(05-18-2020 12:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 11:15 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:53 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 10:48 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Read the link in post 2412 again.

I was asking why you think she is a one-trick-pony. That really doesn't clear things up about your opinion of her, and it sounds like you'd prefer not to answer.

Your insistence (requirement?) here of an overt explanation is kind of hypocritical in light of your not-so-long ago non-reply on further explanation of your position that a moral stance on abortion is an assault on science.

I believe your pithy comment in that was: read my post.

Now you complain when someone says to read a post.

Sounds fun.

Do you know what OO's post was?

Post 2412: Abrams (a link to the puff piece)

All about race. Very vague on details.

That hardly provides any insight into OO's thinking about the topic - it's a commentary on an article, not the candidate. At least when I referenced a post for OO to read, it provide my own opinion on a matter, not one that isn't relevant.

It's hard to be this dense without trying.

My opinion is in my comments on the article.

Her one trick is race, specifically voter suppression on the basis of race.

There are no details on her supposed voter suppression.

Her efforts since 2018 have all been on behalf of Fair Fight, her pet project dedicated to batlling the aforesaid voter suppression.

No word at all on what she thinks or what she has done about trade, or Iran, or the plight of blue collar workers. just the one trick.

Do I always have to spell things out for you?

Yes, it is helpful for one to actually articulate their opinion as opposed to just posting a news article.

When I read that piece, I took away that it was a puff piece on her as a person with a focus on her work to increase voter turnout and "civic participation" more broadly. But given that it's a single newspaper article, I wasn't sure why you felt it was indicative of a one-trick-pony. It's not like it is nearly wide-sweeping enough to cover all her policy opinions, and it's not like Abrams was promoting the piece saying it was.

In essence, you seem to be using a single article's narrative to evaluate whether or not Abrams has other "tricks" as you put it. She does seem very passionate about civic engagement, but when has someone's passion/primary focus been an immediate indicator of their ability to hold positions on other matters? Plus, when has she run for a position where those living outside of Georgia could readily expect to know those positions? Maybe this is the only clear position she has, but I definitely don't know enough about a former Georgian politician to know that for sure.

I figured you knew a lot about her background/positions since you felt she was a one-trick-pony, and I figured that a single article wasn't really enough backup to provide an explanation why. I guessed wrong.