Total Insanity: Failed GA Gov Candidate Stacey Abrams Declares 'We Don't Have to Concede Elections A

[mystery-ak]

Total Insanity: Failed GA Gov Candidate Stacey Abrams Declares 'We Don't Have to Concede Elections Anymore'
Matt Vespa

 @mvespa1
|
Posted: May 03, 2019 4:46 PM

Okay, so remember when Donald Trump said, half-jokingly, that he would accept the 2016 results…if he wins? The media went has a spastic attack, Trump was a threat to the country, a threat to our institution, but it’s okay; Hillary was going to win. Well, that blew up in their faces. So, what happens when the Democrats do it? There’s a deafening silence. It’s expected. But failed Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams has become the gold standard when it comes to the Left throwing a tantrum over election losses. She says she didn’t lose, but in fact, “won” the race. That’s demonstrably false; she lost by more than 50,000 votes.

Still, she’s stuck to this claim that she “won” the race, refusing to concede on election night last November (via RCP):

    "I acknowledge that former of Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election," Abrams said Friday night. "But to watch an elected official, who claims to represent the people in the state, baldly pin his hopes for election on the suppression of the people's democratic right to vote has been truly appalling."

    "Voting is not a right for some. It is a right for all and it is not a privilege. I stand here today as a witness to that truth," Abrams said.

    "So let's be clear, this is not a speech of concession,” Abrams said. “Because concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true or proper. As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede that."

more
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/05/03/stacey-abrams-n2545839

[ABX]

She is right, no one has to concede.  If you lose, you lose. You can keep stamping your feet all you want but it doesn't change that you lost.

[skeeter]

The rats have finally found the key to perennial electoral success. Now the sky's the limit.

[Jazzhead]

I dislike a lot of Dem politicians,  but IMO Stacey Abrams is the most dangerous because she advances,  bluntly,  the proposition that Democrats don't have to abide by the results of elections.   The peoples' will, the people's decision, counts for shit.   Don't just vow to win the next election,  declare the contest illegitimate and cripple the ability of those elected to govern.     

That is a rejection of America,  the rejection of elections as a peaceful means to transfer power.   It is nihilism, and it is uniquely dangerous.   That the Dems embrace her cynical rejection of what has been the norm in America for almost all of its history, that tradition of grace and civility that permits a nation of disparate classes, backgrounds and ethnicities  to co-exist and thrive together peacefully,  speaks volumes about that party's fundamental amorality. 

[dfwgator]

I dislike a lot of Dem politicians,  but IMO Stacey Abrams is the most dangerous because she advances,  bluntly,  the proposition that Democrats don't have to abide by the results of elections.   The peoples' will, the people's decision, counts for shit.   Don't just vow to win the next election,  declare the contest illegitimate and cripple the ability of those elected to govern.     

That is a rejection of America,  the rejection of elections as a peaceful means to transfer power.   It is nihilism, and it is uniquely dangerous.   That the Dems embrace her cynical rejection of what has been the norm in America for almost all of its history, that tradition of grace and civility that permits a nation of disparate classes, backgrounds and ethnicities  to co-exist and thrive together peacefully,  speaks volumes about that party's fundamental amorality.

It's a fundamental belief of all Communists that they have the support of the "Masses" (whatever the Hell that means),  and "bourgeois" elections only get in the way.

[skeeter]

I dislike a lot of Dem politicians,  but IMO Stacey Abrams is the most dangerous because she advances,  bluntly,  the proposition that Democrats don't have to abide by the results of elections.   The peoples' will, the people's decision, counts for shit.   Don't just vow to win the next election,  declare the contest illegitimate and cripple the ability of those elected to govern.     

That is a rejection of America,  the rejection of elections as a peaceful means to transfer power.   It is nihilism, and it is uniquely dangerous.   That the Dems embrace her cynical rejection of what has been the norm in America for almost all of its history, that tradition of grace and civility that permits a nation of disparate classes, backgrounds and ethnicities  to co-exist and thrive together peacefully,  speaks volumes about that party's fundamental amorality.

True. This new willingness of the left to disregard election results absolutely means the end of our system, replaced with despotism.

[jafo2010]

I am from Georgia, and believe me, Stacey Abrams is certifiable.  She is as undesirable a candidate for anything above dog catcher.

And believe me, the bulb does not burn bright either.  She is indeed a legend in her own mind.  She goes no where, just like Herky-jerky O'Rourke.  She is thinking about running for president.  Ugggh, talk about delusions of grandeur!

[Fishrrman]

It's bad enough to be a loser.
It's worse when you're a fat, stupid loser...!