Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

She acknowledged Brian Kemp was the governor of Georgia, wished him well, and went to work changing a system she believed to be unfair without calling on her supporters to march on the Georgia state capitol. So curious.

Oh, please. She had to acknowledge Kemp was the governor. But that's a backhanded acknowledgment if I ever saw one. And no, she never actually conceded. Stop making excuses.

Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she was not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging "an action is right, true or proper" and "as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that."

During an interview with CNN's "New Day" on Friday, Abrams said Kemp "won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics/stacey-abrams-concession-2018-georgia/index.html

PP. And? Nothing you wrote addresses anything I said. The way SA handled her loss is in no way comparable to the way DT is handling his and to imply so is completely disingenuous.

So it's okay to deny the result of an election. There's just a procedural mattet of how to do it well. Is that what you're saying?

Did she and her supporters violently storm the statehouse to overturn the election? Or did I miss that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

She acknowledged Brian Kemp was the governor of Georgia, wished him well, and went to work changing a system she believed to be unfair without calling on her supporters to march on the Georgia state capitol. So curious.

Oh, please. She had to acknowledge Kemp was the governor. But that's a backhanded acknowledgment if I ever saw one. And no, she never actually conceded. Stop making excuses.

Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she was not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging "an action is right, true or proper" and "as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that."

During an interview with CNN's "New Day" on Friday, Abrams said Kemp "won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics/stacey-abrams-concession-2018-georgia/index.html

PP. And? Nothing you wrote addresses anything I said. The way SA handled her loss is in no way comparable to the way DT is handling his and to imply so is completely disingenuous.

So it's okay to deny the result of an election. There's just a procedural mattet of how to do it well. Is that what you're saying?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal judge (appointed by Obama, btw), has thrown out Stacey Abrams’ claim that the election she lost was “fraudulent.”

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago.

“Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,” U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He detailed his reasoning in a 288-page order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-rules-stacey-abrams-group-voting-rights-lawsuit-rcna50287

Question now is..... Will she admit she lost when she loses this election?
Or, will she continue to claim the election was stolen?

Door #2.

Exactly. She has built a career out of claiming her lost was due to a rigged system. Can’t possibly be that she just lost! And she has made a lot more money doing what she is doing now so why stop. Democrats reward losers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal judge (appointed by Obama, btw), has thrown out Stacey Abrams’ claim that the election she lost was “fraudulent.”

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago.

“Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,” U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He detailed his reasoning in a 288-page order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-rules-stacey-abrams-group-voting-rights-lawsuit-rcna50287

Question now is..... Will she admit she lost when she loses this election?
Or, will she continue to claim the election was stolen?

Door #2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A federal judge (appointed by Obama, btw), has thrown out Stacey Abrams’ claim that the election she lost was “fraudulent.”

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago.

“Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,” U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He detailed his reasoning in a 288-page order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-rules-stacey-abrams-group-voting-rights-lawsuit-rcna50287

Question now is..... Will she admit she lost when she loses this election?
Or, will she continue to claim the election was stolen?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

She acknowledged Brian Kemp was the governor of Georgia, wished him well, and went to work changing a system she believed to be unfair without calling on her supporters to march on the Georgia state capitol. So curious.

Oh, please. She had to acknowledge Kemp was the governor. But that's a backhanded acknowledgment if I ever saw one. And no, she never actually conceded. Stop making excuses.

Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she was not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging "an action is right, true or proper" and "as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that."

During an interview with CNN's "New Day" on Friday, Abrams said Kemp "won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics/stacey-abrams-concession-2018-georgia/index.html

PP. And? Nothing you wrote addresses anything I said. The way SA handled her loss is in no way comparable to the way DT is handling his and to imply so is completely disingenuous.

Anonymous wrote:A federal judge (appointed by Obama, btw), has thrown out Stacey Abrams’ claim that the election she lost was “fraudulent.”

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Friday found that Georgia election practices challenged by a group associated with Democrat Stacey Abrams do not violate the constitutional rights of voters, ruling in favor of the state on all remaining issues in a lawsuit filed nearly four years ago.

“Although Georgia’s election system is not perfect, the challenged practices violate neither the constitution nor the VRA,” U.S. District Judge Steve Jones in Atlanta wrote, referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He detailed his reasoning in a 288-page order.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/federal-judge-rules-stacey-abrams-group-voting-rights-lawsuit-rcna50287

Anonymous wrote:She’s already governor, really.

I thought everyone knew that election was tampered with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

She acknowledged Brian Kemp was the governor of Georgia, wished him well, and went to work changing a system she believed to be unfair without calling on her supporters to march on the Georgia state capitol. So curious.

Oh, please. She had to acknowledge Kemp was the governor. But that's a backhanded acknowledgment if I ever saw one. And no, she never actually conceded. Stop making excuses.

Abrams, in the wake of her 2018 loss to Kemp by 1.4 percentage points, acknowledged that Kemp, who then worked as Georgia secretary of state, would be the governor of Georgia. But she specifically said in her final speech that she was not concede due to persistent voter suppression allegations, adding that conceding would mean acknowledging "an action is right, true or proper" and "as a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that."

During an interview with CNN's "New Day" on Friday, Abrams said Kemp "won under the rules of the game at the time, but the game was rigged against the voters of Georgia."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics/stacey-abrams-concession-2018-georgia/index.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

She acknowledged Brian Kemp was the governor of Georgia, wished him well, and went to work changing a system she believed to be unfair without calling on her supporters to march on the Georgia state capitol. So curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Yes. Which Democrats don't seem to mind, contrary to their outrage over "the big lie." So curious.

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t she still claim she won the last election?

Anonymous wrote:How is her reelection campaign going?