https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics ... 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

What is hateful and/or divisive about this?

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

Maybe I've missed something. How does this choice express hate or division?

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.

The Democrats sure love their losers. CNN just hired Andrew Gillum...

The best response would be to schedule a town hall with people from across the country to talk about what was said. I think the citizens would have the best "response" to the SOTU.

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

Would you rather Mike Pence or Rudy Giulianni deliver the response?

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.

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.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/20/66928035 ... a-election

Pointing out voters were denied and votes deliberately not counted by the eventual winner makes her dangerous?

Also, she was not elected. Thanks, in part, to the governor-elect who was managing the voting.

Again I ask: who do you MAGA fan boys wanting to give the response? I suppose no one less than your dear orange leader?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Neither does Russia's occupant of OUR White House but that won't stop you MAGA fan boys from singing his praises.....

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.

Save it, Nik. All you MAGA fan boys are the same: Every Democrat needs to be silenced. Literally NO Democrat is good enough for you all.

A strong, African American woman who points out that the deck was stacked against her (the man she ran against counted the freakin' votes!) and you all think she is angry. Sorry (not sorry) your party only has hate, fear, and lies.

Joe Manchin? Really? The Republican with the (D) behind his name?

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/sen-m ... ith-trump/

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.

You (a passionate, dem-hating conservative) 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 black, female 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fixed it for you. Also I bet we will hear the words "racism", "Hostage" and "Russia" in her speech.

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.

And you can bet they will all be back here on A.net whining about the speech they "didn't watch"...

NIKV69 wrote:

independent.

Riiiiight, You and VTK. As moderate and independent as they come.....

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 the hell is your point? Anyone with a pulse can give a speech after Trump. Just pick immigration, North Korea, Russia, and Economy, and know he is going to lie and be racist. Then just have a nice decent speech afterwords. No hate and division other than from the dishonorable coward in the White House.

trpmb6 wrote:

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.

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?

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

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

Infuriating no, but you are in Kansas, Not much to engineer there

However I do agree that you are spot on with the choice for the reason that it gives the democrats nothing to lose, and gives the GOP some ugly optics depending on what Trump tries to advance.

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.

So let me get this straight. You think that the Democrats choosing Stacey Abrams to give the SOTU response is reflective of 'hate and division' because one time you saw her give a speech and you saw 'a lot of hate in her face'? Do I have that right?

Does anyone think Trump will bring up his successful bid manufacturing jobs and the 10 billion in revenue from FoxConn plant in Wisconsin?
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4 ... -wisconsin

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

lol, thanks for the smile, it will help me overcome the depression inducing flatness of this state

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.

Are you actually smart enough to realize that you've posed two things there that aren't mutually exclusive?

Stacy Abrams has a law degree from Yale, so yes I would argue that she possesses the intellectual capability necessary to digest, process, and respond to words spoken by a man who is often a walking misspelled contradiction of himself and the truth.

It is likely, however, that she will perform the usual SOTU response dance of reading from a teleprompter talking point that were mostly prepared ahead of time. My guess is she'll be able to do it with a bit more grace than, for example, thirsty Marco Rubio.



Keep up.

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.

2122M wrote:

Riiiiight, You and VTK. As moderate and independent as they come.....

Again just because someone doesn't believe in Government running everything, no guns and a 70% tax rate doesn't mean someone is far right. You keep making this mistake and it's why Trump is president. Yet it is the dog whistle you keep using and the one the left is using to screw up yet another election.

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.

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.

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.

Let's see if I've got this right.
Donald Trump, as POTUS, gets weeks and weeks to fine tune his speech, iron out the kinks, check his facts, and maybe pass it by a carefully selected audience to see how it will be received. Even after all that preparation, he may just screw it up.

Meanwhile you're expecting Stacey Adams to construct a cogent, coherent, well-composed response and then deliver it, all in real time?
Ok, so the issues are all well known and well rehearsed, but it's still a big ask.

Or have I got this wrong? Will the President have leaked the contents of his speech to the opposition, ahead of broadcast? Genuine question.

BTW - when you say "will she simply be performing the usual democrat ritual of reading text from a teleprompter", what exactly do republicans do that is different? What was the point of inserting "democrat"? Again, it's a genuine question; please educate me.

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.

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.

Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look. On anyone. I get that is the only way you MAGA fan boys keep yourselves thinking you are the smartest people in the room but the rest of us know.

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.

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.

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.

A couple of interesting points here:

Nik wants Republicans to choose, not only their candidate, but the Democratic candidate as well. An old, rich, white guy. Guess what, MAGA crew: that is not America anymore. Democrats have proven that a young, came from nothing Black man can be president.

Republicans can say anything as a united group and it is patriotic and what is good for the country and good for them but when Democrats do THE EXACT SAME THING (more on that in a moment) it is ugly, hateful, mean, toxic, etc. The whole point of SOTU is to show a different point of view. Not the same one. It happened under both Obama and Clinton. The opposition voice was heard. It seems like Nik and the MAGA crew does not want to hear opposition voices.

Republicans and the MAGA crew are obsessed with name calling and "both sides do it". They think it is great politics and great for ratings and great for making their policies to call people names and scream "both sides do it" but when Hillary did it that one time, it was awful and how dare she. I mean, if "both sides do it" so we should just accept it and move on, even start praising people for speaking the truth, she should receive the same treatment, no?

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.

I agree but look at the posts from the MAGA fan boys. All the outrage and strong language against her. Calling her toxic and hateful, etc.

We know there are racists in the Republican party and seeing an African American woman giving the response has triggered some of them.

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.

seb146 wrote:

Oh, and changing other people's statements to fit your narrative is not a good look.

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.

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:

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.

NIKV69 triggered by a black woman. I'm simply shocked!

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!

MaverickM11 wrote:

NIKV69 triggered by a black woman. I'm simply shocked!

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!

As I have said you guys should listen to Schultz. He is making a lot of sense.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... sh-n964476

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!

Then I'll take that bet. The words 'interference' and/or 'meddling' will not be used in her response. Not once.

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!

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.

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.

I didn't realize "moderate" meant putting the opposition letter behind your name and voting against two bills. My bad.

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.

So many Democrats, independents, and even moderate Republicans try very VERY hard to make the distinction between the racist MAGA fan boys and Republicans. And, still, the MAGA fan boys get all upset.

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.

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.

In 2016, not only our own intelligence agencies, but several European intelligence agencies told the world that Russia was trying to throw our elections. Even knowing that, you MAGA fan boys still demanded your Russia installed leader be allowed to do whatever. Including secret meetings with Putin. Because that's normal or something. Letting another country's leader install our president. I know your recollection of history is different.

Why don't you Republicans nominate a truly moderate Republican. Gavin Newsom. You must. For the safety and security of the nation. He is rich, white, and straight. He checks all the boxes.

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. .

My first choice would be to have an actual honorable, respectable Republican run for President - but as long as the Trumpuppets control the party, us old-timers are left in the cold. I do agree that a Biden-Beto ticket from the Democrats would be very, very tempting.

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.

You sort of conveniently skipped right past 2018, didn't you?

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

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.

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.

My bad if you are referring to post 17 where he said “Fixed that for you” but that’s not what you responded to which is why I was confused. I hate when people do that too so we actually do agree on something. However I also hate it when someone is accused of racism when they disagree with a black politician as Nik was when he did it. (Incidentally, this probably has a lot to do with why Stacy was chosen to deliver the SOTU response even though she lost her only political race ever, either that or because some white man like Trump stole an election from her like Hot Sauce Hillary, or both.) You don’t literally change people’s statements with “fixed it for you”, you just often assume and read way more into what people say, yet you are totally sincere in your belief in what you are responding to. For that I respect you a lot, even if the end result is you essentially putting words in people’s mouth lol.

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.

Oh yea they are quaking in their boots that Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who want us to be Europe are going to carry GA in the general election in 2020.

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.
.

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?

Dude get a grip and stop with the made up racism and outrage. At the moment and actually in 2016 Joe Biden was and is your best bet to win in 2020. It's great that a black woman wants to be president but I don't want government health care with no choice. I don't want high taxes nanny state. So I will reject her. It doesn't make me a racist that hates women. I swear you really should talk to someone because if you really think like this it's downright scary.

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.

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.

Hillary was the most qualified (known) liar in the 2016 election. Trump had to get elected to prove he could do it better.

I think Tomi Lahren should give a rebuttal to Stacy Abrams' rebuttal. They could call it the STFU Address......