I don't have much to say about the article - as an Illinois resident, I'm largely tuning out the Georgia self-crotch-punch contest - but I wanted to say that it's good to see the Resurgent refugees find a place where you all can tell it like you see it.
Looking forward to reading and listening in the weeks ahead.
Maybe you forgot the facts of the Michael Brown case when you used that fact check. Sounds like you and David are starting up a Georgia version of The Dispatch. But, I'll read your opinions if I can post mine.
I found it ironic how the same people who screamed about Amy Coney Barretts faith being "off limits" now seem completely fine with people questioning Warnock's. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you in that very group? It also is confusing how you go from "democrats want to erase christian influence" to actively voting for a Baptist Minister.
It's almost like most people on the right consider your stance on abortion as being your whole religion. And that's being generous, because the other option is the one taken by white "christians" throughout southern history about blacks.
1. Amy Coney Barrett is not a minister. Obviously Warnock is. There is a major difference. It's his occupation, like being a judge is Barrett's. There is also a difference in qualifications and venue. This is an election, not a confirmation hearing. Completely different.
2. Many Democrats do want to erase Christian influence. These would not be a fan of Warnock, and at some point would oppose him because he is too Christian. But in Georgia, this is a tactical move and in Georgia it works. It wouldn't work in, say, Massachusetts or Oregon.
3. I never said I was going to vote for Warnock. I only said I might consider it, which is a big step given he's a Democrat and may swing the fate of the entire Senate for at least 2 years with a Democrat in the White House.
4. The history of white Evangelical Christianity in race relations is terrible. That's not part of my calculus for this vote, and will never be. People have to make their own decisions, and the poor behavior of others who claimed to adhere to a certain faith in the past doing terrible things or believing false things can't influence decisions made now. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right, and any number of wrongs today won't make past wrongs right.
I don't have much to say about the article - as an Illinois resident, I'm largely tuning out the Georgia self-crotch-punch contest - but I wanted to say that it's good to see the Resurgent refugees find a place where you all can tell it like you see it.
Looking forward to reading and listening in the weeks ahead.
Thanks for the kind words!
Maybe you forgot the facts of the Michael Brown case when you used that fact check. Sounds like you and David are starting up a Georgia version of The Dispatch. But, I'll read your opinions if I can post mine.
You just did!
I found it ironic how the same people who screamed about Amy Coney Barretts faith being "off limits" now seem completely fine with people questioning Warnock's. Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't you in that very group? It also is confusing how you go from "democrats want to erase christian influence" to actively voting for a Baptist Minister.
It's almost like most people on the right consider your stance on abortion as being your whole religion. And that's being generous, because the other option is the one taken by white "christians" throughout southern history about blacks.
1. Amy Coney Barrett is not a minister. Obviously Warnock is. There is a major difference. It's his occupation, like being a judge is Barrett's. There is also a difference in qualifications and venue. This is an election, not a confirmation hearing. Completely different.
2. Many Democrats do want to erase Christian influence. These would not be a fan of Warnock, and at some point would oppose him because he is too Christian. But in Georgia, this is a tactical move and in Georgia it works. It wouldn't work in, say, Massachusetts or Oregon.
3. I never said I was going to vote for Warnock. I only said I might consider it, which is a big step given he's a Democrat and may swing the fate of the entire Senate for at least 2 years with a Democrat in the White House.
4. The history of white Evangelical Christianity in race relations is terrible. That's not part of my calculus for this vote, and will never be. People have to make their own decisions, and the poor behavior of others who claimed to adhere to a certain faith in the past doing terrible things or believing false things can't influence decisions made now. In other words, two wrongs don't make a right, and any number of wrongs today won't make past wrongs right.