Republicans, list your favorite things about Darlene Graham

[SlipDrip]

Help convince me why I should vote her over the non political career woman that is saying SC first. Help me understand why a pro federal government plant is the right choice to replace the gay Republican that just died.

 

[scotchtiger]

She will hopefully be a reliable vote against ****** Democrat bills from 2029-2032, assuming the right loses the presidential veto. A vote against higher taxes, expanded entitlements, open borders, government dependence, Medicare for all and whatever DSA policies become core to the democrat party platform.

Other than that, I have nothing for you.

 

[fskillet]

GOP and MAGA spewing about the important of meritocracy for years only to turn around and nominate and support Darlene tells me all I need to know about how much they truly care about meritocracy.

 

[ClemsonCO14]

If you like unnecessary wars, exploding fiscal debt, presidents with billion $+ financial ties to Middle Eastern countries, and isolationist economic policies from the 19th century, then she’s your choice.

By definition you’d be valuing loyalty over capability.

 

[baltimorened]

GOP and MAGA spewing about the important of meritocracy for years only to turn around and nominate and support Darlene tells me all I need to know about how much they truly care about meritocracy.

meritocracy in elections...don't know if I've heard that one before.

She fits all the necessary constitutional requirements to be a senator. Is she a plant? she won the Republican primary. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of these sister fills brothers seats or wives fill husbands...but it's happened before. Voters for some reason, be it name recognition, sympathy or whatever seem to pull the lever.

I don't know the SC race but voting for a "non political career woman" doesn't seem like a great qualification either. Something in the water in SC?

If you like unnecessary wars, exploding fiscal debt, presidents with billion $+ financial ties to Middle Eastern countries, and isolationist economic policies from the 19th century, then she’s your choice.

By definition you’d be valuing loyalty over capability.

 

[scotchtiger]

GOP and MAGA spewing about the important of meritocracy for years only to turn around and nominate and support Darlene tells me all I need to know about how much they truly care about meritocracy.

I think how she became the nominee sucks. But I think a democrat legislative vote in the senate is worse.

 

[fskillet]

I think how she became the nominee sucks. But I think a democrat legislative vote in the senate is worse.

A balanced legislature is a good thing.

meritocracy in elections...don't know if I've heard that one before.

She fits all the necessary constitutional requirements to be a senator. Is she a plant? she won the Republican primary. Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of these sister fills brothers seats or wives fill husbands...but it's happened before. Voters for some reason, be it name recognition, sympathy or whatever seem to pull the lever.

I don't know the SC race but voting for a "non political career woman" doesn't seem like a great qualification either. Something in the water in SC?

Oh you haven’t heard all the whining about DEI politicians from piggy and others? I’m guessing you just tune out all the criticisms of Kamala, AOC, etc from MAGA/GOP?

 

[scotchtiger]

A balanced legislature is a good thing.

Sure. And I think we will have a D house after November. A R senate would balance that. And also check a D president, which is likely to follow Trump.

 

[baltimorened]

A balanced legislature is a good thing.


Oh you haven’t heard all the whining about DEI politicians from piggy and others? I’m guessing you just tune out all the criticisms of Kamala, AOC, etc from MAGA/GOP?

I was going to mention DEI, but then I realized the opponent was female also

 

[baltimorened]

Sure. And I think we will have a D house after November. A R senate would balance that. And also check a D president, which is likely to follow Trump.

we've had divided governments many times before. The country seems to have benefitted from either total stalemates or from members of both parties working together and compromising to create laws beneficial to the country

 

[Billanole.]

I think how she became the nominee sucks. But I think a democrat legislative vote in the senate is worse.

To me, it isn’t so much how she was gifted the nomination. Much more importantly, what are her quals? She has been shown on film saying that “I don’t know much about foreign policy”.
So, you prefer a place holder to an active participant.

 

[scotchtiger]

To me, it isn’t so much how she was gifted the nomination. Much more importantly, what are her quals? She has been shown on film saying that “I don’t know much about foreign policy”.
So, you prefer a place holder to an active participant.

100%. I would much prefer a R warm body over “active” support of Democrat and left wing policies.

 

[firegiver]

She's a deep state plant and will protect Israel's US tax payer funded war.

 

[firegiver]

100%. I would much prefer a R warm body over “active” support of Democrat and left wing policies.

Because you want to continue the genocide in Palestine and continue to run up the debt, just like her gay brother did.

 

[Jfcarter3]

Trump wants her so I don’t. It really is that plain and simple. He expects fealty (see how butt hurt he gets when SCOTUS doesn’t go his way) and she seems like she’ll gladly bend the knee. We need checks and balances, not boot lickers in high places.

 

[scotchtiger]

Because you want to continue the genocide in Palestine and continue to run up the debt, just like her gay brother did.

Palestine has literally zero impact on my voting preference and I spend virtually no time thinking about that place.

Both parties run up the debt. Entitlements are our biggest spending category by a mile and one party wants to expand entitlements. I’m voting against that.

 

[scotchtiger]

Trump wants her so I don’t. It really is that plain and simple. He expects fealty (see how butt hurt he gets when SCOTUS doesn’t go his way) and she seems like she’ll gladly bend the knee. We need checks and balances, not boot lickers in high places.

Another perspective is that Trump will be gone in 2 years and this office will be held for 6. Good chance a dem follows Trump and we will need the final 4 years of this position to check them.

 

[Billanole.]

100%. I would much prefer a R warm body over “active” support of Democrat and left wing policies.

You can't stop using the “left wing policies” trope long enough to think for yourself.
Kinda sad, but unsurprising.
You do know that she will get paid a lot to just be a warm body.
Maybe she can cozy up to the old gal from Maine if elected. Learn the grift and illegals stock trading trade that has made her a millionaire.

 

[firegiver]

Palestine has literally zero impact on my voting preference and I spend virtually no time thinking about that place.

Both parties run up the debt. Entitlements are our biggest spending category by a mile and one party wants to expand entitlements. I’m voting against that.

You should spend some time thinking about that place and how much of your money goes there, instead of worrying about Trans athletes in womens sports because the tax burden on one is not the same as the other. You spend most your time on here complaining about having to pay taxes so I would assume your rational brain would understand this.

How much money went to searching for WMD's?
How much money you ready to spend neutralizing a nuclear program our intelligence agency told us before the war didn't pose a threat yet?

 

[scotchtiger]

You can't stop using the “left wing policies” trope long enough to think for yourself.
Kinda sad, but unsurprising.
You do know that she will get paid a lot to just be a warm body.
Maybe she can cozy up to the old gal from Maine if elected. Learn the grift and illegals stock trading trade that has made her a millionaire.

I think plenty for myself. I’m hardly a republican lackey and think they suck as well. But a D sitting in that seat will be a reliable vote for a Democrat agenda for 4 years should that party win the presidency in 2028. And that’s a likely vote for higher taxes, expanded entitlements and God help us, maybe even Medicare for all.

I’ll take the warm body.

 

[scotchtiger]

You should spend some time thinking about that place and how much of your money goes there, instead of worrying about Trans athletes in womens sports because the tax burden on one is not the same as the other. You spend most your time on here complaining about having to pay taxes so I would assume your rational brain would understand this.

How much money went to searching for WMD's?
How much money you ready to spend neutralizing a nuclear program our intelligence agency told us before the war didn't pose a threat yet?

I don’t worry about trans athletes either.

Both parties suck. I’ve repeatedly said this. I don’t support everything the republicans do, and certainly don’t support everything Trump does.

But only one of us wants to give these piece of **** politicians more money and more power over our lives. And that’s not me.

 

[Billanole.]

I don’t worry about trans athletes either.

Both parties suck. I’ve repeatedly said this. I don’t support everything the republicans do, and certainly don’t support everything Trump does.

But only one of us wants to give these piece of **** politicians more money and more power over our lives. And that’s not me.

A vote for Darlene is exactly just what you claim to not support.

 

[scotchtiger]

A vote for Darlene is exactly just what you claim to not support.

Darlene doesn’t want to raise my taxes and send more money to the feds. The democrats do. Darlene doesn’t want the government to be in charge of everyone’s healthcare. Many dems do. Darlene is less likely than a dem to expand entitlements or do something absurd like roll back work requirements.

Again, I don’t like that she’s the nominee or like how she got to be in that position. But the alternative - a vote in support of D policy - is worse.

 

[firegiver]

I don’t worry about trans athletes either.

Both parties suck. I’ve repeatedly said this. I don’t support everything the republicans do, and certainly don’t support everything Trump does.

But only one of us wants to give these piece of **** politicians more money and more power over our lives. And that’s not me.

Its funny, you'd probably privatize firefighting and cops if you could wave a wand right?
Because that would be 'cheaper' for you?
Meanwhile, both sides scotch, the worst abusers of power in government you've EVER SEEN, want you to vote republican so they continue to enrich themselves and **** us all over. So you go be a gooood boy and do that for them.

 

[scotchtiger]

Its funny, you'd probably privatize firefighting and cops if you could wave a wand right?
Because that would be 'cheaper' for you?
Meanwhile, both sides scotch, the worst abusers of power in government you've EVER SEEN, want you to vote republican so they continue to enrich themselves and **** us all over. So you go be a gooood boy and do that for them.

No I wouldn’t. So you can stop supposing to know what I think.

And yes, the corruption and self-enrichment from this administration is something else. That doesn’t change the fact that this seat will spend 67% of its time under a different president and that vote will matter - especially as the dems continue to drift further left.

 

[firegiver]

No I wouldn’t. So you can stop supposing to know what I think.

And yes, the corruption and self-enrichment from this administration is something else. That doesn’t change the fact that this seat will spend 67% of its time under a different president and that vote will matter - especially as the dems continue to drift further left.

lmao, buyers remorse.
Scotch, you've spent most of your adult life voting in terrible candidates. You think people with objective reasoning capabilities would look back on your voting record and say: That was for the best! No, big guy. Even you wouldn't. I look back on mine, and know I've been making the better choice. Even though, neoliberalism is in the pockets of corporations.
I don't know what to say, other than, we have a lagging indicator that your voting is making our world worse. At some point, you got to think: Maybe Im doing it wrong?

 

[dpic73]

 

[firegiver]

I mean.... she has a point. A point that no one is gonna be able to shake nor should they, behind the cover of: OMG LEFTISTS... Unless you are a useful idiot. She's a clear moderate choice.

 

[SlipDrip]

She will hopefully be a reliable vote against ****** Democrat bills from 2029-2032, assuming the right loses the presidential veto. A vote against higher taxes, expanded entitlements, open borders, government dependence, Medicare for all and whatever DSA policies become core to the democrat party platform.

Other than that, I have nothing for you.

The Republican president’s tariffs are by definition higher taxes. I’ll also argue Trump’s winless war against Iran is also a major tax.

tell me again how destroying America exports and starting a war is America first.

 

[SlipDrip]

100%. I would much prefer a R warm body over “active” support of Democrat and left wing policies.

What are you scared of? Record high gas prices, deficit spending and illegal wars? Oh wait, that’s when King Trump is in office. Thank god republicans control everything….

 

[Billanole.]

Darlene doesn’t want to raise my taxes and send more money to the feds. The democrats do. Darlene doesn’t want the government to be in charge of everyone’s healthcare. Many dems do. Darlene is less likely than a dem to expand entitlements or do something absurd like roll back work requirements.

Again, I don’t like that she’s the nominee or like how she got to be in that position. But the alternative - a vote in support of D policy - is worse.

I guess Darlene would just go along with more borrowing, rather than deciding to pay as we go.
Your premise that the debt would increase under Democrats is accurate in that the tax rates for you know who have been lowered and drump is on a spending frenzy of crazy proportions.
You know how the debt has exploded, but are scared that paying for the care of citizens via health care is the real bugaboo.
The die is cast until this crap is reigned in and even then future generations are on the hook for the “drump spending frenzy”.

 

[Billanole.]

Andrews is a badass. I wish she was in my district and all Americans should hope she is elected.

 

[SlipDrip]

I’m shocked the GOP let her debate Andrews. Can’t see how Darlene’s Israel first approach is going to hold up against Andrews SC first approach.

would be much easier to run fake news ads about transgender sports and avoid talking about any of Darlene’s DEI votes.

 

[dpic73]

I’m shocked the GOP let her debate Andrews. Can’t see how Darlene’s Israel first approach is going to hold up against Andrews SC first approach.

would be much easier to run fake news ads about transgender sports and avoid talking about any of Darlene’s DEI votes.

Sadly, all they have to do is run an ad that says Andrews is for trans and it's over.

 

[SlipDrip]

Sadly, all they have to do is run an ad that says Andrews is for trans and it's over.

Every ad on my YouTube is this crap. Which is crazy considering it’s a complete lie. I’ll always vote a person that has worked a normal job over a lawyer or gay politicians sister.

 

[fskillet]

I’m shocked the GOP let her debate Andrews. Can’t see how Darlene’s Israel first approach is going to hold up against Andrews SC first approach.

would be much easier to run fake news ads about transgender sports and avoid talking about any of Darlene’s DEI votes.

It's South Carolina. You could run a golden retriever with R beside their name and they'd win because this state is full of dipshit morons.

 

[SlipDrip]

It's South Carolina. You could run a golden retriever with R beside their name and they'd win because this state is full of dipshit morons.

Good point. They don’t realize Darlene is farther left than Andrews

 

[scotchtiger]

I guess Darlene would just go along with more borrowing, rather than deciding to pay as we go.
Your premise that the debt would increase under Democrats is accurate in that the tax rates for you know who have been lowered and drump is on a spending frenzy of crazy proportions.
You know how the debt has exploded, but are scared that paying for the care of citizens via health care is the real bugaboo.
The die is cast until this crap is reigned in and even then future generations are on the hook for the “drump spending frenzy”.

1. I don't take anyone seriously who uses terminology like "drump." I assume these are basement dwellers deep in a social media political algorithm spiral.

2. Tax rates were lowered for everyone, with middle income people receiving a greater % decrease than wealthier Americans. I've shown the math on that here.

3. Trump is out of office in 2 years. This vote has more to do with what comes after Trump.

4. Universal health care would cost ~$3 TRILLION per year. The majority of the federal budget already goes toward entitlements. Dems would add $3T for healthcare plus expand other entitlements. Yes, this is a much, much bigger threat to long-term financial solvency than whatever Trump spends in his final 24 months. For context, we have spent $43.6B on the war in Iran. That's 1.5% of one year of universal healthcare, except UHC is forever.

 

[Fac]

lmao, buyers remorse.
Scotch, you've spent most of your adult life voting in terrible candidates. You think people with objective reasoning capabilities would look back on your voting record and say: That was for the best! No, big guy. Even you wouldn't. I look back on mine, and know I've been making the better choice. Even though, neoliberalism is in the pockets of corporations.
I don't know what to say, other than, we have a lagging indicator that your voting is making our world worse. At some point, you got to think: Maybe Im doing it wrong?

Very comical. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Jfcarter3]

Another perspective is that Trump will be gone in 2 years and this office will be held for 6. Good chance a dem follows Trump and we will need the final 4 years of this position to check them.

trump has wreaked havoc on everything he has come remotely close to in contact with in less than his first two years. I'll trade the "what about 4 years after" for the "stop trump now" next two.