Brutus_buckeye

Dewine would certainly be the favorite and likely win, but Cranely would make it closer than expected in my opinion. Look at his history. He was a placeholder in 2000 and gave Chabot a run for his money. He twice surprised in the mayoral races, he came pretty close to the upset in 2006 Congressional race. He has a history of overperforming.

^ I think Cranley is an interesting option as he positions himself up well. In one sense, especially over COVID, he was almost to the right of Dewine and championed a pro-business pro open mentality. He was seen dining out and openly championing going out but being safe. If Dewine survives a challenge from the right flank, Cranley could make things interesting. Plus the one thing about Cranley is that almost in every election he has run, he has a history of overperforming expectations.

For the Win

That does make more sense, she was telling me about her upbringing where there were klan rallies (or something of the sort) through her town that were meant to intimidate the Catholics in the area. there were not very many of them there at that time. She was commenting on how this went on to some extent even up to the late 70s early 80s. It has been about 15 years since Iast spoke to her so some of my recollection of the converstion is a bit hazy, but that was one thing that stood out.

I really have not read her press bio. I dont disagree with that. My recollection comes from converstaions I had with her years ago over drinks. She described her town as near Carmel or in Hamilton County I believe and I mentioned I had family in that area so that is probably where I was a bit confused.

She grew up in the Carmel area. it was more of a smaller Indiana town at that time for sure but I would not call it small farm town Indiana, still a growing Indy suburb at the time. I did find it fascinating that she still had to face a lot of anti-catholic discrimination early on at that time, but that was probably common throughout most of central Indiana. It has obviously changed as the area became more suburban.

I did not mean to imply that the stadium was the reason why they almost lost The crew, they were moving to Austin no matter what once the team was sold. We just didn’t know the true intentions until a few years later. I was more just implying how impressive they were to get the stadium built and ready in the amount of time that it took

What is fascinating about this is how in less than 2.5 years, they went from losing the team because they were unable to secure financing and even a site (yes, I know this location had been proposed for a while but it was obviously never finalized until it was) and having the location, land transfers, easements and financing all accomplished over that short time frame. Cincinnati had essentially a year head start and is opening their stadium in the same season.

It is called hyperbole. Not to be taken literally. But she did insinuate violence if you dont recall. But time to get back on topic

That is very true, I overlooked that part. It was more Trump's rhetoric from November/December than it was the speech at the Capitol that day. But back to the Senate race.

An interesting thing about Jan 6. The more I have been learning about it, it appears that Trump's speech did not have too much to do with it (unless there was some undergroudn coordination between the WH and some of the right wing groups I was unaware of), but those people were going to storm the Capitol regardless of what Trump said. Even if Trump never showed up the Captiol would have been stormed. I used to have someone in my office who was big on those right wing message boards and they were talking and planning to storm the Capitol and do what they did since their prior rally in December. He had told me at least a week ahaed of time that on Jan 6 not to be surprised if the Capitol was stormed and taken over. I told him that he was nuts and it was a bunch of blowhards who were all bark and no bite, but he seemed convinced that it was more likley than not the Capitol would be stormed that day. Unless Trump was more seriously involved in coordination of the attack behind the scenes, his speech really did not lead to incite the riot on the Capitol, that was pretty much going to happen anyway.

She was proposing sending goons to harass them in restaurants and stores. Threaten and intimidate them. It does not matter how it is done, whether you have the right wing threaten corporations with the tax code or the left wing threaten politicians with bodily harm, both are wrong, and both sides are doing it.

Pot meet kettle. Wasn't it only a few years ago where Maxine Waters and other prominent democrats and talking heads were advocating for harassing Trump supporters for wearing MAGA hats and the like along with any staffer in the admin who was on their private time. Let's at least acknowledge that fact

While I competely agree with your assessment and statment here, I say that this has been going on by both sides significantly over the last 20+ years. Was Vance acting a bit irresponsible in his statements? I will give you that. However, there are nameless Democrats that can be guilty of the same thing over the years. Schumer has even had a few whoppers in recent years too. I agree with you that Trump brought out the worst in a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. However, where I will draw a bit of contrast with your take on what Vance said as advocating for something illegal vs just partisan hyperbole. While intended to rile up the base, he made no specific policy proposal for how to do this (For example, it is a bit different than saying, "were going to build a big glorious wall on the border and Mexico will pay for it" or "we are going to shut down the media companies that openly lie about my presidency"). Vance's statement was partisan red meat at its finest intended to inspire a base that felt ignored. He knows this, but if you parse his words, there was no policy perscription there. Second, the tax code could legally be manipulated to create some consequences that may specifically hinder certain industries or types of businesses if Congress wanted. It is done all the time. much of this is often no different than some of the methods that Liz Warren wants to use to reform the tax code. So it can be done, it would depend on a lot of details. There is likely much about what he said that would not pass muster, but I do agree that Vance is wading into this mess was irresponsible. But again, people live in glass houses so...

You clearly do not understand what a fascist is based on this assessment. Taking Vance's Twitter as anything more than hyperbole is just ignorant or otherwise disingenuous.

Vance is being hyperbolic. He is just trying to energize his base. Making a twitter post and proposing policy are two different things. If he actually were trying to make a policy proposal that would be one thing. THis is just hyperbole for the base. I am surprised you can't recognize it.

Vance is not making specific suggestions. He is speaking a bunch of hyperbole to his base. Yes, they do understand it as hyperbole. The thing that the Democrats do is they manufacture taxes based on preceived preferences to reward certain industries that they favor, even though the technology may not be sufficient to allow them to stand on their own yet (think back to wind/solar tax loopholes from 2008/09) and attempt to use the tax code as a cudgel to punish industries that may not be in their favor. People want to criticize Vance for his words, but he is acting no different than many Democratic politicians who want to "close loopholes on the rich oil companies" or "make rich corporations pay their fair share" or "punish those companies who move jobs offshore" etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of this is hyperbole by many of the same congressmen who put in those loopholes to begin with. So, in this case, is Vance really acting any different?

I agree, you would think if they wanted to get into the naming rights gig they would have by now, but they really haven't. I know Gillette Stadium in NE, but that was in place before P&G bought Gillette. I wonder how long the rights agreement goes and if they keep it much longer?

The Bounce (TM) House would be awesome. At least they could also refer to the Bailey as that.

I believe i said "I have not been a fan of such favoritism" In other words, I do not believe the tax code should be used to play favorites and to punish certaing companies or reward other companies that may be in line with the goals of a particular administration. I do not believe in using the tax code as a weapon. I know that many Democrats disagree on this matter and would be perfectly acceptable with such tactics. However, I would not.

I apologize, I forgot, per the official progressive talking points, he is a rich, white male, elite, educated in the Ivy League and, venture capitalist vulture who lives solely to exploit the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. At least that is the line for those who have a lack of discernment.

Amusing how you guys seem to want to try and turn him into some type of elitist. Yes, that is his job. He clearly remains close to his roots. The guy understands the needs of Appalachia because he grew up in it. You really cant deny that. no need to spin him into something he is not because you are just fooling yourself. Since you like learning, before taking on the tax code, maybe go back to English class and learn a little bit more about hyperbole. Politicians tend to be good at it. But since you mentioned the tax code, certainly provisions can be made to favor certain companies (industries) over others. While I may not necessarily be a fan of such favoritism, the Dems have been experts at this for much of the last century. You can look no further than to many of the green energy subsidies as a way to create favorable tax code treatment to certain businesses as example 1. To your specific point, which I would argue as disingenuous at worst or just naive at best, No, you cannot put in the tax code penalties that will specifically raise Coke's taxes for being overly woke, while cutting Pepsi's for not speaking out. That would never happen. However, there are many ways the tax code can be manipulated to give preferential treatment to companies who may not exert a global footprint in favor of more regional companies. There are many ways to structure the tax code that would disincentivise the formation of publicly traded companies in favor or private companies. There are many ways to carve out tax breaks for companies that derive their revenues from "preferred" sources (it is done all the time). There are also ways to structure the code to provide consumer tax breaks to industries to encourage certain consumer behavior over others. Much of this is industry specific and obviously not company specific, but a clever individual could design it to affect a few large companies with minor collatoral damage to others.

If you could read between the lines and understand the meaning of what he is saying, he is essentially saying that if corporations want to get in bed with the woke crowd, then the Republicans wont stand up for them when the Dems come for their money and profits. Government officials can raise taxes on corporations with a vote by Congress. You should know this as Dems have been pushing this for decadees now. You cant take a literal interpretation on everything. Vance is only saying that if corporations are not going to advocate against the interest of the average American, then why should he support them when they come to him for help. There really is no citation needed there.

Wow, I have never thought i would have seen the day where we have the liberal elite defending large corporations and corporate sentiment. Of course, when they surrender to the army of wokeness then corporations are the good guys and are welcomed members of the *progressive* team.

Glad to see you’re perpetuating this information. That’s not exactly accurate in regards to the Georgia voting law, but I don’t expect Anything else from you