Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams Both Advocate More Government in Georgia Governor Debate
The governor favors more punitive policing, while his Democratic opponent thinks the governor should have a say in who buys what properties in the state.

Four years ago, Stacey Abrams, former Democratic minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives and part-time romance novelist, ran for governor of her state. While she narrowly lost to the Republican, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Abrams' run captured national attention.
Two years ago, Abrams' tireless voter registration efforts were credited with Joe Biden's victory in the state, the first Democrat to win Georgia's electoral votes in nearly three decades.
This year, Abrams sought a rematch. While Kemp, now the incumbent, faced multiple primary opponents, Abrams ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination. But despite a cleared field and political stardom, Abrams faces a significant polling disadvantage, averaging a five-point deficit in recent weeks. At Monday night's debate with Kemp and Libertarian candidate Shane Hazel, Abrams needed to break away from the pack.
Unfortunately, no matter whether the Republican or Democrat wins in November, the agenda going forward will be the same: more government interference in the lives of Georgians.
In response to a pointed rebuke from Hazel about marijuana arrests, Kemp retorted that he was "going after street gangs and drug cartels," not "recreational users." Later in the hour, he defended his strict drug policy by blaming "the amount of fentanyl that's coming across the Southern border because of bad border policy from [the Biden] administration." Kemp apparently did not consider that demand for fentanyl could be fueled by marijuana crackdowns.
Kemp also criticized Abrams for her support of "ending cash bail." Indeed, just hours before hitting the debate stage, Kemp unveiled a new policy agenda geared toward cracking down on gangs and encouraging cash bail, despite there being little evidence that the absence of cash bail increases crime.
Kemp proposed doubling the prison penalty from five to 10 years for recruiting a minor into a gang. But the only way to enforce such a provision is for the government to have the singular authority to determine what is or is not a street gang. In 2020, police in Phoenix tried to designate protesters holding "ACAB" ("all cops are bastards") placards as a street gang; months later, the department admitted the categorization was bogus, but not before more than a dozen protesters were arrested and spent months fighting charges. Earlier this year, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suggested that gang databases pose grave constitutional concerns.
Meanwhile, Abrams dinged Kemp for "the rise of Chinese Communist Party-backed companies purchasing American farmland." Over the weekend, Abrams told Fox News that Kemp "is placing farmland in the state of Georgia in the hands of, basically, a nation that has proven itself to be a national security threat." She cited a state-funded website in which Kemp encourages Chinese investment in Georgia. But Kemp is not seizing property for resale, he's encouraging Chinese companies to purchase land that Georgians are willing to sell.
Currently, Georgia's schools sit in the bottom half of national rankings. Neither Kemp nor Abrams questioned whether the government is best equipped to educate schoolchildren, just how much money should be spent on it. Kemp bragged that in his first term, he had achieved a $5,000 pay increase for teachers; Abrams countered that $5,000 was insufficient, and that she would boost teacher pay by an additional $11,000. Abrams said that she would accomplish this by tapping into Georgia's $6.6 billion tax surplus; notably, neither candidate suggested giving those funds back to the Georgians who paid them.
Whether Abrams' debate performance will lead to a bump in the polls remains to be seen. It's entirely possible that Abrams' initial star-making run coincided with the 2018 "blue wave," and she is simply reverting to the mean. But whether she manages an upset or Kemp is returned to the Governor's Mansion, Georgians can expect to face more interference from their state government.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kemp also criticized Abrams for her support of "ending cash bail." Indeed, just hours before hitting the debate stage, Kemp unveiled a new policy agenda geared toward cracking down on gangs and encouraging cash bail, despite there being little evidence that the absence of cash bail increases crime.
The only evidence I see is the explosion of crime in every place that does it. There is just that. And there is the crazy idea that letting criminals out of jail allows them to commit more crimes.
Enforcing the law and doing something about crime is not "more government". It is getting the government we have to do its most basic function.
And to think we're about to do this on a state-wide level in Illinois.
It is going to be a disaster. It has been a disaster everywhere it has been tried. It would be nice if reason would just admit reality rather than trying to gaslight themselves and their readers.
How often is there a correlating commie DA in these jurisdictions?
There should be some form of bail reform. People doing years in lockup before they’re even convicted should not be ok. Just as there should be be some form of prison reform, and over all Justice system reform. Within the confines of actual rule of law. There was halfway sane bipartisan work on this sort of stuff beginning to get traction before Floyd.
Then the identity Marxists took over. I don’t think it’s merely bail reform that’s to blame. It’s that it’s the stupidest goddamned bail reform they can concoct. Combined with the “let’s not police or charge anyone with anything” style of “Justice” that Reason keeps mistaking for “reform”.
No cash bail is like no abortion restrictions. The state shouldn't be able to hold whoever they want for however they want, but repeatedly releasing criminals with no recourse isn't a real answer. Same as the debate between no abortion and full-term abortion of a viable child. Anyone out on bail should at a minimum have they're bail revoked if they are arrested for another crime. The fact that they are allowed to repeatedly offend before ever facing trial is as much of an infringement on the rights of the public as limitless pre-trial incarceration is to theirs.
I agree.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a (adc-55) lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Real reform would probably involve bail amounts, sentencing reform, and speediness of trials. Or at the very least, maybe our city/county lockups shouldn’t be complete hellscapes if potentially innocent defendants are going to rot there for awhile.
And intelligent distinctions based on the type of crime.
Came here to say the same.
"The only evidence I see is the explosion of crime in every place that does it."
Can you cite some of that evidence for us?
Yes first slit your sealioning wrists then I will provide a cite
scythe?
He needs a scythe right in the keister. He'll still be stupid, but he may quit asking.
San Francisco, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago to name a few
Do you ever watch the news at all Mike? Really, you missed the crime wave sweeping these cities?
Boom.
Seattle: Highest per capita homeless rate in the US:
Sheltered/unsheltered
nyc: 738/44
la: 574/210
chi: 151/57
SD: 173/182
SF: 321/586
Sea: 777/848
DC: 898/85
Seattle Overdose death increase: 2011-2018
Heroin: 212%
Fentanyl: 500%
Meth: 646%
* said without facts in evidence.
The intention is not "good"... the intention is to create a destabilizing effect. As one Trotskyist once said, "We didn't give a damn about [the marginalized populations] they were merely a lever used to destroy the nation state.
Dee’s going to ignore this. Or find some meaningless nit to pick.
Good to see good 'ol meth leading the charge. The way everyone reports on fentanyl, you would think that meth had become yesterday's news.
Sorry bud, but this is a guarantee he wont respond and will spout the same nonsense in the next thread
Jeffy does the same thing every time we bury him under mountains of evidence about CRT, trans-groomers, etc. They will not respond, and then show up tomorrow in the next article pretending nothing happened, and they will never read these cites.
Duh just preemptively lock up all suvs
Only the assault ones.
Stacey Abrams is a strong beautiful Black woman who was cheated out of the governorship once before. We must not let it happen again.
"[Kemp] favors more punitive policing"
See? Kemp is obviously the wrong choice — he opposes the Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #FreeTheCriminals and #EmptyThePrisons agenda.
#LibertariansForAbrams
She gives election denial deniers a proud example.
Trump created Truth Social just for you, yet you lurk here.
Neither did I. You saying that many people had been using marijuana for pain and sought to switch to fentanyl?
My thoughts too. They're different drugs with different users. I doubt most stoners will use fentanyl if they can't get weed.
"I was gonna smoke a joint but I can't find any weed, guess it's time to step up to heroin!" -- Probably No Stoner Ever
The "fentanyl crisis" is purely due to smuggling efficiency. Fentanyl is 100 times as strong (and therefore volumetrically dense) as morphine. Heroin is about 4x as "strong" as morphine. You can smuggle 25 times as much "heroin" into the country by moving fentanyl instead and then cutting it up to heroin strength once it's here.
But the people doing this cutting aren't using scientific equipment and stainless ball mills to mix these powders properly, so you get the fentanyl mixed in kinda "lumpy", which means that the product varies from dose to dose. Junkies are generally pretty good about knowing how to dose themselves to keep from dying, when they have access to steady graded stuff and haven't been off it for a while. It's mostly when they've been clean (often due to being in jail) or when they're switching dealers / suppliers, or dealing with this issue that they OD.
“I was gonna smoke a joint but I can’t find any weed, guess it’s time to step up to heroin!” — Probably No Stoner Ever
I was gonna go do some smack, but then I got high… (ooh, ooh, ooh)
I was gonna fix the pain in my back, but then I got high… (la dat dat daa daa daa)
I was gonna get even more messed up, but I didn’t try… (Why man?)
[chorus]
There we go, marijuana is good for de-escalating junkies!
No, that probably doesn't work either. I don't think people who want heroin are going to be satisfied with THC.
Who can’t find weed ?
Does anyone believe there’s even a single person in Georgia who used fentanyl because weed wasn’t available?
Drug warriors.
You're thinking of the problem backwards: all the heroin users who weren't able to find weed to stop them from using.
Haha, I just said this wasn’t a good libertarian argument for legalizing other drugs yesterday, and Reason did not disappoint.
https://reason.com/2022/10/17/dont-blame-migrants-and-open-borders-for-fentanyl-entering-the-country/?comments=true#comment-9751051
Edit: the OP was about less deadly opiods, but the point still stands.
So the only argument that makes even a little sense, and I don't think this is the argument the author was making, is that weed being illegal forces people who want it to buy it from drug dealers that might offer them other drugs. The stoner can of course say "no thanks", but they are being exposed to a black market that will offer them other substances.
Here in Colorado we can buy weed at a store. They only sell weed, you will not be offered any other drugs at the weed store. If Georgia followed suit a lot of people who only want weed would never get plugged into the market that sells other drugs.
This is why when people say weed is a gateway drug they're kind of correct: it's a gateway to the black market because most places refuse to let people acquire it legally.
Reason has spent decades denying pot is a "gateway" drug, and will do so again during any pro-legalization debate.
But this particular second it's a gateway drug?
Like I said I don't think that's the argument they're making, but at the same time consistency on a lot of subjects has been lacking around here so who knows.
It seems more like "drug users will use anything to get high, so if you take away weed you're increasing demand for hard drugs" which is just absurd and shows a complete lack of understanding of drug culture.
Seriously, GFY
No one in their right mind thinks Kemp is just the same on big government as Abrams
Chihuahuas and put bulls both might bite you, but it isn’t “just the same”
Actually arresting criminals is "punitive policing". WTF kind of Orwellian term is "punitive policing". All policing is punitive. You have police to handle crimes and criminal law is punitive you fucking leftist reprobates.
Reason has gone full anti-police, except for indefinite detention from J6 and the FBI raiding Trump.
And those dastardly pro lifers
The punitive part comes from Congress, not the police.
^This
To 'both sides' this is a disingenuous lie. One is not a perfect candidate, but all things considered, is doing an OK job. The other is advocating for known big govt policies that are a disaster: Full on-socialism, defund the police, decriminalization of property destruction/theft, and COVID insanity.
These things are not equal. And one of them is an absolute disaster from a libertarian perspective
It would take a *lot* of convincing to get me to believe someone was as bad or worse a candidate as Abrams.
Though I will admit that her mistimed clock "happened to get one right" notion that maybe we shouldn't sell farmland to the Chinese does strike me as surprisingly sane from her.
There was an add about her wanting to bring sports gambling to GA. Dont know if she would follow through, but its about the only thing I have ever heard that sounds good coming from her
Kemp really flexed his Big Govt muscles during COVID, didn’t he?
Did you get bad grades in reading comprehension? The article doesn't say that either.
So on one side we have arresting criminals and on the other we have the State picking winners and losers in business dealings and the marxist propagandist Joe screeches "both sides" fuck off you ignoramus.
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.......>>> OnlineCareer1
Stop with the both sides bullshit! There is only one side!
yawn
^ This.
While one of those two is significantly better than the other, it's still like two mafia dons trying to get your support by promising to break your kneecaps less than the other guy.
Meanwhile if the LP candidate hasn't going total Mises Caucus, that choice seems to be preferable to either of the Duopoly names.
It is fun watching infants stomp their feet waiting for a perfect candidate. No knowledge of statistics or expected value calculations.
You demand 100% agreement or you bitch and moan. Not realizing that the ask you seek makes you an authoritarian. No compromise. Everything the way you want it.
3 candidates are in a race.
Candidate 1: 80% agreement 4% chance
Candidate 2: 50% agreement 48% chance
Candidate 3: 20% agreement 48% chance
Expected outcome of your votes for agreement is:
Candidate 1: 3.2%
Candidate 2: 24%
Candidate 3: 9.6%
You advicate for candidate 1 despite having a lower chance of getting what you want. And you even say he isnt worth voting for because it isnt 100%.
Rational people would choose candidate 2 as it gives them the best hope for getting views they align with. Not you and sarc. Just stomp your feet and bitch.
Math is racist
You can argue over arsenic or cyanide. I'll pass.
Do you want to know why third parties get no traction? It’s because of people like you who shower them and their supporters with contempt and derision. If more people voted their conscience instead of voting for who they think will win, then there might be some actual change in this country. People like you, mocking and deriding anyone with a conscience, are the problem, not the solution. (Yes I am implying that you have no conscience.)
Do you want to know why third parties get no traction? It’s because of people like you who shower them and their supporters with contempt and derision.
This is both funny and absurd. It's much more because people like you shower Republican party voters with contempt and derision.
But only other people need be responsible. After all it's not like sarc's standards apply to sarc. Whatever he needs to believe to support his politics he believes no matter how ridiculous.
I call out the Republican party because they're supposed to be the party that has principles and standards. Can't criticize Democrats for that, since they don't pretend to have any.
Do you even read my criticism of Republicans? I compare them to their enemies. I show how people who are supposed to be rational have become emotional cunts like the leftists they hate. I point out how Republicans have abandoned support for economic liberty.
I'm not trying to shut them down. I want them to stop behaving like the left.
This is a lie to protect your pretense at not being a leftist ally, but in this case it's just irrelevant. The idea people are put off more by someone criticizing you than you criticizing them is fucking stupid, although sufficiently narcissistic it's plausible you actually believe it.
translation: "Don't you dare tell me what you think! I tell you what you think! If you disagree with what I say about what you think, then you're a fucking liar!"
You say my "This article doesn't exist because it would go against the narrative" shtick is old?
You and your buddies calling me a liar when I tell you what I think, and then telling me what I really think, is getting old as well.
It’s revealing you don’t address the issue in conflict which is your absurd assertion converts are put off by others criticism of you rather than your criticism of them.
Always deflect.
And people accuse me of day drinking. Sober up and post again.
Also, whenever someone says "It's revealing," whatever follows is complete bullshit.
and then telling me what I really think,
I didn't tell you what you think, I told you your stated goals are not true which we can conclude by noting essentially everything you say conflicts with them.
whenever someone says “It’s revealing,” whatever follows is complete bullshit.
This is both stupid and an implicit admission you can't refute anything I wrote.
Sober up and post again.
Here's yet another insult sarc both whines about when it's used to him and freely uses to others. Sarc's only consistent principle is that he doesn't apply any standard he complains about to himself or his allies.
Note he's still refusing to address the absurd belief potential recruits care more about people criticizing him than him criticizing them. Whenever he's caught in a particularly stupid assertion he lashes out hoping people will forget and just move on.
I didn’t tell you what you think, I told you your stated goals are not true
You don't tell me what I think, you just tell me what I think.
This is both stupid and an implicit admission you can’t refute anything I wrote.
No, I'm pointing out that what follows "It's revealing" is something that someone didn't say (being that is is "revealed"), and you'll call that someone a liar if they disagree. In other words it's total bullshit.
Note he’s still refusing to address the absurd belief potential recruits care more about people criticizing him than him criticizing them.
Note Marshal is using the third person and talking about something I never talked about.
Whenever he’s caught in a particularly stupid assertion he lashes out hoping people will forget and just move on.
I'm not the one crying "Liar liar, that's not what you believe! This is what you believe!"
Lash out some more. Talk about me in the third person more. Elaborate more on what I think and call me a liar when I say you're wrong.
No, I’m pointing out that what follows “It’s revealing” is something that someone didn’t say (being that is is “revealed”), and you’ll call that someone a liar if they disagree. In other words it’s total bullshit.
So according to sarc we must accept someone's self-identification, we can't test it against their positions to evaluate. If true wouldn't this mean there are essentially no racists in America? I'm sure a tiny few people openly admit racism, but essentially everyone called a racist denies it. Instead racists are identified by the principles underlying their policy preferences or other comments. This practice is routine, accepted, and supportable.
But sarc claims the practice is illegitimate, but only for himself of course. I'm sure we could find thousands of instances of his engaging in this same practice including labelling anyone who disagrees with him a Trumpist. But as we know sarc believes standards only exist to apply to other people. Any standard applied to sarc is ipso facto illegitimate.
Sarc now: Note Marshal is using the third person and talking about something I never talked about.
Sarc then:
sarcasmic 3 hours ago (edited)
People like you, mocking and deriding anyone with a conscience, are the problem, not the solution
So he believes the problem is people who mock his beliefs, ignoring all other possibilities including his own primary function of mocking their beliefs. It's amusing he denies this in the same thread he does it. He does think everyone is too stupid to follow though, which seems closely related to Dunning-Kruger.
Notice sarc didn’t make a statement on the authoritarian nature of his ask, only selecting candidates that completely agree with you. Which no candidate that rigid will agree with a large portion of voters. Sarc thinks it is right to demand subservience to his views be applied to everyone despite only leftists agreeing with most of his views.
If he can’t get the totality of his wants, then he doesn’t want it.
If I have to hedge against someone likely to give me most of my asks and someone who gives me virtually none, I will compromise to make sure it isnt the worse candidate.
In reality you can’t even find libertarian candidates who get 80% agreement with a large portion of libertarians.
But sarc justifies his idiocy because he is a selfish asshole and would rather have a reason to blame others for his bad outcomes.
Instead "you... you... you" with lies in between the pronouns, you do "he.... he.... he...." with lies in between the pronouns.
Same old song and dance.
If I had the inclination I'd break down your comment sentence by sentence, showing how everything you wrote is a deliberate falsehood, but it would solve nothing.
You’ve stated numerous times here you don’t vote at all, lol.
If you are voting only for candidates that support all your ideas then that candidate will never get a large portion of the electorate dumbfuck.
Sometimes you do have to interact with others who may not agree with you 100%.
Maybe you should read what I write instead of flogging the same old strawman.
Couldn't be cause this particular third party obsesses over drug legalization, opening the borders wide in spite of a trillion dollar welfare state, thinks bakers shoukd be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, and shows up at conventions dressed in freaking Star Trek uniforms. Yeah, it's because people shower them with contempt and derision.
Well between Vito Corleone and Barzini, I'm taking Don Vito.
Sarc's got it right. The wolves have decided on dinner and are looking at the wine list.
In this particular instance, there isn’t even a comparison. Unless Kemp locked the state down longer than Texas or Florida.
Your issue with Kemp is that he’s not a “social liberal/libertarian” (at least on marijuana) which is fine, but just say that rather than making the bizarre case that he’s in favor of more big government like Abrams.
If you want to prevent the Governor of Georgia from fighting the War on Drugs then you need to change the laws in Georgia. Rather than just focusing on the Governor it would behoove reformers to focus more on the legislature. If you get enough Georgian legislators on board with marijuana decriminalization/depenalization then the Governor we’ll have to compromise. Loosening up the very strict medical marijuana law might be a way to start: https://www.pcom.edu/academics/programs-and-degrees/doctor-of-pharmacy/school-of-pharmacy/blog/medical-cannabis-laws.html
“Kemp apparently did not consider that demand for fentanyl could be fueled by marijuana crackdowns.”
I’m gonna need an actual explanation for this. Moreover, I’m not sure I buy the implication here that the Georgia police have been so effective in stamping out marijuana growers and dealers that marijuana users are turning to fentanyl. It’s possible I guess but I need to see the data to back that up.
“Kemp bragged that in his first term, he had achieved a $5,000 pay increase for teachers; Abrams countered that $5,000 was insufficient and that she would boost teacher pay by an additional $11,000. Abrams said that she would accomplish this by tapping into Georgia’s $6.6 billion tax surplus; notably, neither candidate suggested giving those funds back to the Georgians who paid them.”
Agreed that it would be better to return that money to the taxpayers. Though trying to convince politicians they should give money back to the taxpayers tends to be a herculean task. Though I suppose election time would be the time to do it, “stimulus checks!”
There is one person on their ballot who would do that. That person is not Abrams, nor is that person Kemp. Just saying.
It doesn’t matter what someone "would do" if there’s zero possibility they ever could.
And as long as people keep voting for team colors it will never change.
You can't for for LP! We might end up with Stalin! You gotta vote Hitler! Aaargh!
I’ve grown tired of this argument. I’ll give the GA Libertarian Party credit for the fact they’ve managed to maintain somewhat of a presence in GA compared to other states. Yet as of right now, from what I could find, the LP has no elected members in the State Legislature and only one elected official as a member of a city council.
If you want the party to win statewide races they need to win local races and build an actual “bench” of candidates. If the GA State laws on ballot access are too damn restrictive, and “impossible'” to repeal, to win anything on the local level then perhaps it’s time to change tactics. Supporters of the LP in GA should focus instead on running in and influencing the State GOP rather than continue to fruitlessly spend resources.
I won’t knock folks too much for voting for third-party candidates, as I’ve voted that way in the past. But declaring you’re voting for third-party candidates has become little more than a virtue signal. Vote for a third-party candidate to keep your conscience "clean" if you must, but please stop pretending it’s somehow that much better than voting for the so-called “lesser of evils.”
Just because you're tired of the argument doesn't mean it's not true.
I really believe that a good portion of the people who don't vote would vote third party if they thought there was an actual chance of winning. That chance doesn't exist because that's what everyone believes. If everyone voted their conscience, there would be some big changes. But they don't. They treat it like a horse race and try to choose the winner.
I'm increasingly of the belief that a libertarian ticket just isn't that popular.
The most popular stance in the US is probably a fiscally liberal/socially conservative ticket.
I think there are a lot of non-voters who would support a candidate who promises to leave them alone if they thought there was a chance of them getting elected.
Except it isn’t true. “Stalin vs. Hitler” and “Evil versus lesser Evil” is a simplistic framing. I accept that there are Republicans not worth voting for at all (ex. Liz Cheney, Lindsey Graham). But I’m skeptical that Kemp falls into that category.
If you want to build “belief” in third-party candidates then it has to start at the local level. A political party that has failed to penetrate and win local races or wins but fails to maintain and build from there is a party with little chance to convince the voters.
This leaves your third-party stuck with Bill Weld-types who barely even feign support for libertarian ideas. Or it leaves your party begging whatever rich person it can find to use their money to make up for the party’s lack of political infrastructure. Either way, it’s another loss, while one of the “evil” politicians you’re worried about still win.
How many people vote at the local level? That's a big problem right there.
Low-turnout elections that are often less expensive and less restrictive than their statewide counterparts. If the LP can't succeed there then why would it be able to succeed statewide (again outside of "drafting" a celebrity)?
All I'm trying to say is that if the people who don't vote thought that someone who would leave them alone had a chance of wining, that many might get off their duffs and show up at the polls.
Third parties can't win because they can't get enough votes, and they don't get enough votes because people think they can't win.
It's a tautology.
Then there's what I call "The libertarian conundrum."
How do you get people with no desire for power into positions of power?
sarcasmic 1 hour ago (edited)
Flag Comment Mute User
…If more people voted their conscience instead of voting for who they think will win, then there might be some actual change in this country.
sarcasmic 52 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Just because you’re tired of the argument doesn’t mean it’s not true.
I really believe that a good portion of the people who don’t vote would vote third party if they thought there was an actual chance of winning.
Imagine being someone who brags about not voting at all, then making these two posts 8 minutes apart? Now imagine you’re drunk on a Tuesday afternoon.
The argument makes no sense. If capped at a third party then you're voting for someone a lot of other people do not agree with.
Politics is compromise when all is said and done. Humans simply don't agree with each other with zero conflict. There are many fights just inside the libertarian party.
The cries of voting on principle just mean not having to engage or compromise or rationalization of better outcomes. It is always blame the other guy for their vote.
The first principle of liberty requires acknowledgement most people have disagreements. Then move the power engagement closest to the smallest number of people.
Sarc has no principles. He wants to bitch and cry and demand only what he wants. That isn't principled. It is selfish and immature.
I would rather make a single small gain than have a large loss. Sarc claims this is unprincipled. It is just idiotic.
I see you’ve really gotten into this third person bit.
It’s ok for you to reply to me directly. You put so many lies into each post that it’s simply too tiresome and pointless to break down your comments sentence by sentence and refute each lie, only to have you say with a sneer “That’s not what you think! I tell you what you think!”
If that mattered, then it would matter.
Yeah… not quite. GA returned surplus funds via $250 individual/$500 family checks earlier this year, and they plan to do it again next year.
I for one am shocked brandy is misinformed.
Misinformed, lying. Potato, pototo.
The governor of Maine did that as well. Only it was $850. Oh shit. The governor of Maine is a Democrat. Never mind. That didn't happen. It couldn't have. Goes against the narrative.
Haha good one sarc! Very funny. You should tell that joke again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.
Oh wait, you already did that.
I’m going to use small words to make this clear for you. I did not say a thing about Kemp’s party. My point is that the Libertarian candidate is not the only one on the ballot who will refund money. You are the one who brought up party. You do this in every thread. I tend to believe it’s because you are a troll but I suppose it’s possible that you really are that dense.
There is one person on their ballot who would do that.
Do what, legalize weed by executive fiat?
I'll be honest, I think they shouldn't give that money back. Hear me out; keep that money and save it for a rainy day or for needed maintenance of infrastructure. That way, the state won't need to borrow or raise taxes in the future.
Poor sarc wishes he made jokes this funny.
The title says it all, it's literally both sides.
For those whining that their team only wants to expand existing laws, maybe those existing laws should not even exist. Legalize the damned marijuana and stop spending taxpayers money on fighting a stupid leaf.
Just remember that if you don't let Stacy Abrams win and wreak havoc on Georgia, she's going to run for president.
Oh, I hope she do.
Southern border because of bad border policy from [the Biden] administration." Kemp apparently did not consider that demand for fentanyl could be fueled by marijuana crackdowns.
Um, I remember a commenter some years ago doing a *facepalm* at one of these Reason writer comments, and he said something to effect of "JFC, if I find it difficult to find weed, I'm not going to slam Krokodil instead!"
Could someone deeply entrenched in the weed culture please explain to me why I might start hitting the fentanyl train if I can't get my normal supply of Acapulco Gold? Or... for instance, if Beer sales become restricted why I might swing towards Fentanyl?
was just an entire season of Intervention where SoCal peeps were bong-hitting fentanyl at like $300/day
Because they couldn't buy weed?
no nobody has that problem ... more like they had moved *beyond* weed
So then then marijuana crackdowns have absolutely nothing to do with fentanyl overdoses.
not in my world lol. has given us pause on ecstasy purchases
There really needs to be a Geico commercial where three grannies are sitting around the bong covered in cheeto dust and they can't beg, borrow, or scrounge a smokable amount between the three of them. One suggests that she's got a doctor that could prescribe her pain meds and the other freaks out, "That's not how any of this works!"
Kemp bragged that in his first term, he had achieved a $5,000 pay increase for teachers; Abrams countered that $5,000 was insufficient and that she would boost teacher pay by an additional $11,000. Abrams said that she would accomplish this by tapping into Georgia’s $6.6 billion tax surplus; notably, neither candidate suggested giving those funds back to the Georgians who paid them.”
Kemp brags about increasing the burden on taxpayers by a billion dollars, Abrams says that was insufficient and promises to increase that burden by $900 trillion in the first quarter.
A pox on bowf their houses.
Meanwhile, Abrams dinged Kemp for "the rise of Chinese Communist Party-backed companies purchasing American farmland."
Is Abrams referring to the Gates foundation here?
I’ve made $1250 so far this week working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’AM made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here’s what I do for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.......>>> OnlineCareer1
Government is for public goods and public service. It’s not a "more" versus "less" question, it’s how much is necessary and whether it is being used for truly public matters.
If Reason writers weren’t trying to troll you, they might acknowledge this. But they are trying to troll you.
I would say they are doing a good job of driving clicks.
>>Abrams faces a significant polling disadvantage, averaging a five-point deficit in recent weeks.
so really, fifteen
“Abolishing cash bail” means “release defendants we sympathize with, deny release to defendants we don’t sympathize with.”
It’s the perfect mix of anarchism and tyranny!
It also raises some 9th Amendment / Privileges and Immunities problems, since the right to bail in noncapital cases used to be a recognized American right.
Let us assume that you want to vote, even though your vote is statistically meaningless. We shall take account of the policies mentioned in this article to decide which candidate is worse.
Schooling: We believe that less government expenditures in education is better. Kemp increased pay, but Abrams wants to spend even more. Winner: Kemp
Drugs: We believe that drugs are a victimless crime, but not all gang and cartel activity involves the victimless crime of selling drugs. Abrams does not want to legalize all drugs. It is unclear from the article whether she wants to end cash bail for violent criminals or only perpetrators of victimless crimes. It is unclear from the article what her position on taxes and regulation of legal marijuana would be. Winner: draw
Property: Abrams wants to restrict property rights. Winner: Kemp
Taxes: Neither proposed tax cuts but given party platforms Kemp is likely to support them more than Abrams. Winner: Kemp
Winner is Kemp: 3-0-1. Both candidates are not equally bad.
I also want to call out the Georgia educational rankings. For those who follow it (including many Reason writers) the US News rankings have some known issues.
Here's a very good white paper from CATO about this:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/fixing-bias-current-state-k-12-education-rankings
This one removes a lot of pretty obvious biasing factors in the US News ranking (my favorite example is the US News uses teacher pay as an input of school quality. So, pay your teachers more, you're ranked higher regardless of actual output of students).
In this one, Georgia does pretty good.
Feel free to argue over the rankings, ranking entire state's schooling is hard, but don't wade into the debate if you're going to hold up the US News as a ground truth without caveat. You're stating a conclusion and finding evidence to lead to it, not finding evidence and drawing a conclusion.
This one removes a lot of pretty obvious biasing factors in the US News ranking (my favorite example is the US News uses teacher pay as an input of school quality.
This is always necessary since the institutional left defines the ranking criteria to advance their political interests. For example the WHO international health system rankings are focused on who pays rather the health effects. All but one ranking criteria are at least in part based on who pays or other "equity" analyses. They intentionally created the system to penalize America but we still rank among the best.
It's good to see someone is correcting these politically driven rankings.
“(my favorite example is the US News uses teacher pay as an input of school quality. So, pay your teachers more, you’re ranked higher regardless of actual output of students)”
Someone should inform US News about cost of living differences between states.
This was actually a thing that happened.
This actually happened. It was real. People went to it. People proudly tweeted about it.
Where is there a mass shooter when you need him?
Mass shooters don't shoot up events that no one attends and no one cares about, like post-modern fashion shows. Deserve's got nothing to do with it.
The worst thing that would happen at an event like that is due to the likely prevalence of male feminists in attendance, women would do well to cover their drinks.
Date rape central. What a freak fest
Or a suicide bomber.
While she narrowly lost to the Republican, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, Abrams' run captured national attention.
Interestingly there's no mention that she undermined Democracy by claiming without evidence to have won. Democrat Protection Rules are in place.
In 2020, police in Phoenix tried to designate protesters holding "ACAB" ("all cops are bastards") placards as a street gang;
It's always amusing when leftists are outraged someone on the right adopts their tactics. But while this was mocked and overturned the left is still referring to "insurrection", "domestic terrorists", and "white supremacy". Apparently the only problem with these designations is when people argue against them. According to Welch at least.
As of today Kemp continues to enjoy a solid, and consistent, lead in the polls [6+]. I just cannot see anyone but a die hard Democrat getting hot for her.
We're not gonna talk about how Abrahms is an election denier and thus crazy and so shouldn't considered by right-thinking people?
Wrong. She didn't question the vote count.
She didn't like the long wait times for black voters the GOP set up. 4-6 hours to vote in South Fulton or Dekalb.
Wrong. This is her fallback that hardcore partisans repeat. Her assertion is that she won which means more votes were cast for her. than for any other candidate.
It's revealing he lies to protect the insane leftist.
No, Abrams said that the election was stolen from her. Yes, there were long wait times in South Fulton and Dekalb, but those places aren't run by Republicans or white folks. No racist conspiracy, just the usual crappy South Fulton and Dekalb.
No one ever said the Abrams election wasn't legitimate.
As a resident of Georgia my opinion matters more than that of you Yankee Peanuts.
I'll be voting for Kemp. Abrams smacks of a celebrity politician like Fatass Donnie. Kemp has kept a low profile and pushed back on the Big Lie of Donnies. He eliminated the state gas tax which Jemima would not have done. I will also be voting against the brain-damaged football idiot although I really don't want to vote for a "reverend". But he is not preachy and like Kemp does not seek publicity.
You were banned for posting links to kiddie porn. Nobody cares about your opinion on anything.
So, if you're a small government libertarian, neither candidate matches your preferences. As a lesser of evils, Kemp has been about the best you could hope for from a governor. Pretty much a status quo guy who hasn't rocked the boat.
Demographics is destiny, I guess, so you know that one day Georgia will get someone like her. Sucks for those of us who live here.
I'll give Kemp points for standing up to the Orange Nationalist. If not for that, nobody outside of Georgia would know the name Brian Kemp.
A Symbol
Positions on governmental size notwithstanding, let's look closely at the Democratic candidate. Stacey Abrams is a morbidly obese, unmarried, symbol of her race in these United States; she hates "white people". Amazingly, many "white people support her, gleefully surrendering their territory and resources to the forcibly favored minority and attacking anyone who points out reality. A society that denies reality dooms itself to a dismal destiny. We are witnessing that destiny today.
https://www.nationonfire.com/negroes/ .