You're scaring me. Both of your points make a lot of sense. I bet there will be Democratic attack ads based on that, probably just selectively picking trades the candidates made money on and ignoring the losers.
And in the past Republicans were more likely to show up for runoffs. That may not be the case this year, because of Abrams and her team.
Originally Posted by Tiny
It's a dilemma for some people I guess. My preferred candidate who mostly believes what I believe and will work to achieve those goals, benefited from selling stock before that stock took a tumble. Did they have inside information that only a handful of people had and traded on that information illegally or were they ( their financial advisers ) just on the top of their game and saw a new health threat on the other side of the world and guessed that it might be a problem for stocks related to such a matter and took advantage of paying attention and guessing right.
https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/se...wzdel4lkCUdAO/
Loeffler was investigated by both the Senate Ethics Committee and DOJ and both dropped the investigations. Now I guess a really cynical person could conclude they are all crooks so why should I believe them or take them at their word that nothing illegal happened though it has the "appearance" of impropriety.
An intelligent, perhaps not so cynical but practical person might weigh this "appearance of impropriety" against what her opponent stands for. Is what she is alleged to have done and was cleared, so bad that you would stand by and watch her opponent win a Senate seat and literally vote for everything you would never support? Perhaps to the detriment of your business, your family, your future?
Really? That's something that requires even a second of thought? I think they call that "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
Do not act against your own self interest unless you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person and policies you support were proven to have acted on inappropriately.
I find this notion that "they made money while others went hungry" to be preposterous. That attitude would prevent you from ever doing business with Amazon, ever again because nobody has made more money from this pandemic than Jeff Bezos. He could have said that he would donate his increased wealth acquired after the pandemic started so as not to benefit from the pandemic but he didn't. Nor, I assume did anybody else whose wealth has increased not decreased since the pandemic.
So the answer is simple and shouldn't be given a moment of thought. Is Loeffler's opponent, someone you want voting in the Senate against everything you hold to be true and right and weigh that against what Loeffler may have done but not proven even with two investigative bodies looking at the charges.
Don't make things more complicated than they need be.
The difference between the two candidates is so stark, perhaps as stark ( or more ) than any two candidates in the history of politics, should make the decision that much easier if you just don't over think it.
Originally Posted by winn dixie
