't consider the people they are meant to represent just because they are Republicans then you deserve what you get and shouldn't complain about them  ...  because you put them there  ...  and nothing will ever change.

And there in lies the reality ,