States rights Sarah Huckabee thinks Feds should pick up 100% of tab for tornadoes In Arkansas.
2 Likes
Kelly is, in effect.
3 Likes
Oh, he may well be, but complaining that the other side didn’t fight fair isn’t necessarily doing so.
So why do losers complain that the other side didn’t play fair?
Lately, I think it is to rile up supporters, get more funding, and lay the groundwork for the next election
Or maybe he just can’t take a loss
1 Like
The loser calling her a liar doesn’t mean she fought unfairly. What specific lies is he claiming and are they lies?
I don’t live in Wisconsin and the first I saw of this was that the liberal won. And this is the 2nd time the voters of Wisconsin have rejected Kelly in the last 2 tries. Maybe his ultra right wing rulings as a politically appointed figure of Gov Walker didn’t sit well with the Wisconsinites.
But I’m hearing the Republican lead house and senate are considering impeaching the winner because she got more votes than their candidate did.
1 Like
Agree. But him being a hyperpartisan jerk (I’m assuming) also doesn’t mean the opponent fought fair.
As I said, I have no idea of the truthiness… perhaps he’s full of it. I just know that politics can be extremely ugly.
Unless there are specific documented instances of her lying (who knows maybe she’s on par with Trump and Santos) I’m going to side with her over the hyper partisan jerk.
1 Like
i am near the border (MN). we got one ad over and over. Per the ad, Kelly had recused himself from a case. then got like $20K in campaign donations from the family of the person involved. he then UN-recused himself and ruled in favor of that person. Ad suggested justice for sale under Kelly.
No idea what the details of that really are. But the ad is effective IMO.
1 Like
It seems he’s mostly upset about her using his own words against him. 
1 Like
fwiw, that WisPolitics article doesn’t seem to do much to prove anything. It repeats a single Kelly quote without quoting what he is specifically referring to. Since they don’t quote, it makes me wonder if there’s an out-of-context aspect to it.
1 Like
Yeah I’m just trying to figure out what exactly he’s accusing her of lying about and if it’s a lie. I mean with Santos and Trump there were plenty of actual verifiable lies. So far All I’ve seen is typical Republican style commercials used against them. Maybe the Democrats are learning something.
I believe there is an internal assumption (in their brains) that there is no way they can legitimately lose.
I’m not sure where this comes from, but likely from a shitty childhood upbringing and plenty of learned behavior over the years.
Therefore, there must have been cheating.
1 Like
Cheated to the tune of a crushing 10%+ win. Too bad they couldn’t cheat their way around the Republicans having a super majority in the state senate. You think they’d be better at cheating by now.
1 Like
Proof that Wisconsin needs gerrymandering.
1 Like
Yeah, I’ve literally heard this in a few races and even more amongst my Trump-y friends and relatives.
I didn’t know that was a thing. Seems like it shouldn’t be a thing.
Trump followers probably mostly only talk to other Trump followers so easy for them to believe almost everyone thinks like they do.
Of course, that phenomenon is not just limited to Trump followers.
1 Like
I looked up the recusal thing. Un-recusing would make sense in this case. He was running at the time of the recusal and the case could affect his election. By the time he un-recused, he had already lost the election, so the case would not affect his election. That part makes perfect sense. But it still doesn’t address that, before he un-recused (and before the election), one side gave him $20k. His website has a humorous non-addressing of this very specific question:
LIE – Justice Kelly was “bought off” over $20,000 in campaign contributions.
TRUTH – This is a lie. Before the 2020 election, Justice Kelly recused himself from a case involving an issue that could have affected an election in which he was a candidate. After the election was over, the case no longer had the potential of affecting anything in which Justice Kelly had an interest. Consequently, he sent a letter to the parties asking whether anyone would have any objection if he took part in future activity in the case. No one objected.
1 Like