Hey Bobby (Jindal), Marco (Rubio) thatâs how itâs done!!!
For those who criticized the start of her speech , she needed to introduce herself to the country ( at least to those who donât read TPM). I loved those anecdotes about her dad. Made her that much more relatable.
Fact Check: Democratic Response To Trumpâs State Of The Union Address real time transcript by NPR Staff, February 5, 201910:36 PM ET
TPM might want to consider something like this next time around.
Abrams hit (almost) all the right spots â health care, immigration, voting rights and the franchise, integrity in government, climate change* â with considerably more substance, energy, factual accuracy, coherence (and an absence of fear mongering) than the speech she was responding to.
- she could not respond directly to the issue of climate change because that topic was completely absent from the fake potusâs low-energy, factually challenged screed. Would have liked to see it as a major topic in her response regardless.
Thank you!
Stacey Abrams: âWe know bipartisanship could craft a 21st century immigration plan, but this administration chooses to cage childrenâŚ"
Sarah Huckabee: âLook, sales and hiring are up over 2,000% in the Child-Cage Industry, and I think those numbers speak for themselves about the leadership and economic policies of this visionary President.â
I canât wait for a future when Republicans will argue about not paying âreparationsâ for these kids. I mean, assuming that since they made no efforts to track them the end-game isnât to simply gas them.
Interesting. Thereâs been no abandonment among the Democrats of the idea or ideal of bipartisanship that I could see, no no-prisoners sort of thing; itâs more that theyâve weaponized it. Trumpâs crocodile tears wouldnât ring true and they knew it. Savvy, Iâd say. And I think it comes from the top. Just some intuitive thoughts here.
My prediction: Trumpp will leave it to his proxy bullshitters (heh, my fingers initially typed âbullshitlersâ) to hit back at Abrams.
He might have been willing to attack her himself if she was an elected official, representing an institution and the citizens of her state. In that situation, he knows heâd have the advantage of being willing to engage in âconduct unbecoming.â As a private citizen, she can set her own standards for decorum and fully utilize her advantages (not being an ignorant, racist, narcissistic, paranoid sociopath, just for starters). He might make some references to her or her comments, but I donât expect him to tweet out his usual insulting nicknames and demeaning comments about intelligence or appearance. Mostly, heâll comfort himself with the claim that everybody thought Abrams was go to win her election easily until he campaigned for her opponent and âbeat her easily.â
Stacey Abrams is smart and classy and she demonstrated that tonight! Very astute young woman.
Iâm sorry, but in terms of opportunity, her response was a disaster.
If you liked her âlife storyâ open, fineâŚbut from then on, there was nothing gained. Every line repeaated all the things that Democrats are againstâŚand absolutely nothing as to what we intend to do about them. To independent voters who watched, it was the same old whine. And thereâs no reason to sing to our choirâŚtheyâre in the pews to stay.
Comments afterwards seemed to suggest âshe wrote it herselfââŚwhich is a veiled criticism of party leadershipâand justifiably so.
This sounded like her announcement rally in a run for the Senate. But here? Wrong time, wrong speech.
From what I read else where yesterday , he had been coached over the past few day on how to get his facial study correct - to try and look good .
Absolutely. I respect her father. I have to. She spent 30% of her meager time extolling his virtues. What a disaster of a rebuttal. Sheâs had her 15 minutes. Whatâs her fall-back career option?
Funny how empty-suit Beto OâRourke, a white man who is utterly unqualified to be President, is considered a viable candidate whereas Stacey Abrams, an African American woman of considerable accomplishment and education, is never mentioned.
I wonder why that is? Thinking hardâŚ
and absolutely nothing as to what we intend to do about them. To independent voters who watched, it was the same old whine.
Opportunity missed and yes, âsame old whine.â
The anecdote about her dad was good. The rest of her speech was sort of astonishingly mediocre. Bear in mind that this is a professional politician with limitless resources. Anyway, will bite my tongue and get on with my day.
Oh, thatâs great news, the traitors of the country, the GOP, are going to be allowed to survive in the name of bipartisanship.
Or, are you saying to erode them away into nothingness is the savvy slow motion garrotting thatâs needed, instead of the quick swift fall of a blade lopping?
Whatever the case, the GOP needs to be destroyed for what it has done and what it has been accomplice to; if not, we all become accomplices, aiders and abettors, of a foreign evil regime, Russia.
Welp, 13 people thought it was a worthwhile observation. I thought I was talking about it as a tactical thing, since we have control of one-sixth of the government, you might say, and tactics will have to be savvy and progress may be slow. If you know how to swiftly make the GOP go âpoof,â by all means stop wasting your time here and rush down to D.C. and explain to the DNC how youâd do that. Explain it well enough to me first and Iâll buy your ticket.
Iâm not sure why you posted this as a reply to my comment.
My comment said nothing about her SOTU response and was independent of any words or comportment from that response.
Your reply appears to be a rebuttal to a review I didnât make.
Youâre rightâmy stupid mistake!