NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
ltbewr wrote:I think one reason for Ms. Abrams is that there is a significant belief that her loss was due to Republican party corruption in the voter registration and voting process in her election. Her opponent was the Secretary of State of Georgia, who has authority over state elections and voter registration and is believed to have altered the voting rolls to his benefit and against his opponent.
Still there are serious issues with Ms. Abrams that will be used to hurt her by Republicans and their supporters and raise serious questions by Democrats to use her instead of someone much safer.
seb146 wrote:Would you rather Mike Pence or Rudy Giuliani deliver the response?
2122M wrote:NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
What is hateful and/or divisive about this?
seb146 wrote:Would you rather Mike Pence or Rudy Giulianni deliver the response?
seb146 wrote:
Again I ask: who do you MAGA fan boys wanting to give the response? I suppose no one less than your dear orange leader?
DIRECTFLT wrote:seb146 wrote:Would you rather Mike Pence or Rudy Giuliani deliver the response?
Well, since the response doesn't have to come from anyone currently holding Federal office.... They could have easily picked another loser, HRC. Perhaps she's got that date open. Or maybe this loser, Al Gore, maybe he could accept the honor to speak for all Democrats.
BTY, I won't be watching one word of Ms. Abrams response. She has nothing constructive to say.
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:Would you rather Mike Pence or Rudy Giulianni deliver the response?
Why do you autmatically think I like Pence? I don't and think he was a horrbile choice for VP. I wanted Trump to ask Susana Martinez to be VP but then he pissed her off. As for Rudy he is old news.seb146 wrote:
Again I ask: who do you MAGA fan boys wanting to give the response? I suppose no one less than your dear orange leader?
There are plenty of moderate Dems, Joe Manchin etc. Do a search.
NIKV69 wrote:2122M wrote:NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
What is hateful and/or divisive about this?
I watched her speech where she wouldn't concede and inferred the election was stolen from her and I saw a lot of hate in her face.
TTailedTiger wrote:It will make a great drinking game. Any time she mentions racism you take a drink. You'll be blacked out less than five minutes into it.
seb146 wrote:
Joe Manchin? Really? The Republican with the (D) behind his name?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/sen-m ... ith-trump/
2122M wrote:
You (a passionate, far left fringe-hating independent) saw “a lot of hate in her face” after she lost a close election under dubious circumstances.
Based on that, I guess we should all leave no doubt that her SOTU response will rip the country to shreds with its hatefulness and anger.
Or, another interpretation, no one is surprised you view a far left democrat as ‘angry and hateful’. Also, no one cares.
I’ll think she’ll do fine. The whole thing (speech, response and media scrutiny) is a bit of a circus to me anyway.
bgm wrote:TTailedTiger wrote:It will make a great drinking game. Any time she mentions racism you take a drink. You'll be blacked out less than five minutes into it.
Anytime an old white man denies racism exists, take a drink. You’ll need a liver transplant before the speech is over.
NIKV69 wrote:independent.
NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
trpmb6 wrote:What the hell is this post doing here. This seems reasoned and well thought out, not just reflexive to one's political view. Don't you know where you are man?I think this is a safe play by the Dems. Leadership knows SOTU responses almost always fall flat. They are notoriously bad press for whoever is giving them. I mean just look at the response given by Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi to Trump's oval office address a few weeks ago. The optics were terrible. Marco Rubio's water problem might have cost him the presidency a year (two years?) later.
Stacey Abrams is definitely a safe play. And she'll have more freedom to speak her mind if you ask me. If she does well, It'll help her stay nationally relevant, and if not, it's not really at any cost to the Dems right now. As far as the left is concerned, she will provide a minority voice against a person they consider be the most racist person to ever exist. Her selection is surely quite calculated, and I'm sure the speech she gives will be even more so.
cledaybuck wrote:What the hell is this post doing here. This seems reasoned and well thought out, not just reflexive to one's political view. Don't you know where you are man?
trpmb6 wrote:cledaybuck wrote:What the hell is this post doing here. This seems reasoned and well thought out, not just reflexive to one's political view. Don't you know where you are man?
Despite what some of our fellow Anutters may think about my politics, I am still an engineer who analyzes everything more than I probably should. Probably infuriates some knowing someone who uses logic and reason could also be conservative![]()
NIKV69 wrote:2122M wrote:NIKV69 wrote:https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/stacey-abrams-democratic-response-state-of-the-union/index.html
Just more hate and division. So now you trot out someone who is not even holding office and feels her election was stolen from her? Man the Democratic party is going way left. It will be funny to watch them repeat history.
When will the madness end.
Discuss
What is hateful and/or divisive about this?
I watched her speech where she wouldn't concede and inferred the election was stolen from her and I saw a lot of hate in her face.
The planned manufacturing plant had been touted by President Trump, who made an announcement about the project at the White House in 2017 and delivered remarks at a groundbreaking ceremony for the plant last year.
Foxconn originally planned to produce LCD television screens, but Woo told Reuters that those plans could be scaled back or canceled altogether. He pointed to the high costs of making television screens in the U.S., according to Reuters.
“In terms of TV, we have no place in the U.S.,” he said. “We can’t compete.”
casinterest wrote:
Infuriating no, but you are in Kansas, Not much to engineer there![]()
![]()
Flaps wrote:Is she actually smart enough to digest, process and give an informed rebuttal regarding the actual contents of the speech or will she simply be performing the usual democrat ritual of reading text from a teleprompter that was prepared from party talking points before the speech was even given? I'm going with the latter. No one does actual analysis anymore. The media just blare out their own tired agendas over and over again.
Flaps wrote:Is she actually smart enough to digest, process and give an informed rebuttal regarding the actual contents of the speech or will she simply be performing the usual democrat ritual of reading text from a teleprompter that was prepared from party talking points before the speech was even given? I'm going with the latter. No one does actual analysis anymore. The media just blare out their own tired agendas over and over again.
2122M wrote:
Riiiiight, You and VTK. As moderate and independent as they come.....
OA412 wrote:Flaps wrote:Is she actually smart enough to digest, process and give an informed rebuttal regarding the actual contents of the speech or will she simply be performing the usual democrat ritual of reading text from a teleprompter that was prepared from party talking points before the speech was even given? I'm going with the latter. No one does actual analysis anymore. The media just blare out their own tired agendas over and over again.
Have you actually heard Abrams speak or read anything about her? She is an incredibly smart, highly educated woman.
Flaps wrote:Is she actually smart enough to digest, process and give an informed rebuttal regarding the actual contents of the speech or will she simply be performing the usual democrat ritual of reading text from a teleprompter that was prepared from party talking points before the speech was even given? I'm going with the latter. No one does actual analysis anymore. The media just blare out their own tired agendas over and over again.
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:
Joe Manchin? Really? The Republican with the (D) behind his name?
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/sen-m ... ith-trump/
Didn't he vote against Trump's tax bill and against repeal of the Affordable Care Act?
Identity politics does not do you well sir.
seb146 wrote:
You Republicans chose your leader, let Democrats choose who to respond to the SOTU. This is probably one main reason she was chosen: you MAGA fan boys would throw a fit. You all are already attacking her and she has not even said anything. Speaks volumes.
NIKV69 wrote:He didn't mean she is ignorant. He meant does she have the chops to think for herself and talk outside the usual Schumer/Pelosi faer mongering and propaganda. We know she is incredibly smart, we know Schumer, Pelosi, Harris, Booker, Warren etc are incredibly smart but due to their refusal to go off the toxic talking points you have a president named Trump. Now we all know Abrams will be giving a speech written from Pelosi's speech writers so it was basically a rhetorical question.
I mean one of the key things (in fact I believe it was the fatal dagger) is when Clinton called part of the electorate "deplorables" This was a huge blunder and it was downplayed by the media since they were in the tank for her but it cost her any shot she had.
I am actually shocked on how the Dems are playing their 2020 hand so far. It's absolutely dumb. If they cut out the toxic rhetoric and get Biden in there they probably win in 2020.
Not sure they teach this in Yale and Harvard but someone better give them a dose of reality.
trpmb6 wrote:seb146 wrote:
You Republicans chose your leader, let Democrats choose who to respond to the SOTU. This is probably one main reason she was chosen: you MAGA fan boys would throw a fit. You all are already attacking her and she has not even said anything. Speaks volumes.
I think it's a bit unfair to Stacey Abrams to suggest one of the main reasons she was chosen was to trigger people on the right.
I redirect attention to my original post as to the reason she was chosen. She was a safe choice.
seb146 wrote:
Two bills. Well, that absolutely proves beyond the shadow of a doubt what a bleeding heart liberal he really is. Let's just ignore the hundreds of other times he voted with the Tea Party and the MAGA crew.
seb146 wrote:
Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look.
seb146 wrote:
You Republicans chose your leader, let Democrats choose who to respond to the SOTU. This is probably one main reason she was chosen: you MAGA fan boys would throw a fit. You all are already attacking her and she has not even said anything. Speaks volumes.
NIKV69 wrote:Nobody is preventing anyone from choosing anyone. Another figment of your imagination. We can go over her speech the day after but I am sure it will be about stealing elections, holding people hostage and Russia.
winginit wrote:NIKV69 wrote:Nobody is preventing anyone from choosing anyone. Another figment of your imagination. We can go over her speech the day after but I am sure it will be about stealing elections, holding people hostage and Russia.
I'll take that wager. I'll bet she doesn't even allude to her own election once - not once. Additionally, I'll bet the word Russia is used in her speech exactly zero times.
MaverickM11 wrote:NIKV69 triggered by a black woman. I'm simply shocked!
NIKV69 wrote:winginit wrote:NIKV69 wrote:Nobody is preventing anyone from choosing anyone. Another figment of your imagination. We can go over her speech the day after but I am sure it will be about stealing elections, holding people hostage and Russia.
I'll take that wager. I'll bet she doesn't even allude to her own election once - not once. Additionally, I'll bet the word Russia is used in her speech exactly zero times.
It won't but it will be inferred by the code words like "interference" "meddling" etc. Contrary to logic they are going to use the Russia stole the election similar to Abrams situation where she feels she should be Governor as a way to bring their case to the people. You know of course it can never be their fault!
NIKV69 wrote:
Triggered, that's a new one. It's as comical as Schumer's decisoin to use someone who is not even in elected office to deliver his parties response to the SOTU. He is going to make us racists pay for stealing her election!
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:
Two bills. Well, that absolutely proves beyond the shadow of a doubt what a bleeding heart liberal he really is. Let's just ignore the hundreds of other times he voted with the Tea Party and the MAGA crew.
Again living on the fringe you won't understand what a moderate is. Identity politics cost you in 2016 and will in 2020.
Has to be done since all you and them do is blindly call people racist without providing a shred of evidence. It's been the far lefts MO for a while now and just keeps blowing up in your faces like when the media attacked those school kids from KY.
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:
You Republicans chose your leader, let Democrats choose who to respond to the SOTU. This is probably one main reason she was chosen: you MAGA fan boys would throw a fit. You all are already attacking her and she has not even said anything. Speaks volumes.
Nobody is preventing anyone from choosing anyone. Another figment of your imagination. We can go over her speech the day after but I am sure it will be about stealing elections, holding people hostage and Russia.
NIKV69 wrote:I am actually shocked on how the Dems are playing their 2020 hand so far. It's absolutely dumb. If they cut out the toxic rhetoric and get Biden in there they probably win in 2020. .
NIKV69 wrote:Again living on the fringe you won't understand what a moderate is. Identity politics cost you in 2016 and will in 2020.
seb146 wrote:
Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look. On anyone.
afcjets wrote:seb146 wrote:
Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look. On anyone.
When I first read this I was on my phone and did not see who posted it and I was about to respond you would love my buddy Seb then since he goes above and beyond. You saying this is like Trump saying hyperbole and self promotion is not a good look, on anyone.
I guess I have been spending too much time on a.net recently. I actually had a dream last night I met you and was surprised you were much cooler in person. It was at a resort at something like an a.net retreat or similar but no one else from here showed up in my dream. You’re kind of an enigma and this post I am responding to explains why lol
seb146 wrote:afcjets wrote:seb146 wrote:
Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look. On anyone.
When I first read this I was on my phone and did not see who posted it and I was about to respond you would love my buddy Seb then since he goes above and beyond. You saying this is like Trump saying hyperbole and self promotion is not a good look, on anyone.
I guess I have been spending too much time on a.net recently. I actually had a dream last night I met you and was surprised you were much cooler in person. It was at a resort at something like an a.net retreat or similar but no one else from here showed up in my dream. You’re kind of an enigma and this post I am responding to explains why lol
AFC, you don't change what people type. I disagree with you like 99% of the time. But you let people be. This is why I read and respect what you say. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I will buy you a round any time.
casinterest wrote:Hmmm a former Gergia House Democrat that almost won Governorship in a state That Trump carried by 5 points in 2016.
I think the GOP is afraid.
seb146 wrote:Yet, you are suggesting Democrats MUST run an old, rich white man for president. That is all you MAGA fan boys (see what I did there?) are comfortable with. If you MAGA fan boys really wanted to show the country you all are not racist and truly inclusive, you would nominate a gay African American woman for president. But you won't and if I say why, it will be a trigger.
.
NIKV69 wrote:Isn't the object to win the election? What is the difference what Biden's skin color or age is? Isn't is about electing who the most qualified is? In your warped world a party has to nominate a minority, gay female to show it's not racist?
seb146 wrote:NIKV69 wrote:Isn't the object to win the election? What is the difference what Biden's skin color or age is? Isn't is about electing who the most qualified is? In your warped world a party has to nominate a minority, gay female to show it's not racist?
Hillary was the most qualified in 2016. You MAGA fan boys hated the idea of a woman or even a Democrat leading. Your party is trying it's level best to erase the Obama years.
Even after his time in office, your leader is not even 1/4 as qualified as Kamala Harris. Sure, Biden would mop the floor with him because he is extremely qualified.
One of the reasons you have the leader you have is because people kept saying "we need an outsider" and "we need someone who is not beholden to Washington politics" and so forth. Turns out, he is beholden to Russia, but that is being discussed in another thread.
The RNC has thrown is total support behind the current occupant of the White House. The best way for a qualified Republican to run is as an independent and that will split the Republican ticket.
The loudest and scariest racism and homophobia comes from the MAGA fan boys of the Republican party. Don't even try to make this Democrat's and "liberals" doing this. This is completely and totally the MAGA fan boys out there beating people up for their skin color or who they love. Not Democrats. Get a grip and step outside your MAGA bubble.