Stacey Abrams Nows Claims Race Plays Part As O'Rourke Gets More Airtime

I believe someone hit the switch and told the networks to start bringing Stacey Abrams on a lot more and have the public learn who she is.

Why would a losing candidate from Georgia begin to have so much advice for what's happening in the world? Abrams lost her 2018 fight for the Gubernatorial seat in Georgia, and she hasn't completely conceded the loss. A couple of weeks ago she claimed 2020 is still on the table for her if she planned on running for the White House.

I can't believe she's thinking about that but to each his own.

Recommended: Stacey Abrams Doesn’t Accept AG Barr’s Summation Of Mueller Investi...

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell took on the profile of the network by using race warfare when speaking about the differences between Beto O'Rourke, Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum. If you have read my articles, you would know by now Democrats love creating history wherever they can. They have done it with John F. Kennedy (youngest elected president), Jimmy Carter (1st Southerner elected to White House since the Civil War), Bill Clinton and Al Gore (First presidential ticket where the youth was served and won) and then you had Barack Obama (first mixed-race president).

“Why Beto O’Rourke and not Andrew Gillum, and not Stacey Abrams, as the darling of the media?” Mitchell asked.

Abrams, instead of punting on the issue, took the bait and here is why her answer was idiotic. O'Rourke was running for Senate while Gillum and Abrams ran for Governor. A Senate race always gets national coverage over a state race; it's always been like that.

Let me also remind Abrams how she and Gillum held the national spotlight the last couple of weeks before and after the election as the first possible black Governors elected if they had won, and their fight to not concede after the election was over. For Abrams to claim there was racism is idiotic.

“I don’t think that success is zero sum, so I don’t want to disparage or take away from the reaction and the legitimate response people had to his campaign, but I do want to call the question. There is no difference — there is no distinction with a difference between what he accomplished and what Andrew and I accomplished.

I would challenge people to consider why we were not lifted up in the same way.”

“I think race plays a part. I think region plays a part. I also think phenotype plays a part. My responsibility is to investigate running for president because I want people to understand I may not look like the typical candidate, but that does not diminish my responsibility to run for the job. That would be true for Andrew if he was interested.”

Abrams didn't have to go there, but she did, and now she looks like a race-baiting candidate. Let me also add that O'Rourke has also jumped into the 2020 race for president. Why should anyone care what Abrams or Gillum has to say if they aren't jumping in also?

MSNBC played the race game and Abrams fell for it.

Original story appeared - https://www.waynedupree.com/abrams-says-orourke-gets-more-press-rac...

Views: 7

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Mrs.Tif Morgan on March 30, 2019 at 3:53am

 The media made it into a issue between people, they stack the deck, rig the minds of people for hate, to keep people from being friends.

 We do not the the bloody Government to get along and respect the life and rights of others. But when them rights infringe on others, that they create, for hate wars, then this happens: http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/mayoral-campaign-meeting-i...

 I have a video, hate between blacks and whites, I was so sad to see so many people hurt.

 They the media elite do their hate media very good.....

Comment by Bonnie Somer on March 28, 2019 at 5:11am

OK NOW I HAVE TO SAY IT

I AM SO DAMN F&&&&&& SICK AND TIRED OF BEING LECTURED B/C I AM WHITE AND HAVE PRIVILEGE I DO NOT KNOW I HAVE.    I WILL NO APOLOGIZE OR GIVE UP ANYTHING I AM NOT GOD I DID NOT CREATE MAN OR WOMAN OR ANYONE RACE .  OH AND BTW THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS THANX.   THE DAY SOME MAN WOULD COME INTO THE LADIES ROOM  I WOULD KILL THAT PERSON.   MY GOD.   

THE LIB LEFT WINGNUTS HAVE GONE MAD AND THEY WANT US TO BE JUST AS UPSET AND ARE DETERMINED TO END THIS COUNTRY  I SAY NOT ON MY WATCH.

STOP LECTURING ME ON RACE AND GENDER SHUT UP ALREADY

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service