Most Americans are dreadfully aware of the fact that loudmouth Stacey Abrams, another leftist multi-gazillionaire in the making, has apparently found it appropriate to openly bash the state that she seeks to represent.
And what a terrible job at representation she is doing if she thinks that some of her campaign commentary will be appealing to Georgians.
“I am tired of hearing how we’re the best state in the country to do business when we are the worst state in the country to live,” Abrams whined.
Gee, imagine Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott campaigning on that campaign sentiment: DeSantis bashing Florida or Abbott bashing Texas, yet then wheeling around and demanding to be governor of the same states they apparently hate to live in?
What kind of message is that?
Unless, of course, the message is hate, which has been a hallmark of Abrams’ campaign.
“Let me contextualize: When you’re [ranked 48th] for mental health, when you’re [ranked first] for maternal mortality, when you have an incarceration rate that’s on the rise and wages that are on the decline, then you are not the [number one] place to live,” Abrams continued.
Right, Abrams, right.
Abrams is apparently offended that Georgia routinely ranks as one of the best states for business, clearly unaware of the fact that business activity is what helps fund all her little government welfare projects in the first place.
Not that Abrams is ever bothered by such tedious tasks as critical thinking, which is rather evident in in the commentary she recently spewed on the virulent “The View.”
“Republicans, with the help from some in the political press, are now using the huge turnout in the primaries so far to push a new big lie: That the record turnout, which is mainly from Republican primary voters, means that Georgia’s suppressive voter law isn’t suppressive at all,” MSNBC host Joy Reid blared.
Ok, Reid. Exactly what else would higher voter turnout entail?
If a greater population of the state is voting, exactly how is the vote “suppressed?”
Clearly, Behar can’t explain a thing, which is evident by her continued hemming and hawing over “a narrative” that she claims is false, though she can’t explain why.
“I feel like a narrative is sort of congealing among much of the political press, that comes from Republicans, but it is settling in, even amongst some folks in my profession that because lots of people turned out … that means that there is no voter suppression in Georgia,” Behar mused, apparently believing that the repetition of the same comment over and over will somehow translate to sensible logic to her viewers.
“But I note … that it’s largely, you know, substantially more Republicans,” Reid continued, her staggering absence of awareness on full display, “they are not the ones who have long lines. They get to breeze right through. They are not the ones who have suppression.”
Oh gee, Ms. Behar. Did it ever occur to you that there might be “more Republicans” because more than one traditional Democrat, in particular a blue-collar worker sick of being lectured about “white privilege,” has obviously defected from the party of hate?
Abrams, of course, was quick to jump on any hate bandwagon, and she’s not afraid of using an insanely ridiculous analogy to do so.
“There’s no correlation there. Voter suppression is about blocking or impeding certain types of voters from participating in elections,” Abrams brayed.
Abrams also used a rather bizarre analogy, claiming that the Republicans’ narrative basically centers on the following: “If more people are in the water there are fewer sharks.”
Uh, gee, what an incomprehensible and hilariously false analogy.
For starters, sharks and humans are different species, so that makes no sense.
Unless, of course, Abrams is referring to ballots from eligible voters and ballots from ineligible voters, then her message makes complete sense.
As the sky really is the limit when it comes to ineligible voters, as revealed in painstaking detail by 2000 Mules, a documentary that everyone should go see while it’s available (hint: it presents the “science” of the steal).
Abrams further displayed her perpetual idiocy by blaring that “the antidote to voter suppression” is for more voters to turn out … even though she literally just stated the opposite in the same interview.
“They are going to try to make it hard, so the more of us who show up, we overwhelm the system with our presence, but to let them off of the hook for what they’ve done, simply because they didn’t do it as well as they thought is, I think, nonsensical,” Abrams blared, adding that she is “seeing outrage driving voters of color to the polls.”
That’s cool, Abrams. Did you also “see” that more Hispanics and African-Americans voted for Trump than any other Republican since the 1960s?
It’s “outrage” driving them all right. Then again, if Abrams were the self-appointed representative for any group, most probably would be “outraged.”
After all, she’s barely literate and can’t even keep her positions straight in the same interview. And her judge sister has a nasty habit of subverting justice whenever possible.
Speaking of the aforementioned 2000 Mules, Abrams all but revealed the reality of that documentary when she began fixating on mail-in ballots, apparently Democrats’ best friend.
“Right now, Republicans have the most competitive elections, but what we also don’t know is what is the mail-in ballot rejection rate? What are the difficulties people are having?” Abrams mused.
More like, what “difficulties” are all the mules the Dems depend on having … who formed a core component of, as Biden himself put, “the largest and most inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of the United States.”
Author: Jane Jones