Stacey Abrams Now Claims She Was Never Against Voter ID
“That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing.”
Democrats have been trying to pass their ‘voter reform’ bill, but Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been a thorn in their side.
Now Manchin has proposed a compromise which includes voter ID provisions, and some Democrats like Stacey Abrams who previously called voter IDs racist, are suddenly changing their tune.
Jon Michael Raasch reports at FOX News:
Top Democrats flip-flop on ‘racist’ voter ID laws
As Democrats try to push the For the People Act through the Senate, some of the party’s top figures are changing their tune on voter ID rules they previously called “racist.”
In an effort to garner bipartisan support for the act, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., has proposed a set of compromises. One would expand voter ID laws, long a legislative objective for the GOP. The line from the Manchin memo: “Require voter ID with allowable alternatives (utility bill, etc.) to prove identity to vote”.
When asked about the compromise on Thursday, Stacey Abrams, the former gubernatorial candidate for Georgia and Fair Fight Action founder, who has long railed against voter ID laws, said she “absolutely” could support Manchin’s proposal even if voter ID was a part of it. “That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing. No one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote. It’s been part of our nation’s history since the inception of voting,” Abrams told CNN.
Really, Stacey? No one has ever objected?
Stacey Abrams says she agrees with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that efforts by GOP lawmakers in Georgia to make it more difficult to vote is “racist.”
"It is a redux of Jim Crow, in a suit and tie." #CNNSOTU pic.twitter.com/nDVCaBZRvH
— State of the Union (@CNNSotu) March 14, 2021
Why the change of heart, @staceyabrams? pic.twitter.com/Le11w1pjJS
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 18, 2021
Stacey Abrams on April 20, 2021: Voter ID is racist.
Stacey Abrams on June 17, 2021: Supports Manchin's election plan that includes nationwide voter ID.
Will @CocaCola, @Delta and @MLB boycott Stacey Abrams??
— Jim Banks (@RepJimBanks) June 17, 2021
Democrats think they’re on the verge of achieving their goals here.
Mitch McConnell is not impressed.
Brittany Bernstein writes at National Review:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) criticized Manchin’s proposal and Abrams’ endorsement, saying, in reality, it “is no compromise.”
“It still subverts the First Amendment to supercharge cancel culture and the left’s name-and-shame campaign model,” he said. “It takes redistricting away from state legislatures and hands it over to computers. And it still retains S. 1’s rotten core: an assault on the fundamental idea that states, not the federal government, should decide how to run their own elections.”
As Manchin said that he still opposes changing the filibuster to pass any voting legislation without Republican support, the compromise would be unlikely to advance if Senate Republicans share McConnell’s view.
The Democrat should not be trusted on this issue. How is anyone supposed to believe these voter ID provisions would be enforced?
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
I was never against voter ID. I was never for companies boycotting my state.
Can’t wait for the next “never”.
This is all one big misunderstanding. She misspoke. She is not against voter ID. She embraces the voters’ unconscious and primitive instincts. It’s voter super-ego (the internalized moral standards and ideals that we acquire from our parents and society) she is firmly against.
I never ate an extra large sandwich!
Short memory. Does she share Creepy Joe’s Alzheimers?
Probably not, but she’s a habitual liar and those bad old habits are hard to break.
Prop Joe in drag is drug addled.
Abrams has own Mental Shortcomings!
The States need to get in front of this possible power grab by the Feds. The should adopt contingent legislation, similar to the ‘popular vote compact’ so beloved by the left.
This legislation should set election day as the day prior to the normal election day. Then refuse all State and political subdivisions assistance to the Federal scheme.
Make the Feds recreate a purely Federal registration system, their own polling places, their own voting machines and tabular it’s and all the staff required to run the whole process for Federal Officials; President, Vice President, Senators and HoR.
The Federal government can’t simply conscript the State’s existing elections ‘infrastructure’. They will have to reinvent the wheel. Then the States can go on offense via coordinated lawsuits v the Feds when the Feds are unable to do so or can’t meet the standards they have demanded of the States over the years.
Can’t be done. First of all, Congress expressly has the authority to regulate congressional elections. The states must comply, because it’s the law and federal law is the supreme law of the land. If they don’t the courts will order them to. And the date of congressional elections is already set by federal law. The only thing outside congress’s authority is the location of polling places in senatorial elections. (This made more sense back when senators were elected by their state legislatures; congress could regulate those elections too, but could not say where the legislature must meet.)
Presidential elections are trickier, but federal law already sets regulations and basically tells the states if you don’t follow these then we can’t guarantee that we’ll count your electors’ votes when you send them in.
I didn’t communicate the idea effectively.
What I am saying is in essence, don’t oppose the the Feds running elections for Federal offices; Pres. VP, Sen, HoR.
Instead move the election day for non federal offices to the day prior and produce a ballot without Federal offices.
The Feds would be free to design the process for Federal offices. However, they wouldn’t receive any assistance from the State nor be allowed to piggyback on State efforts or processes.
Which means the Feds would be stuck creating from scratch all the election mechanisms such as voter registration lists, a ballot, machines, personnel, ECT.
The feds can regulate elections for Federal office, the can’t dictate the manner of elections for State offices or it’s political subdivision. Nor can the Feds conscript the State elections systems to serve their interests.
Nope, the feds aren’t going to hold elections. It’s the states’ job to run congressional elections. If they refuse they just lose their representation. And they have to do it according to federal regulations, because the constitution expressly gives congress the authority to regulate them.
As for presidential elections, ironically according to those who opposed Trump’s attempt, congress may have to count whatever electors the states send in, but according to the Trump position congress can refuse to count them if it doesn’t accept the method by which they were chosen.
I disagree. The Feds have historically piggybacked on the election process/machinery of the States. In other words the Feds didn’t seek to override the ‘time, place and manner’ decisions of the State.
They have the power to do so. However, the Feds cannot conscript the States to run those elections. The federal election day is universal because there was no reason to bifurcate before now.
If Congress invokes it’s authority to dictate ‘time, place and manner’ of Federal elections they will have to be responsible for conducting those elections.
The States can set election day for all other offices the Monday prior. Then, they can continue to exercise full control of those elections.
I don’t understand where you are deriving from the Constitution that States must provide resources for elections they would no longer control. Could you provide the text which states that?
CommoChief: I don’t understand where you are deriving from the Constitution that States must provide resources for elections they would no longer control.
It’s a joint responsibility:
What that means is:
1. State legislature sets procedures, election laws in each State for Federal offices.
2. Congress has the power to supersede the States and create procedures for Federal elections.
Nowhere in that article does it declare that Congress can force the States to administer and provide resources to support their policy preferences for conducting elections.
The States are not subordinate to the Federal government. They retain sovereignty. They cannot be conscripted to do the bidding of the Federal government.
Traditionally, our elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The federal offices were included on a unified ballot.
There is nothing that precludes the States from bifurcate the federal offices to another ballot. Once the feds choose to exercise power they will need to be ready to meet the responsibility of managing the entire process of federal elections.
If you can show me a provision in the Constitution that explicitly requires States to manage elections for federal offices once Congress has elected to over ride traditional State authority I will be happy to review it.
The status quo is only valid until it is modified. Choices have consequences.
IMO, States can no more be compelled to provide funds, personnel and other resources to support the enforcement of a new federal elections law anymore than they could be forced to do the same for federal immigration laws.
They could voluntarily do so, but they can’t be conscripted to do so. Especially since this isn’t a version of ‘pre-clearance’, which Shelby removed.
If you can provide an explicit example that takes into account the Congress acting to usurp the traditional elections process I would be interested to see that.
For instance, election day for president was set by federal statute in 1845.
CommoChief: Nowhere in that article does it declare that Congress can force the States to administer and provide resources to support their policy preferences for conducting elections.
States are required to have republican forms of government, so they must conduct elections.
CommoChief: Traditionally, our elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Not “traditionally,” but by federal statute. Before 1845, there was no single date for federal elections.
CommoChief: There is nothing that precludes the States from bifurcate the federal offices to another ballot.
That’s right, and many states have state and local elections on other dates.
CommoChief: Once the feds choose to exercise power they will need to be ready to meet the responsibility of managing the entire process of federal elections.
If a state doesn’t elect representatives, then it will have no representatives, including presidential electors.
CommoChief: If you can show me a provision in the Constitution that explicitly requires States to manage elections for federal offices …
Asked and answered. Note the word “shall” in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1.
The shall applies to the manner of the election. It doesn’t express that the State government must take any action.
You are confusing the traditional role of the State in the status quo with an invented responsibility to continue that traditional role should Congress abandon the status quo by invoking their power to over ride the State Legislature.
Wish casting that the Feds can conscript the State isn’t a valid argument.
Once again please refer me to the text that explicitly supports your argument.
I am not suggesting that the Congress couldn’t override the State Legislature, that is very clearly an option. However, in exercising that option the Congress has no basis to rely upon the historical cooperation in elections.
As to ‘not holding elections’. Simple enough to address, the States can simply add a separate ballot for Congress and Senate and regulate them the same way they would purely State and local ballots.
They would invite the Feds to conduct a parallel election run under Congressional rules with entirely Federal dollars to include separate registration lists.
If the Feds fail to do so then when it ends up in CT the decision will be either invalidate the votes or not. The Feds certainly can’t argue in good faith that the only ballots cast due to their intransigent failure to provide a means for Citizens to exercise their franchise should be invalidated.
I am happy to be proven wrong when those taking the opposite tack provide explicit evidence to support their position. Relying upon ‘but the States have always cooperated with Federal elections’ doesn’t cut it.
Citizens have the right to vote. The political entity expressing their control of the election process and procedures is, IMO, responsible for creating, funding, staffing and maintaining those procedures.
If the Feds wish to assert their option to control how Congressional and Senate elections are conducted they should be on notice that they will be doing so without State assistance.
CommoChief: It doesn’t express that the State government must take any action.
“Shall”. The states have a constitutional responsibility to prescribe the rules for federal elections, but are subject to federal regulation. So, for instance, since 1845, federal elections must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You apparently think this means the states can obstinately refuse to hold federal elections, disenfranching their own citizens.
Prescribe is the way they are held it doesn’t address which political entity is responsible for holding them.
Traditionally there has been cooperative agreement between States and the Federal government. This spirit of amicable cooperation isn’t mandatory.
If as you suggest it were mandatory you would be able to cite the explicit language.
You can’t because it does not exist.
CommoChief: Prescribe is the way they are held it doesn’t address which political entity is responsible for holding them.
Are you arguing that if a state doesn’t like to vote on a Tuesday in November — as prescribed by federal law — they can just refuse to participate in the election? Wouldn’t they just lose their representation then, a situation which would make the point moot?
Let’s back up a bit.
Should the Feds seek to involve their authority to override the State legislatures then the States should.
1. Bifurcate the Federal elections onto a separate ballot. This means that all they continue to have control over all aspects of State and local elections.
2. Invite the Feds to provide their plan to implement the conduct of the elections for House and Senate without any assistance from the State.
3. Continue to hold the elections for House and Senate but on a separate ballot and under the laws, procedures and process adopted by the State legislature.
What this does is demonstrate that the Federal government shouldn’t plan on State cooperation in implementing the Federal procedures. They could voluntarily do so but are not obligated to.
Where the Federal government chooses to exercise it’s authority to displace the State legislature by it’s scheme it then assumes the responsibility for implementing the scheme.
If the Feds do this without providing any mechanism for the Citizens to exercise the franchise in House and Senate elections by their failure to develop, fund and staff those elections then the fallback is the State run ballots.
The Feds would be forced into arguing for the invalidation of those ballots or would have to accept the results.
The Feds can absolutely set up a registration and balloting process for House and Senate elections. No question. They can’t reasonably expect the State to assist. Nor can the Feds refuse to create a purely Federal process when the States no longer willingly cooperate.
Imagine this. You tell your wife that from now on you will set the dinner menus, but she must do the grocery shopping using her car and her personal funds. Furthermore she will be required to do the prep, the cooking and clean up only now you will stand over her shoulder to make sure she does all that to the standard you set and her input is no longer required.
That is analogous to what the Feds are proposing under your assumptions.
I don’t deny that Congress could decide to override the State legislature in conduct of the HoR and Senate elections. I’d contend that the Feds have zero explicit authority to compel the cooperation of the State.
Since they can’t force the State to do their bidding the Feds need to develop a plan to run these elections from registration to counting the ballots and all areas in between.
Of course that would mean any errors or misjudgment by the Feds who have zero institutional knowledge of administering elections would be subject to suits by the States and or the citizens for any violations.
This is very much a case of be careful what you wish for. The folks pushing the Feds to do this need to pull off the blinders and realize that Congress will be required to exercise responsibility for running these elections if they decide to exercise their authority.
CommoChief: 1. Bifurcate the Federal elections onto a separate ballot.
Many state and localities already have elections on other days.
CommoChief: 2. Invite the Feds to provide their plan to implement the conduct of the elections for House and Senate without any assistance from the State.
States have a constitutional duty to prescribe the manner of holding elections for federal Senators and Representatives.
CommoChief: 3. Continue to hold the elections for House and Senate but on a separate ballot and under the laws, procedures and process adopted by the State legislature.
Huh? Then those elections would be subject to federal regulation per the U.S. Constitution, including that they be held on a Tuesday in November.
You are wish casting again. Look man, it’s simple. The feds can’t conscript the State.
If the Feds assert their right to preempt the States in controlling the election of HoR and Senate then the OK. That’s their constitutional option. No problem. All they have to do is pass a law.
What isn’t constitutional is conscription of the resources of the State in that course.
If you want the Feds telling CA and NY to start enforcing immigration laws then you should definitely keep making this misguided argument.
Either the Feds can pass a law and require the States to enforce it and support it or they can’t.
The fact that the law is about elections isn’t relevant. The only thing relevant here is that Congress doesn’t have the power to compel the States.
Would my proposal be disruptive? Sure. No more so than the Feds overriding the States. Actions have consequences. Expecting cooperation under these circumstances is foolish.
The States have a long history of resistance to the Feds attempting to compel or coerce them. This will likely not be any different.
Last time; where is the explicit text in our constitution which requires the States to provide resources in support of a Congressional preemption of the elections of HoR and Senate.
I am happy to be convinced but unless you can provide what I asked instead of wish casting then I will remain unconvinced.
CommoChief: The feds can’t conscript the State.
The Constitution conscripts the state with regards to federal elections, then gives the federal government the power to regulate that activity. The anti-commandeering doctrine does not apply in this instance.
Gee whiz. Even you yourself said “Continue to hold the elections for House and Senate but on a separate ballot and under the laws, procedures and process adopted by the State legislature.” If they do so, then those elections are subject to federal regulation.
If that’s true, that the Constitution explicitly requires the States to run elections for HoR and Senate then please provide the specific text which demonstrates this.
What you are continuing to do here is either choosing to be deliberately obtuse or you can’t wrap your head around the point.
Yes historically the States have always run elections. Including HoR and Senate elections.
That is certainly the status quo. No argument there.
What you are failing to appreciate is the impact of the change to the status quo. Congress has the power to tell the States in essence ‘we don’t like the way you are running the elections for HoR and Senate’.
That’s not a problem. That is Congress exercising the authority granted to them.
However, having done so, Congress lacks the power to compel the States to run the elections for HoR and Senate in a manner that Congress chooses.
The Feds can’t conscript the States. Now some States may voluntarily decide not to rock the boat. Others may not.
At a minimum the changes to election laws and procedures would only apply to HoR and Senate. Congress can’t use a preemption for those specific elections to attempt a preemption of the State all other elections.
Having exercised the option to preempt States for these specific Federal Offices and lacking the power to compel or conscript the States to require the States to conduct those elections it seems appropriate to ask what plan exists for the Federal government to manage the elections for those offices using their own resources.
The States are not subordinate entities of the Federal government. The Feds can’t require the States to enforce Federal laws.
It doesn’t matter if that is Federal Immigration law or if it is a new Federal elections law regarding the election of HoR or Senate.
The principle and very clear precedent on the lack of Constitutional authority to conscript the States in furtherance of Federal aims makes that evident.
Unintended consequences are no less consequential. The people pushing this misguided Federal takeover need to peer into the future and see how badly this may turn out.
Especially since the political fortunes of competing ideologies wax and wane. What will you say should there be r controlled of the HoR, Senate and Presidency who all decide to reform the election law?
I don’t imagine that CA and NY among other blue bastions will appreciate Congress telling them that in elections for HoR and Senate that only a DL or other ID which meets the provisions of the ‘real ID compliance’ can be used on election day.
Nor would they like elections being restricted to ‘election day’ with only in person voting and absentee ballots restricted to Citizens overseas.
A Federal preemption for HoR and Senate is fraught with peril. The power to do a thing doesn’t mean choosing to do that thing is a good idea.
CommoChief: If that’s true, that the Constitution explicitly requires the States to run elections for HoR and Senate then please provide the specific text which demonstrates this.
Even if you were to argue states don’t have to hold elections, the result would be no representation in the U.S. Congress. But the states have a constitutional duty to prescribe the manner of elections. And when they do, then those prescriptions are subject to federal regulation — contrary to what you said previously.
Obviously you are not arguing in good faith. You keep failing to cite the EXPLICIT language that requires the State to manage an election for HoR and Senate as directed by Congress.
There is no such provision. The section you are clinging to like a drunk protects his bottle does not say anything such thing.
Watch and see what happens. Based upon the history of States refusing to submit meekly to Federal efforts to conscript them and the large number of precedents of the Judicial Branch repeatedly ruling that the Feds lack the authority to force the States to underwrite Federal laws with any resources I predict you will be sorely disappointed.
Very last time. The Congress may decide that it doesn’t like the way States run elections for HoR and Senate. Ok so far so good.
Congress can’t conscript the resources of the State in supporting a Federal law or policy. If the Feds pass a law it is up to the Feds to enforce it.
They way Congress asserts it’s option to override the States is by ….passing a law.
A law. A law regarding election of HoR and Senate. The fact that the law is about elections or that it is the specified way in which Congress must exercise a power doesn’t grant that law any special or elevated status.
It is a law, plain and simple. Just as the States can’t be compelled to enforce Federal Immigration law they can’t be compelled to enforce Federal Election law.
The Feds, having usurped the traditional prerogative of the States in favor of a Federal law, will be required to enforce it.
In other words the Feds would have to set up, manage and maintain every aspect of that election law from voter registration to ballot security to counting the votes.
Yes, this would be a significant change to the status quo. It would place the Feds in the position of defending their election law and it’s procedures from suits by those who are harmed.
In the words of SNL, ‘hear me mow and believe me later’. At some point this reality will sink in for you.
CommoChief: You keep failing to cite the EXPLICIT language that requires the State to manage an election for HoR and Senate as directed by Congress.
What minimal action of the state, in your opinion, would be consistent with the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature”? And consistent with the clause that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”?
Hustlers have to hustle, especially when race is involved.
She is a red liar in a brown wrapper.
Plus her pants are on fire.
Nah, she’s just fat and stupid.
The question is, whose money is behind her? Bezos? Soros? Gates? Jobs?
And even if we knew whose money was behind her, Miss DIabetes 2021 she takes so much of the screen, we couldn’t see it.
Do these idiots really think we can go “check that tape” as they say? This isn’t 1960 when Walter would cover for you.
People on the left side of the Bell Curve usually object to it.
The truth is that both Biden and Abrams are pretty far down on their respective Bell Curves, though Abrams was in worse shape until Biden started losing more marbles, and now Abrams, though a moron, is marginally smarter that Biden.
I don’t know why Abrams doesn’t get that gap tooth fixed, it must be a trademark for her. She can surely afford dentistry. But she’s pretty clever and I think she’d score well on an IQ test. Not clever in ways we value, but she mobilizes votes without too much concern for their legality, and she promotes Stacy Abrams.
Another “true” statement from Abrams: “I’ve never been fat, stupid or gap-toothed.”
Why is anything Fat Adams says newsworthy?
Maybe, if Miss Diabetes 2021 announced she was swearing off fried food and donuts – that would rate a blurb.
But keep giving this.blimp more air?
Well you have to admit she looks mighty fine in that photograph. She don’t mind a photo ID now cause she’s gonna use that picture on it.
Her drivers license is the size of an iPad – they couldn’t get her photo to fit on it otherwise.
Yes, that’s true
Why do you call her Adams?
She was Pro-Life, before she was Pro-Choice.
That said, if a third-world nation can, surely we can, too. Higher expectations….
Those are not contradictory positions.
McConnell: an assault on the fundamental idea that states, not the federal government, should decide how to run their own elections.
Glad to see you demonstrate your new found respect for the text of our Constitution.
Now can you do the same for the 9th and 10th Amendments?
The Second amendment?
After all, you can hardly invoke a positive argument; ‘Congress may’ and ignore specific provisions where Congress shall not.
CommoChief: Now can you do the same for the 9th and 10th Amendments? The Second amendment?
McConnell indicated that the federal government does not have a role in federal elections, a claim contrary to both the Constitution and practice. The Fifteenth Amendment grants additional powers to the federal government, as does the Fourteenth Amendment.
States Rights TRUMP federal in elections, because nobody votes in federal elections. ONLY ELECTORAL COLLEGE. What you quote is often misused, and misquoted. STATES CONTROL THE FED GOVT, not the other way round. Congress can enforce this article, OF COURSE THEY ARE MEMBERS FROM THE STATES. Says nothing about the DOJ. DOJ Is not part of congress, and congress can only enforce (ha ha ha) if it involves RACE, COLOR, OR FELONIES The democrats try to control states with money. THATS WHY SENDING MONEY FROM STATES TO THE FED SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. Let each state fend for itself. SENDING MONEY TO THE FED IS COMMUNISM..REDISTRIBUTION…SHOULDNT BE DONE.
Wrong, wrong, couldn’t be wronger. Seriously, your comment betrays such profound ignorance that you should shut up and let people think you wise.
See reply in main thread.
What rock did you crawl back out of?
And yet enforcement is not the same as making new legislation nor are any of the provisions that have been added by states exercising their rights to regulate election integrity abridging on “account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude”.
On the contrary, that’s exactly what “enforce by legislation” means.
And no, these provisions don’t violate the 15th amendment, but Congress expressly has the right to regulate all congressional elections, except the location of polling places for senatorial elections.
What??? You mean Burger Beagle is a liar?????
When is someone gonna correct these dumb democrats? I guess they still think if something is said long enough people will repeat and it will be true until they actually check if out with the truth…WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY…ITS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC…AND THERE WAS NOT INSURRECTION. Here is the reasons they use this crap: DEMOCRACY Means MAJORITY WINS. NOT SO. THATS WHY WE ARE A REPUBLIC, SO MAJORITY WOULD NOT WIN. They use insurrection because of the 14th amendment. It says anyone involved in an INSURRECTION cannot run for office, SO THEY STUPIDLY THINK (as usual), they can stop TRUMP and others. HA HA HA. Abrams was fat before she was FATTER. Check out her history, parents, family..BE SURPRISED. And of course she is lying, SHE IS A DEMOCRAT, and of course MSM SUPPORTS HER. Take them down too
Fat and stupid. And just a useful idiot for some warped white liberal billionaire, so the rest of us have to suffer.
Just shut up. You’re not adding anything to the conversation, and you’re embarrassing those on your side.
Do what? It’s not whataboutism to demand intellectual honesty, no hypocrisy and basic logic from opponents in a debate.
The fifteenth amendment? Really, ok please direct me to the persons for whom the ‘previous condition of servitude’ provision would apply.
Race? Color? Not applicable. The limitation on the fifteenth amendment is it’s prohibition on denial of the franchise solely based upon ‘race, color or previous condition of servitude’.
None of the State level reforms enact any such thing.
14th amendment? Apportionment among the States? Due process? The State level reforms have a clear, transparent, neutral process that is equally applied in advancement of a compelling State interest; eliminate and/or mitigate voter fraud. If left unchecked that fraud dilutes the rights of legitimate voters.
Getting her nailed down on what she says is like nailing a big fat buffalo to a wall.
I have an idea where Fat Adams can finally be useful to our country: there are parts of the world where cannibalism still exists. If we can sell Adams to some Pacific Island tribe by the pound, we can take the money and pay down half the national debt.
Or they could give her an enema and fertilize 2500 acres in kansas.
Wouldn’t that cause that poor island to tip over and capsize?
OK I get it she’s fat enough of the fat shaming because I guess you all are 40-year-old prize physical specimens..
On another note she was smart enough to steal two Senate positions in Georgia, we need to deal with reality the Black Lives Matter threats of riots works.
The question is now what Do we do to get our country back .
I have no faith in the audit nothing is going to come of them.
I am ashamed of this country
Was she really that smart? Or was she just well-funded and the GOP did nothing about it because they didn’t want to be in charge any more. They realized they can sit around, do nothing, and make money off side deals if they are the minority party.
I was never against dieting
She was never against the “all-you-can-eat-buffet” concept”. I wonder how many businesses she put out of business …
The good news is morbidly obese cows usually die an early death.
“And it still retains S. 1’s rotten core: an assault on the fundamental idea that states, not the federal government, should decide how to run their own elections.”
But par for the course in a country where the federal government exclusively subsidizes partisan debates between the two halves of its favored Uniparty, while simultaneously denying representation to any others (except on rare occasions when doing so would benefit the Swamp).