What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Unofficial Stacey Abrams for GA Gov thread. (1 Viewer)

You seem to think I'm something I'm not. But that's cool I haven't been around for a while so it stands to reason. 

I don't like the Democratic party anymore than I like the Republican party. I don't play team politics because that just makes you a mark and calls into question your powers of observation. They are both almost entirely corrupted and haven't served the interests of the people for decades. I don't care if you attack Democrats, although I would say your material is weak at best. So if you think some kind of whataboutism is going to get me all hyperventilating you are seriously mistaken.
That happens in the PSF? 

 
NCCommish said:
You seem to think I'm something I'm not. But that's cool I haven't been around for a while so it stands to reason. 

I don't like the Democratic party anymore than I like the Republican party. I don't play team politics because that just makes you a mark and calls into question your powers of observation. They are both almost entirely corrupted and haven't served the interests of the people for decades. I don't care if you attack Democrats, although I would say your material is weak at best. So if you think some kind of whataboutism is going to get me all hyperventilating you are seriously mistaken.
A good test to that would be posts where you go after the democrats  as fervently as you go after Republicans.

You got any?

 
I will attest for @NCCommish. I would guess he has been actually much more critical of Democrats over the years than he has Republicans. 
Thanks, Tim.

I don't typically interact with him so I guess I would need to see a few posts to see if he's legit in what he saying.

Typically what we see in the psf is those who say they're not Republicans Or democrats but only consistently bashing Republicans and nary a word about Democrats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A good test to that would be posts where you go after the democrats  as fervently as you go after Republicans.

You got any?
I've been gone for a while so nothing recent but I think plenty of old timers can attest. And it goes to back a long way. I've already discussed my dislike of Biden and how little I care for Abrams. But stick around you'll be a witness to plenty of criticism of both the Democrats and Republicans because I don't play team politics. I'm just getting warmed up.

 
BladeRunner said:
"Democratic Socialist" is nothing more than a smoke screen to fool the lemmings on how they really feel.  It's nothing more than the word "Socialist" preceded by the word "Democratic".  When they realized that "Socialist" wasn't going to work, they added "Democratic" in front of it to make it appear they weren't Socialists.   It certainly has fooled a few people. 

Once there is enough of them and they get the power they so crave, then "Democratic" will be dropped.  Don't be fooled.


I prefer 'Democrat Socialist'

 
I've been gone for a while so nothing recent but I think plenty of old timers can attest. And it goes to back a long way. I've already discussed my dislike of Biden and how little I care for Abrams. But stick around you'll be a witness to plenty of criticism of both the Democrats and Republicans because I don't play team politics. I'm just getting warmed up.


Fair enough.  :thumbup:

 
Thanks Tim
It’s not necessarily a compliment, lol. As I wrote, you’re full of integrity. But many times I find your criticism of establishment Democrats (of which I pretty much am one these days) to be irrational. These are for the most part well meaning folks who disagree with you about how the government should be run. Yet you’re always eager to demonize them. 
 

 
It’s not necessarily a compliment, lol. As I wrote, you’re full of integrity. But many times I find your criticism of establishment Democrats (of which I pretty much am one these days) to be irrational. These are for the most part well meaning folks who disagree with you about how the government should be run. Yet you’re always eager to demonize them. 
 
Right is right wrong is wrong. Screwing the voters for your donors and using your office to line your pockets is wrong. It's gotten so bad they are blatant in your face about it at this point. Look at Sinema the epitome of bought oh my bad Establishment Democrats. Goes from campaigning on lower prescription drug costs to saying no way after she takes over 600000 from big pharma. I don't have to demonize them they do it for me.

 
It’s not necessarily a compliment, lol. As I wrote, you’re full of integrity. But many times I find your criticism of establishment Democrats (of which I pretty much am one these days) to be irrational. These are for the most part well meaning folks who disagree with you about how the government should be run. Yet you’re always eager to demonize them. 
 


I'm glad I found my very first TRUE "independent" (in the sense that he hates both the DNC and GOP) on this board despite numerous people claiming to be but exclusively bashing on Republicans.

For that, I award @NCCommish the BladeRunner Seal of Party IndependenceTM.   

Congrats, NC!  What are you going to do with your winnings?

 
Right is right wrong is wrong. Screwing the voters for your donors and using your office to line your pockets is wrong. It's gotten so bad they are blatant in your face about it at this point. Look at Sinema the epitome of bought oh my bad Establishment Democrats. Goes from campaigning on lower prescription drug costs to saying no way after she takes over 600000 from big pharma. I don't have to demonize them they do it for me.
I don’t know much about Sinema. I think it’s perfectly OK for politicians to take money from Big Pharma. I am very grateful to Big Pharma. 

 
squistion said:
Once again, non-response and completely irrelevant to what I posted. 


Direct Headline: Who Stole Americans’ Confidence in Elections?

The Clinton campaign and Stacey Abrams spread falsehoods about vote theft years before Trump’s loss.

By Brad Raffensperger Nov. 15, 2021 6:47 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-stole-americans-confidence-in-elections-steele-dossier-trump-abrams-georgia-rigged-11637010420

Direct Headline: They can't let 'stolen' election claims go: Now Trump has endorsed liberal Stacey Abrams

Both Stacey Abrams and Donald Trump planned their stolen election claims well in advance and, after they lost, raised money off their lies.

Brad Raffensperger 11/6/21

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/06/trump-stacey-abrams-brad-raffensperger/5951185001/

(Gubernatorial candidate Stacey) Abrams used false stolen election claims ( in Georgia) to create a national profile. (Former President Donald) Trump did the (exact) same to maintain his national profile. Now, Abrams is demonstrating how to run a ( future Gubernatorial) campaign based on the same baseless (election fraud) allegations. It makes perfect sense that she would have Trump’s support (and political endorsement).

In the (many) months since November's election (of 2020), Trump and his allies have followed almost the exact same post-election (election fraud) playbook that Abrams and her allies originated in 2018. Both Abrams and Trump (have) used over-the-top rhetoric to generate headlines and (MSM) attention; both (have) filed lawsuits that weren’t supported by (undisputed) evidence; and both raised hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen election claims to keep their (respective) political operations going.

Following her loss (of an arguably wide margin) by over 50,000 votes in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election (a larger margin than the one that gave President Joe Biden his electoral college majority nationwide), Abrams (then) famously said, “Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. … I cannot concede.” Following (after) Abrams’ playbook, Trump (subsequently) said after the 2020 election, “We will never concede. … You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”...

The inflammatory (and dangerous) rhetoric and (the) baseless but headline-generating lawsuits paid off for (respectively) both Abrams and Trump. According to Georgia’s Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, the Abrams-founded political action committee Fair Fight (Action/FFA) raised almost $100 million (dollars) during the 2019-20 election cycle. According to The New York Times, Trump raised over $250 million (dollars) in the months following the 2020 election....

So I, for one, was not surprised to see ( Georgian candidate) Abrams receive Trump’s endorsement. Abrams created the (tactical) blueprint that Trump followed to raise hundreds of millions and maintain a national profile (in the daily media cycle) after losing an election. Now, Abrams is creating the (same) playbook for turning (false) stolen election claims into a (future) campaign for political office.

******

You are more than welcome to hit the Report Button.

And see that I am summarily crucified for

1) Talking Stacey Abrams in the Stacey Abrams thread. What a dirty rascal that I am to do just that!

2) Encourage my Conservative brothers in the PSF and all Republicans to deal with egregious personal attacks and trolling by staying on the main topic of the thread matter and raising the level of discussion. How dare I do that too!

Do it and see how far it's going to get you.

Did you notice I posted two articles written by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was smack dab in the middle of both both Abrams and Trumps election fraud claims?

You could Source Police me as you've done before extensively and egregiously as a consistent bad faith actor in this community, but then you'd have to denounce USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, which are a far cry from the usual gallery of sites you claim are completely cooked.

Abrams raised over 100 million dollars via her own Fair Fight Action political arm that already is under massive criticism and scrutiny for violating campaign finance laws and is tantamount to open tax evasion. The deep ugly questions about where Abrams is getting her money, how she is raising her money and how she is spending that money to influence elections aren't going to go away anytime soon.

Every time you reply with a cheap attempt to hijack and derail this thread, I'll make sure that the price is a heavy one for doing so. If you want to silence diversity of thought and diversity of opinion, you'll have to try to run me down and run me over first.

Come at me, bro.

 
Direct Headline: Who Stole Americans’ Confidence in Elections?

The Clinton campaign and Stacey Abrams spread falsehoods about vote theft years before Trump’s loss.

By Brad Raffensperger Nov. 15, 2021 6:47 pm ET

https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-stole-americans-confidence-in-elections-steele-dossier-trump-abrams-georgia-rigged-11637010420

Direct Headline: They can't let 'stolen' election claims go: Now Trump has endorsed liberal Stacey Abrams

Both Stacey Abrams and Donald Trump planned their stolen election claims well in advance and, after they lost, raised money off their lies.

Brad Raffensperger 11/6/21

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/10/06/trump-stacey-abrams-brad-raffensperger/5951185001/

(Gubernatorial candidate Stacey) Abrams used false stolen election claims ( in Georgia) to create a national profile. (Former President Donald) Trump did the (exact) same to maintain his national profile. Now, Abrams is demonstrating how to run a ( future Gubernatorial) campaign based on the same baseless (election fraud) allegations. It makes perfect sense that she would have Trump’s support (and political endorsement).

In the (many) months since November's election (of 2020), Trump and his allies have followed almost the exact same post-election (election fraud) playbook that Abrams and her allies originated in 2018. Both Abrams and Trump (have) used over-the-top rhetoric to generate headlines and (MSM) attention; both (have) filed lawsuits that weren’t supported by (undisputed) evidence; and both raised hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen election claims to keep their (respective) political operations going.

Following her loss (of an arguably wide margin) by over 50,000 votes in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election (a larger margin than the one that gave President Joe Biden his electoral college majority nationwide), Abrams (then) famously said, “Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. … I cannot concede.” Following (after) Abrams’ playbook, Trump (subsequently) said after the 2020 election, “We will never concede. … You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.”...

The inflammatory (and dangerous) rhetoric and (the) baseless but headline-generating lawsuits paid off for (respectively) both Abrams and Trump. According to Georgia’s Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, the Abrams-founded political action committee Fair Fight (Action/FFA) raised almost $100 million (dollars) during the 2019-20 election cycle. According to The New York Times, Trump raised over $250 million (dollars) in the months following the 2020 election....

So I, for one, was not surprised to see ( Georgian candidate) Abrams receive Trump’s endorsement. Abrams created the (tactical) blueprint that Trump followed to raise hundreds of millions and maintain a national profile (in the daily media cycle) after losing an election. Now, Abrams is creating the (same) playbook for turning (false) stolen election claims into a (future) campaign for political office.

******

You are more than welcome to hit the Report Button.

And see that I am summarily crucified for

1) Talking Stacey Abrams in the Stacey Abrams thread. What a dirty rascal that I am to do just that!

2) Encourage my Conservative brothers in the PSF and all Republicans to deal with egregious personal attacks and trolling by staying on the main topic of the thread matter and raising the level of discussion. How dare I do that too!

Do it and see how far it's going to get you.

Did you notice I posted two articles written by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was smack dab in the middle of both both Abrams and Trumps election fraud claims?

You could Source Police me as you've done before extensively and egregiously as a consistent bad faith actor in this community, but then you'd have to denounce USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, which are a far cry from the usual gallery of sites you claim are completely cooked.

Abrams raised over 100 million dollars via her own Fair Fight Action political arm that already is under massive criticism and scrutiny for violating campaign finance laws and is tantamount to open tax evasion. The deep ugly questions about where Abrams is getting her money, how she is raising her money and how she is spending that money to influence elections aren't going to go away anytime soon.

Every time you reply with a cheap attempt to hijack and derail this thread, I'll make sure that the price is a heavy one for doing so. If you want to silence diversity of thought and diversity of opinion, you'll have to try to run me down and run me over first.

Come at me, bro.


Well said.  :thumbup:

 
You are more than welcome to hit the Report Button.


What for? For posting what it I think are excessively long posts that few people have the stamina to scroll through and actually read? Unfortunately, IMO, your harangues don't violate any forum guidelines or rules. As the old expression goes, "If you give 'em enough rope..." so keep posting, be my guest.

Once again, you have never explained what the link to Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar had to do with a thread about Stacy Abrams. Still waiting for your or anyone's explanation for why it was posted here. 

 
It’s not necessarily a compliment, lol. As I wrote, you’re full of integrity. But many times I find your criticism of establishment Democrats (of which I pretty much am one these days) to be irrational. These are for the most part well meaning folks who disagree with you about how the government should be run. Yet you’re always eager to demonize them. 
 
yeah - you're full of it.

you are a Democratic, because there are people who believe exactly the way youre supposed to and then there's EVERYBODY ELSE. everybody who doesnt agree with me is a cut man for Mullah & Ilhan Omar

 
Just curious - assuming you’ve read her “concession speech” - do you see her actions and Trumps as equivalent?
I think they both lost and should accept it.  I've always said as much.  Personally I beyond strongly dislike her for what I believe her role was in costing the State of Georgia and those of us with business ties to the area in relation to the MLB All Star Game and it being relocated.  So for that reason alone, I feel pretty hostile towards her.  No need in being coy about that, I'm not one to give her a fair evaluation because dislike isn't a strong enough word for me.

 
What for? For posting what it I think are excessively long posts that few people have the stamina to scroll through and actually read? Unfortunately, IMO, your harangues don't violate any forum guidelines or rules. As the old expression goes, "If you give 'em enough rope..." so keep posting, be my guest.

Once again, you have never explained what the link to Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar had to do with a thread about Stacy Abrams. Still waiting for your or anyone's explanation for why it was posted here. 


Direct Headline: Why Stacey Abrams is still saying she won.

After her attempts to force a runoff fell short, Abrams ended her campaign for governor with a speech in which she said, ‘‘So let’s be clear — this is not a speech of concession, because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper.’’ She added, ‘‘Democracy failed Georgians...It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened. Now, I cannot say that everybody who tried to cast a ballot would’ve voted for me, but if you look at the totality of the information, it is sufficient to demonstrate that so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged by the very act of the person who won the election that I feel comfortable now saying,I won.

By David Marchese The New York Times April 28, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/28/magazine/stacey-abrams-election-georgia.html

Direct Headline: Stacey Abrams claims she didn't 'challenge' 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election results

'I cannot concede,' Abrams told her supporters after losing to Brian Kemp in 2018

By Brandon Gillespie 12/2/21

https://www.foxnews.com/media/stacey-abrams-2018-georgia-gubernatorial-election-results

Direct Headline: Judge rules against much of Georgia voting lawsuit over 2018 election

But a recent court ruling scaled back the suit by Fair Fight, a voting organization that Democrat Stacey Abrams founded following her loss to Republican Brian Kemp in the governor’s race. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones last week threw out many of Fair Fight’s claims, ruling against challenges to registration cancellations, too few voting machines, inadequate poll worker training and ballot rejections.

By Mark Niesse April 7, 2021

https://www.ajc.com/politics/judge-rules-against-much-of-georgia-voting-lawsuit-over-2018-election/NNHKWOBWFZGYTF7N6JTH5SUUBA/

*****

Your attempts to hijack this thread, your sealioning and your logical fallacy bombing are pathetic. Your purity tests to try to get me to justify why I'm talking about Stacey Abrams in the Stacey Abrams thread is beyond ridiculous. I'm literally talking more about practical election/media issues that Abrams has to overcome than anyone esle here but you see fit to continued your patterned passive aggressive attack against all Conservative viewpoints.

Speaking of hijacking, the kind of narrative that Stacey Abrams is not going to be able to avoid is saying she "won" to the NY Times and that she "never challenged" the 2018 election to Rachel Maddow in front of a national audience,  but that her political arm, Fair Fight Action attempted to backdoor hijack some kind of bizarre retroactive "victory" by suing the State of Georgia and the Secretary of State's Office by claiming voter suppression which was promptly tossed out of court.

Let everyone here know when you are planning to talk about Stacey Abrams in the actual Stacey Abrams thread.

 
Might I suggest using the ignore feature.


Direct Headline: Stacey Abrams campaigns for McAuliffe in churches: 'Voting is an act of faith'

Abrams echoed Kamala Harris, whose McAuliffe endorsement video is airing at more than 300 churches. Second Calvary Baptist Church and Faith Deliverance Christian Center turned their pulpits over to Abrams, who endorsed McAuliffe and touted her religious bonafides as the daughter of pastors, according to the Associated Press.

By Jon Brown 10/17/21

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/stacey-abrams-campaigns-mcauliffe-churches-voting-faith

Direct Headline: Clarifying the IRS Rules About Endorsing Candidates From The Pulpit

In order to keep their tax exempt status churches and religious organizations must abide by certain rules according to the IRS.  Under IRS code, “all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office . Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.” By breaking this rule, the IRS may deny or revoke the tax-exempt status of the church and the impose of certain excise tax.

https://www.clergyfinancial.com/clarifying-the-irs-rules-about-endorsing-candidates-from-the-pulpit/

******

I'm talking about everything Stacey Abrams has to answer for as she runs for Governor again. ( Well in her mind, she's running for reelection since she's already told the NY Time that she "won" )

It is illegal to campaign for a political party or a political candidate inside of churches. To do so threatens that churches tax exempt status with the IRS.

There is a clear pattern of unexplained money, damaging open media optics about tax evasion and consistent problems with Abrams and the IRS. You always follow the money and none of the money swirling around Stacey Abrams is helping her election chances here.

Does anyone want to Source Police my use of ClergyFinancial.com? Anyone?

None of the radical leftists here can actually discuss any of this or counter any of this, because why talk about Stacey Abrams in the Stacey Abrams thread, so the standard patterned attack to take personal shots at me and attempts to silence me will persist.

 
Its brutal trying to read on a phone....


Direct Headline: Stacey Abrams owes Georgians $100M for loss of MLB All-Star Game, political advocacy group says

Last week, it was reported that Stacey Abrams’ political action committee, Fair Fight, has earned over $100 million since her defeat in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial race, more than any other 2022 candidate," Heritage Action executive director Jessica Anderson said in a media release, citing a report form The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "Coincidentally, Georgians lost $100 million when the MLB moved their All-Star Game from Georgia to Colorado after Abrams compared a new Georgia law to 'Jim Crow.'

By Breck Dumas 7/13/21

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/stacey-abrams-owes-georgians-100m-for-loss-of-mlb-all-star-game-political-advocacy-group-says

Direct Headline: Stacey Abrams Purchased Two Homes Valued At $1.4 Million After Reporting Massive Debts In 2018

Abrams has also cashed in on lucrative speaking arrangements since her defeat, with fees ranging from $50,000 to $100,000 per event, according to Speaker Booking Agency.

Andrew Kerr July 01, 2021 2:44 PM ET

https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/01/stacey-abrams-home-purchases-debt/

******

I would only agree that it's "brutal" to be part of this thread for radical leftists who fully support Stacey Abrams and her future political ambitions. Because I'm highlighting every last scandal she will have to face as she runs for Governor.

Stacey Abrams drives away the MLB All Star Game from Georgia. That's revenue and business for the everyday people of Georgia. That's jobs and opportunity. It's hard to keep screaming racism and about how the system is robbing opportunity from African Americans when Abrams herself is robbing opportunity from all Georgians.

And she does this while she was very recently over 220+ thousand dollars in debt and in default with the IRS, but now she's swimming in cash via complicit political kickbacks via "speaking engagements" and buying up property as her political arm, Fair Fight Action, is raking in tens of millions of dollars at a time like clockwork.  Many people here were taking Trump to task for cashing in on election fraud claims. And Abrams is now suddenly something (D)ifferent?

Stacey Abrams has to eventually start answering all the ugly questions about her personal finances, allegations about tax evasion with her own Fair Fight Action brand, allegations of violating campaign finance laws, her consistent conflicts with the IRS over all of it and demonetizing the people of Georgia as she does it.

 
What for? For posting what it I think are excessively long posts that few people have the stamina to scroll through and actually read? Unfortunately, IMO, your harangues don't violate any forum guidelines or rules. As the old expression goes, "If you give 'em enough rope..." so keep posting, be my guest.

Once again, you have never explained what the link to Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar had to do with a thread about Stacy Abrams. Still waiting for your or anyone's explanation for why it was posted here. 


I know in your post you said people don't have the "stamina" to read GG's long posts.  So I give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his entire post.  At the bottom GG wrote:

The problem Abrams is going to run into is she denounced Dominion Voting Systems during the 2020 primaries in Georgia, as part of her strategy to push that as part of a larger overall accusation of GOP voter suppression.

The problem is while this narrative might have helped her slightly in the middle of 2020, it will raise ugly questions in 2022 and 2024 as a pathway to take some savage hits on Amy Klobuchar, who might be on the short list for VP.  You can't denounce DVS in the primaries and then pretend they are pure as the driven snow in November. You can't escape the toxicity of those optics forever.

All of this fuels a new counter narrative that Trump was right to question DVS. Which again, forces the ugly question on if this current administration is doing nearly everything in it's power to make Donald Trump an actual POTUS contender again.

The deeper one digs in on Stacey Abrams, the better it makes Donald Trump look as a comeback narrative. How is that possible? How incompetent do the establishment Democrats have to be to let this happen on their watch?


The Klobuchar/Warren article was about them investigating the voting systems in 2019 after Abrams raised the issue after the 2018 GA election.  The same system that Trump subsequently denounced in 2020.  With Klobuchar (and possibly Warren) being potential Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, it's going to be hard to distance their positions in 2019 with their position in against Trump when he complained of the same issues they did.

 
Right is right wrong is wrong. Screwing the voters for your donors and using your office to line your pockets is wrong. It's gotten so bad they are blatant in your face about it at this point. Look at Sinema the epitome of bought oh my bad Establishment Democrats. Goes from campaigning on lower prescription drug costs to saying no way after she takes over 600000 from big pharma. I don't have to demonize them they do it for me.
I'm with you on hating Sinema, but it's hard to call her an "Establishment Democrat" when she's spent the entire year sticking her thumb in the eye of the entire Dem Establishment. "Corporatist Democrat", sure, but not Establishment.

In any event, Sinema is an odd duck. Former Green Party progressive in the state legislature to mainstream Dem when she wanted to get elected to Congress to whatever she is in her current incarnation. I don't know that she's really the template for anyone

 
We definitely need more women/minorities as governors.  Kristi Noem who was the first women governor in South Dakota’s history
is a great example.  She has amazing popularity both in her state and on the national scene.  We need more leaders like her!

 
We definitely need more women/minorities as governors.  Kristi Noem who was the first women governor in South Dakota’s history
is a great example.  She has amazing popularity both in her state and on the national scene.  We need more leaders like her!


Maybe.  I say pick the best person for the job whether it's a man or woman.

But, yeah, Noem is kickin' it for sure.  I can see her running for Prez.  :thumbup:

 
We definitely need more women/minorities as governors.  Kristi Noem who was the first women governor in South Dakota’s history
is a great example.  She has amazing popularity both in her state and on the national scene.  We need more leaders like her!
Last poll I saw she was at 0% amongst 2024 hopefuls. Which meant she lost 2% from an earlier poll.

 
Right is right wrong is wrong. Screwing the voters for your donors and using your office to line your pockets is wrong. It's gotten so bad they are blatant in your face about it at this point. Look at Sinema the epitome of bought oh my bad Establishment Democrats. Goes from campaigning on lower prescription drug costs to saying no way after she takes over 600000 from big pharma. I don't have to demonize them they do it for me.


It's great to see you back posting NCC.  Now we need about a dozen other great posters that left our of  frustration, back. 

I've learned so much from all of you over the years and it's appreciated.

 
Old friend David Perdue, who is running for Governor, had this to say about the previous election

Georgia gubernatorial candidate and former Sen. David Perdue (R) said on Wednesday that he would not have certified Georgia's 2020 presidential election results. 

"Not with the information that was available at the time and not with the information that has come out now. They had plenty of time to investigate this. And I wouldn’t have signed it until those things had been investigated and that’s all we were asking for," Perdue told Axios.

What a turd

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/584949-georgia-governor-candidate-perdue-says-he-wouldnt-have-certified-2020

 
There's nothing about the job that requires it. 
Maybe there are women and minorities who have either been overlooked/ passed by or who have not considered but would ...(wait)

Stopped and edited  ----

So its just a man's (likely white) job?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe there are women and minorities who have either been overlooked/ passed by or who have not considered but would ...(wait)

Stopped and edited  ----

So its just a man's (likely white) job?
It's the "best person for the job", job.

If it happens to be a white dude, who gives two beans?  Oh, yes, the professional whiners and grievance groups do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's the "best person for the job", job.

If it happens to be a white dude, who gives two beans?  Oh, yes, the professional whiners and grievance groups do.
Case by case, sure.    But if government is supposed to be representative of the population and we step back and it's all basically old white dudes, then I raise an eyebrow a bit (not saying it is right now, but I think you get my point).  

 
Case by case, sure.    But if government is supposed to be representative of the population and we step back and it's all basically old white dudes, then I raise an eyebrow a bit (not saying it is right now, but I think you get my point).  


It's not ALL old white dudes.  Hasn't been that way in a while.  I'm not for putting someone in office based on their skin.  I'm for putting someone in office based on what they can do.

If that happens to be ALL white guys, don't care. 

If that happens to be all black guys, don't care. 

If that happens to be all men, don't care. 

If that happens to be all women, don't care.

 
It's not ALL old white dudes.  Hasn't been that way in a while.  I'm not for putting someone in office based on their skin.  I'm for putting someone in office based on what they can do.

If that happens to be ALL white guys, don't care. 

If that happens to be all black guys, don't care. 

If that happens to be all men, don't care. 

If that happens to be all women, don't care.
It's almost as though the bolded was right in my post you quoted.      

We don't agree here, that's ok.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top