Stacey Abrams: Part of "Blue Wave" is those who are UNDOCUMENTED

[TPIG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have expected Abrams, running for governor in a center-right state, to at least pretend she actually cares about the rule of law and putting the interests of Georgia's citizens first. Instead, she's essentially running for president through this gubernatorial process and doubling down on the hard-left turn the Democratic party has taken during the Trump years.

She should be kept as far away from the governor's mansion as possible.

[TPIG]

Wait wait, this is perfect. Don't you think she knows that undocumented people can't vote and was simply referring to their influence in public discourse rather than their ability to vote? That seems like a rather elementary inference.

But here you are, taking her words 100% at a literal at face value. Here's the contrast I called you out on in the Romney thread. But alas, here we are...

Hackish double standards

Oh, ya got me, I guess I should just give up now.

No. With that Romney comment, I said clearly that his statement was wrong in the form it was said. So it is here, except this has far more dangerous implications - legitimizing support from illegal immigrants as an electoral strategy.

[TPIG]

Hopefully she wins. Y'all are mad that some politicians actually view undocumented people as deserving of some dignity and humanity rather than being separated from their families and forced into camps.

But y'all are Republicans for a reason I guess.

Not saying they should be viewed as people, simply saying they shouldn't be viewed as part of an electoral strategy to take back power in America.

[TPIG]

Wait wait, this is perfect. Don't you think she knows that undocumented people can't vote and was simply referring to their influence in public discourse rather than their ability to vote? That seems like a rather elementary inference.

But here you are, taking her words 100% at a literal at face value. Here's the contrast I called you out on in the Romney thread. But alas, here we are...

Hackish double standards

Oh, ya got me, I guess I should just give up now.

No. With that Romney comment, I said clearly that his statement was wrong in the form it was said. So it is here, except this has far more dangerous implications - legitimizing support from illegal immigrants as an electoral strategy.

Oh yeah? Saying that a president cannot be impeached, the only mechanism of control over an out of control executive with nuclear codes, is less dangerous?  

Look, with the Romney comment, you have two options: either you think he's so dumb that he doesn't know how impeachment works OR you understand that he's saying impeachment of Trump would not be the proper move.

With the Abrams comment, considering that she said this within the context of taking back power, which is done through... ya know... votes... is it not reasonable to say it's improper to mention illegal immigrants in the list of people that will aid in that goal?

[TPIG]

My guess is that she's saying that part of the blue wave is standing up for the humanity of undocumented immigrants, because more Americans than not don't believe in putting children in cages and laughing when they cry because of getting separated from their parents. Some of us care more about the fact that many are being treated as less than human than the fact that their status is not currently legal.

I see your point and can sympathize, and if that's what she is actually saying, then again, it lends to the idea that she's essentially treating this gubernatorial run as a pretext to running for president. Last time I checked, the Federal Government runs immigration policy, and it wasn't Nathan Deal putting kids in cages.

[TPIG]

Wait wait, this is perfect. Don't you think she knows that undocumented people can't vote and was simply referring to their influence in public discourse rather than their ability to vote? That seems like a rather elementary inference.

But here you are, taking her words 100% at a literal at face value. Here's the contrast I called you out on in the Romney thread. But alas, here we are...

Hackish double standards

Oh, ya got me, I guess I should just give up now.

No. With that Romney comment, I said clearly that his statement was wrong in the form it was said. So it is here, except this has far more dangerous implications - legitimizing support from illegal immigrants as an electoral strategy.

Oh yeah? Saying that a president cannot be impeached, the only mechanism of control over an out of control executive with nuclear codes, is less dangerous?  

Look, with the Romney comment, you have two options: either you think he's so dumb that he doesn't know how impeachment works OR you understand that he's saying impeachment of Trump would not be the proper move.

With the Abrams comment, considering that she said this within the context of taking back power, which is done through... ya know... votes... is it not reasonable to say its improper to mention illegal immigrants in the list of people that will aid in that goal?

Sure, it's improper because the statement lacks nuance, but...

Look, with the Abrams comment, you have two options: either you think she's so dumb that she doesn't know that undocumented people can't vote OR you understand that she's saying that undocumented people can't vote, but do contribute to public discourse and can influence voting patterns as part of a larger coalition.

Or you understand she's playing to the Democratic Primary voters she so desperately wants in the future.

[TPIG]

I was undecided before this post. Now I am voting abrams because i am tired of your sh*t.

My sh*t? Pretty sure this is the first thread I've made about Abrams, so... it must not take much to make you tired.

[TPIG]

Wait wait, this is perfect. Don't you think she knows that undocumented people can't vote and was simply referring to their influence in public discourse rather than their ability to vote? That seems like a rather elementary inference.

But here you are, taking her words 100% at a literal at face value. Here's the contrast I called you out on in the Romney thread. But alas, here we are...

Hackish double standards

Oh, ya got me, I guess I should just give up now.

No. With that Romney comment, I said clearly that his statement was wrong in the form it was said. So it is here, except this has far more dangerous implications - legitimizing support from illegal immigrants as an electoral strategy.

Oh yeah? Saying that a president cannot be impeached, the only mechanism of control over an out of control executive with nuclear codes, is less dangerous?  

Look, with the Romney comment, you have two options: either you think he's so dumb that he doesn't know how impeachment works OR you understand that he's saying impeachment of Trump would not be the proper move.

With the Abrams comment, considering that she said this within the context of taking back power, which is done through... ya know... votes... is it not reasonable to say its improper to mention illegal immigrants in the list of people that will aid in that goal?

Sure, it's improper because the statement lacks nuance, but...

Look, with the Abrams comment, you have two options: either you think she's so dumb that she doesn't know that undocumented people can't vote OR you understand that she's saying that undocumented people can't vote, but do contribute to public discourse and can influence voting patterns as part of a larger coalition.

Or you understand she's playing to the Democratic Primary voters she so desperately wants in the future.

Or you understand he's playing to Trump, who he so desperately wants to please.


We can play this game all day. In the end, it comes down to the difference in the standards of evidence to which you hold people depending on their party, which ends up surfacing as hackishness.

Alright, we'll call it a truce. Let's just not pretend as though you haven't done the same in this thread, - ignoring a problematic comment by a Democrat by obfuscating with a comment by Mitt Romney. Wasn't aware he was running for governor of Georgia, though I wish he was

[TPIG]

I cannot wait to see how ThatConservativeGuy reacts when Abrams wins.

You say that as though I said she has no chance to win. She definitely has a good chance. I'm simply saying she SHOULDN'T win.

Also, you won't get to see it. I almost never post on Atlas during election nights. I prefer to look at actual data and results rather than reading people's political posturing. Though I do occasionally check in to see people's heads exploding.

[TPIG]

I was undecided before this post. Now I am voting abrams because i am tired of your sh*t.

My sh*t? Pretty sure this is the first thread I've made about Abrams, so... it must not take much to make you tired.

Knowing snotty, elitist kids like you are big fans of Kemp makes me go to his opponent.

First of all, I'm not a big Kemp fan, but I'll take him over the staunchly liberal Abrams. Secondly, please don't act as if you know the kind of person I am or know anything about my personal history based on interactions from a political forum.

[TPIG]

Cheap hysterics. You know good and well that she was talking about a bigger picture and not voting. The real problem is that Republicans are trying to stop people who aren't supporting them from voting. The actual Secretary of State is trying to rig the election for himself.

Right... which is why the Exact Match Law is currently only affecting less than 1% of Georgia voters (53,000 out of 5.6 million), will not prevent people from voting in this election cycle, and includes a "26-month period which affords any pending applicant plenty of time to participate in a federal election -- when expected turnout is highest -- so the applicant has the best opportunity to provide the necessary information and move to active status.”

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/53k-voter-registrations-on-hold-across-georgia/851445017

[TPIG]

Yeah, it's crazy how Democrats care so little about the rule of law. They actually elected someone President who wouldn't release his tax returns, has shady business dealings with Russian oligarchs, had a campaign manager who went to prison, and who treats the constitution like toilet paper.

Oh, wait. *checks notes* That was the Republicans.

But I'm sure Democrats caring about brown people is just as bad.

You're not wrong about a lot of those facts regarding Trump, but again, Abrams is running for Governor of Georgia, not President...

Also, why is it that so many on the left are incapable of understanding that being against illegal immigration does not equal being against brown people? It's a matter of the rule of law, not a matter of race.

[TPIG]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have expected Abrams, running for governor in a center-right state, to at least pretend she actually cares about the rule of law and putting the interests of Georgia's citizens first. Instead, she's essentially running for president through this gubernatorial process and doubling down on the hard-left turn the Democratic party has taken during the Trump years.

She should be kept as far away from the governor's mansion as possible.

Who do think keeps agriculture going in Georgia and the rest of America for that matter?  You must keep your head way up your bigoted buttcrack to not comprehend this.

I certainly understand that illegal immigrants make up a large portion of low-skill agriculture jobs, and for that, I don't blame the immigrants themselves but rather the employers looking to find cheap labor and undercutting American wages. The reason many Americans refuse to work those jobs are because wages have been cut to the bone through the system of hiring illegal workers. If we actually had a proper E-verify system in this country, employers would be forced to hire legal workers and we would see wages rise in that industry and more Americans would begin to work those jobs.

[TPIG]

Cheap hysterics. You know good and well that she was talking about a bigger picture and not voting. The real problem is that Republicans are trying to stop people who aren't supporting them from voting. The actual Secretary of State is trying to rig the election for himself.

Right... which is why the Exact Match Law is currently only affecting less than 1% of Georgia voters (53,000 out of 5.6 million), will not prevent people from voting in this election cycle, and includes a "26-month period which affords any pending applicant plenty of time to participate in a federal election -- when expected turnout is highest -- so the applicant has the best opportunity to provide the necessary information and move to active status.”

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/53k-voter-registrations-on-hold-across-georgia/851445017

The problem with a lot of these laws is they aren't even needed. I think Georgia is the only state (or one of a very small list) that even does strict information matching like this. I mean, what is the point? Why did the legislature enshrine it into law after a court already struck it down? And does their desire to do this have anything to do with 80% of the registrations on hold coming from POC (who vote strongly Democratic)? Why is so important? Think about it from our perspective - conservatives are always complaining about restrictions on guns, saying it's not even appropriate to restrict a right, yet you guys are constantly piling on all these obscure and largely pointless restrictions on voting, something may only be a pseudo-right, but is absolutely just as important if not more than guns. There is a clear disconnect going on here that smacks of hypocrisy. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but your party is really backwards on this.

Why can't Republicans ever balance out all the restrictions they pass with some measures to help increase turnout? This happens so rarely. I mean, it would go a long way in fighting the idea that all they care about is shrinking the electorate for electoral benefits. The fact is, whether you know it or are willing to admit it, the GOP has been engaged in a campaign to shrink the electorate (putting it nicely) since even before Obama was elected, although his election really kicked that into high gear after they flipped a ton of states in 2010.

I have no personal dedication to this law and don't find it necessary. However, since it is the current legal reality in Georgia, I'm simply stating that claims of this law "SUPPRESSING THE VOTE" are overblown.

[TPIG]

So, like, do pearls feel any different when you clutch them, versus when you just hold them kinda normally in your palm?

They do slightly, yes.