What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

[j brown's body]

"On Thursday afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell pulled off something like a magic trick. His Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, came up with a proposed alternative to S.1, the voting-rights bill he does not support. Then Stacey Abrams endorsed it as “some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.” At this point, it became a Stacey Abrams proposal, not a Joe Manchin proposal. Abracadabra, trick complete.

...So why did this happen? The answer is a little transparent. Ever eager to press the case against any expansion of voting rights, Republicans fell back onto an old strategy: They racialized the proposal. The moment Abrams, who is Black, expressed a measure of support for Manchin’s compromise, it became a radical, even dangerous, idea. Her name is a byword, evidence that liberals have breached an unacceptable standard. The hope is that, to the GOP’s base, she inspires a kind of fear that Manchin — older, white, and male — can’t possibly provoke.

...It’s a desperate gambit. The Manchin proposal is a true compromise; it’s hardly the stuff of progressive fantasy. ...McConnell and Blunt have given the game away. Unable to admit that their policies are unpopular with most Americans, they prefer instead the familiar dog whistles. Lee Atwater is dead, but his strategy isn’t. Better to make Manchin a chump, and Abrams the bogeyman, than admit defeat. Against powerful racial grievances, bipartisanship doesn’t stand a chance."

What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

Joe Manchin doesn’t make for an easy demon.

nymag.com

Mcconnell appeals to racial fears and is most likely successful. Such appeals usually are.

Happy Juneteenth!

 

[highroller]

"On Thursday afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell pulled off something like a magic trick. His Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, came up with a proposed alternative to S.1, the voting-rights bill he does not support. Then Stacey Abrams endorsed it as “some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.” At this point, it became a Stacey Abrams proposal, not a Joe Manchin proposal. Abracadabra, trick complete.

...So why did this happen? The answer is a little transparent. Ever eager to press the case against any expansion of voting rights, Republicans fell back onto an old strategy: They racialized the proposal. The moment Abrams, who is Black, expressed a measure of support for Manchin’s compromise, it became a radical, even dangerous, idea. Her name is a byword, evidence that liberals have breached an unacceptable standard. The hope is that, to the GOP’s base, she inspires a kind of fear that Manchin — older, white, and male — can’t possibly provoke.

...It’s a desperate gambit. The Manchin proposal is a true compromise; it’s hardly the stuff of progressive fantasy. ...McConnell and Blunt have given the game away. Unable to admit that their policies are unpopular with most Americans, they prefer instead the familiar dog whistles. Lee Atwater is dead, but his strategy isn’t. Better to make Manchin a chump, and Abrams the bogeyman, than admit defeat. Against powerful racial grievances, bipartisanship doesn’t stand a chance."

What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

Joe Manchin doesn’t make for an easy demon.

nymag.com

Mcconnell appeals to racial fears and is most likely successful. Such appeals usually are.

Happy Juneteenth!

The Republicans were never going to sign onto that bill. They could’ve proposed it and they would not have signed onto it. They are literally a party of do nothings.

 

[Mr Person]

And you know they had to practically bite their tongues off to avoid saying the word "uppity"

 

[Peter]

Republicans and voting rights.

Enough said.

 

[Fishking]

"On Thursday afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell pulled off something like a magic trick. His Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, came up with a proposed alternative to S.1, the voting-rights bill he does not support. Then Stacey Abrams endorsed it as “some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.” At this point, it became a Stacey Abrams proposal, not a Joe Manchin proposal. Abracadabra, trick complete.

...So why did this happen? The answer is a little transparent. Ever eager to press the case against any expansion of voting rights, Republicans fell back onto an old strategy: They racialized the proposal. The moment Abrams, who is Black, expressed a measure of support for Manchin’s compromise, it became a radical, even dangerous, idea. Her name is a byword, evidence that liberals have breached an unacceptable standard. The hope is that, to the GOP’s base, she inspires a kind of fear that Manchin — older, white, and male — can’t possibly provoke.

...It’s a desperate gambit. The Manchin proposal is a true compromise; it’s hardly the stuff of progressive fantasy. ...McConnell and Blunt have given the game away. Unable to admit that their policies are unpopular with most Americans, they prefer instead the familiar dog whistles. Lee Atwater is dead, but his strategy isn’t. Better to make Manchin a chump, and Abrams the bogeyman, than admit defeat. Against powerful racial grievances, bipartisanship doesn’t stand a chance."

What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

Joe Manchin doesn’t make for an easy demon.

nymag.com

Mcconnell appeals to racial fears and is most likely successful. Such appeals usually are.

Happy Juneteenth!

It's a fairly common strategy that everyone uses. They find someone that is more radical or disliked and they do guilt by association.

 

[Callen]

Not sure what about this proposal is so egregious to the Republicans. It even makes voter ID mandatory albeit flexible. This strategy of blocking everything is a big gamble leading up to 2022. McConnell has several vulnerable Senators up for re-election.

 

[calamity]

"On Thursday afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell pulled off something like a magic trick. His Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, came up with a proposed alternative to S.1, the voting-rights bill he does not support. Then Stacey Abrams endorsed it as “some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.” At this point, it became a Stacey Abrams proposal, not a Joe Manchin proposal. Abracadabra, trick complete.

...So why did this happen? The answer is a little transparent. Ever eager to press the case against any expansion of voting rights, Republicans fell back onto an old strategy: They racialized the proposal. The moment Abrams, who is Black, expressed a measure of support for Manchin’s compromise, it became a radical, even dangerous, idea. Her name is a byword, evidence that liberals have breached an unacceptable standard. The hope is that, to the GOP’s base, she inspires a kind of fear that Manchin — older, white, and male — can’t possibly provoke.

...It’s a desperate gambit. The Manchin proposal is a true compromise; it’s hardly the stuff of progressive fantasy. ...McConnell and Blunt have given the game away. Unable to admit that their policies are unpopular with most Americans, they prefer instead the familiar dog whistles. Lee Atwater is dead, but his strategy isn’t. Better to make Manchin a chump, and Abrams the bogeyman, than admit defeat. Against powerful racial grievances, bipartisanship doesn’t stand a chance."

What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

Joe Manchin doesn’t make for an easy demon.

nymag.com

Mcconnell appeals to racial fears and is most likely successful. Such appeals usually are.

Happy Juneteenth!

Well, since the Republicans know they cannot just blurt out the N-Word--not that they don't wish they could--they say BLM or Stacey Abrams. Same thing.

 

[Subieguy]

Not sure what about this proposal is so egregious to the Republicans. It even makes voter ID mandatory albeit flexible. This strategy of blocking everything is a big gamble leading up to 2022. McConnell has several vulnerable Senators up for re-election.

because it doesn't suppress or restrict enough!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And you know they had to practically bite their tongues off to avoid saying the word "uppity"

the word is fun to repeat
like some sort of an old lawnmower chugging

too bad about all the connotations

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Lemme see if I have this Lee Atwater code deciphered correctly:

Can't yell nigger anymore, so "busing" instead.
Today you can't say "uppity" or "uppity nigger" so you say "Stacey Abrams" which equals "BLM" which equals
"uppity violent niggers & their violent nigger lover commie friends".

Well damn...lamity
I think you may be right.

 

[Mr Person]

It's a fairly common strategy that everyone uses. They find someone that is more radical or disliked and they do guilt by association.

Finding someone "radical" and doing "guilt by association". Y'know....I think I might have seen that somewhere today.

This guy alleged that an entire "ideology" (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?) is crazy because of what a chapter of schoolkids did.

When you're so woke you destroy yourself.

So they have this cause that they really believe in (if I'm taking them at face value). They seriously believe we're heading for global extinction and catastrophe of biblical proportions. But, they disband themselves because their membership and participation is "too white"? That doesn't make...

debatepolitics.com

About | School Strikes NZ

www.schoolstrike4climate.nz

But then, that was a guy using a chapter of 8-18 year olds disbanding as proof that an "ideology" (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?) was bad. If it helps you understand, there the thing to be mocked was a bit of a silly approach to introspection and considerations of racism; disbanding instead of fixing up.



Anyway....

I just want to make sure you're not trying to twist the OP's message out of fake concern, though. I do see some dishonesty. For example, your response assumes Abrams is radical. Which is kinda the slimey thing the GOP did. Manchin's idea considerable, black woman signs on and it's radical. You, wanting one of your many idiotic and dishonest both-sides maneuvers, build "radical" into your answer.

Clever!





We know what is going on here. We also know that time is on our side. The long slow curve to progress has its bumps but at least on this planet, it's been towards progress overall. This game will fall to demographics.

 

[TobyOne]

Its all about race with liberals. It's a sickness. Its a simple minded and therefore perfect-for liberals orthodoxy.

 

[CaughtInThe]

hell, i'm still laughing that the Heritage Foundation created the foundation/ideas of what eventually became a democratic version of a health care plan (that the conservatives/Republicans screamed about/fought).

 

[poweRob]

"On Thursday afternoon, Senator Mitch McConnell pulled off something like a magic trick. His Democratic colleague, Joe Manchin, came up with a proposed alternative to S.1, the voting-rights bill he does not support. Then Stacey Abrams endorsed it as “some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography.” At this point, it became a Stacey Abrams proposal, not a Joe Manchin proposal. Abracadabra, trick complete.

...So why did this happen? The answer is a little transparent. Ever eager to press the case against any expansion of voting rights, Republicans fell back onto an old strategy: They racialized the proposal. The moment Abrams, who is Black, expressed a measure of support for Manchin’s compromise, it became a radical, even dangerous, idea. Her name is a byword, evidence that liberals have breached an unacceptable standard. The hope is that, to the GOP’s base, she inspires a kind of fear that Manchin — older, white, and male — can’t possibly provoke.

...It’s a desperate gambit. The Manchin proposal is a true compromise; it’s hardly the stuff of progressive fantasy. ...McConnell and Blunt have given the game away. Unable to admit that their policies are unpopular with most Americans, they prefer instead the familiar dog whistles. Lee Atwater is dead, but his strategy isn’t. Better to make Manchin a chump, and Abrams the bogeyman, than admit defeat. Against powerful racial grievances, bipartisanship doesn’t stand a chance."

What Republicans Mean When They Say ‘Stacey Abrams’

Joe Manchin doesn’t make for an easy demon.

nymag.com

Mcconnell appeals to racial fears and is most likely successful. Such appeals usually are.

Happy Juneteenth!

They are pumping racial hate so hard right now with their "OMG CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS COMING FOR US!!!1!!!" bullshit.

Throwing Stacey Abrams in the mix with no rational reason fits perfectly with their racist narrative. It will get much worse and much louder over the next year and a half because they have no policy to run on.

 

[calamity]

They are pumping racial hate so hard right now with their "OMG CRITICAL RACE THEORY IS COMING FOR US!!!1!!!" bullshit.

Throwing Stacey Abrams in the mix with no rational reason fits perfectly with their racist narrative. It will get much worse and much louder over the next year and a half because they have no policy to run on.

Let's face it. All those dog whistles ring "N-Word" loud and clear in the ears of their target audience.

 

[Fishking]

Finding someone "radical" and doing "guilt by association". Y'know....I think I might have seen that somewhere today.

This guy alleged that an entire "ideology" (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?) is crazy because of what a chapter of schoolkids did.

When you're so woke you destroy yourself.

So they have this cause that they really believe in (if I'm taking them at face value). They seriously believe we're heading for global extinction and catastrophe of biblical proportions. But, they disband themselves because their membership and participation is "too white"? That doesn't make...

debatepolitics.com

About | School Strikes NZ

www.schoolstrike4climate.nz

But then, that was a guy using a chapter of 8-18 year olds disbanding as proof that an "ideology" (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean?) was bad. If it helps you understand, there the thing to be mocked was a bit of a silly approach to introspection and considerations of racism; disbanding instead of fixing up.



Anyway....

I just want to make sure you're not trying to twist the OP's message out of fake concern, though. I do see some dishonesty. For example, your response assumes Abrams is radical. Which is kinda the slimey thing the GOP did. Manchin's idea considerable, black woman signs on and it's radical. You, wanting one of your many idiotic and dishonest both-sides maneuvers, build "radical" into your answer.

Clever!

We know what is going on here. We also know that time is on our side. The long slow curve to progress has its bumps but at least on this planet, it's been towards progress overall. This game will fall to demographics.

You make the most stupid ****ing comparisons. The leftists teachings on universities isn't isolated or a singular person. It's much more mainstream, or they wouldn't be in the universities. And I see the same things repeated here by leftists. And the really weird and self-destructive ideology that was present in the Greta thread is also something that I see very often but is part of of the CRT bullshit that's flying around. This is different then say...making a link with a singular person. This lesson was pro bono, not that you'll actually ever learn anything.

If you feel that these things don't apply to you then don't put the shoe on.

 

[calamity]

You make the most stupid ****ing comparisons. The leftists ...

Irony

 

[Fishking]

Irony

It's only irony if you don't know how to ****ing read, or perhaps you do, so you purposefully make a dishonest edit.

 

[calamity]

It's only irony if you don't know how to ****ing read, or perhaps you do, so you purposefully make a dishonest edit.

Irony is when you start an argument by pointing to stupid ****ing comparisons and then immediately spew out "leftists."

Look it up.