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.

[CookieDamage]

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.

[Dr. Arch]

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

[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.

[Dr. Arch]

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?  

[Xing]

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.

[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?

[ON Progressive]

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.

This seems exactly like what she's saying.

[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.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

[RI]

What she meant doesn't really matter; it's horrid optics in a more-conservative-than-not state like Georgia.

[OneJ]

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.

Someone should tell Kobach that because he talked about immigration as if he was running for federal office.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

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

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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

[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.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Yawn. Nobody cares about this except for people who already hated her.

[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.

[Xing]

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.

She may have higher ambitions, but she shouldn't wouldn't be the first gubernatorial candidate who ran with their eyes on a higher prize.

[Dr. Arch]

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.

[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.

[KingSweden]

What she meant doesn't really matter; it's horrid optics in a more-conservative-than-not state like Georgia.

I’m inclined to agree with this, even if I think everybody else’s interpretation of her comments are accurate

[Virginiá]

tbh TCG, thinking she literally meant the votes of undocumented immigrants is reallly reaching. I think it's more likely to mean the marginalized voters in society, the ones that the census doesn't even accurately capture (transient citizens both disproportionately young and non-white). She isn't dumb, she knows undocumented immigrants legally can't vote and in Georgia, literally can't, due to photo ID laws.

But as others have said, it is an optics issue.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.