06-08-2021, 04:58 PM
(06-08-2021, 04:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Now we get to Abrams. I am aware she questioned the results of her gubernatorial race in Georgia--which was run/administrated by her opponent. And that she complained of his strategic purging of voter roles before the election. All that makes a reasonable ground, at least, for questioning an election. Which she did.
But when judicable evidence was not forthcoming, she conceded the election to her opponent.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/16/668737597/georgia-facing-final-deadline-for-ballot-certification-in-governors-race
Rather than continuing to sell a "big lie" that her election was stolen, she set about changing voter landscape in her state, working with other political activists to register 800,000 new voters. This is a DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE to an election loss, not evidence of authoritarianism and certainly not fascism. In consequence, the Senate shifted to Dem control and Georgia was a key to Dems winning the exec.
Fwiw, this article is from Sept. 15th 2019, almost a year after her defeat: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/why-stacey-abrams-still-wont-concede-194648579.html
Here's some highlights...
And despite acknowledging Kemp as the legal victor, Abrams has refused to officially concede the election.
“Concession in the political space is an acknowledgment that the process was fair,” she told Yahoo News. “And I don't believe that to be so.”
Abrams, the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives, said she “certainly was very sad, depressed, angry” after her loss, and has maintained that her campaign “would have come to a successful conclusion” if not for voter suppression. The state board of elections ruled Kemp the victor by fewer than 55,000 votes.
Here's an article right after the election where it's described "she doesn't quite conceed": https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/stacey-abrams-ends-her-race-for-governor-of-georgia-but-doesnt-quite-concede
Here's some highlights...
“Concession means to acknowledge an action is right, true, or proper,” Abrams told the crowd of reporters, staffers, and supporters. “As a woman of conscience and faith, I cannot concede.
Her campaign filed multiple lawsuits, picking up a few hundred votes here, insuring counts of a few thousand more there. Other groups, such as Common Cause Georgia, pursued litigation of their own.
She went on, “Pundits and hyper-partisans will hear my words as a rejection of the normal order. You see, I’m supposed to say nice things and accept my fate. They will complain that I should not use this moment to recap what was done wrong or to demand a remedy. You see, as a leader I should be stoic in my outrage and silent in my rebuke.” But, she added, “stoicism is a luxury, and silence is a weapon for those who would quiet the voices of the people. And I will not concede, because the erosion of our democracy is not right.”
Abrams announced that she will be creating a political-action committee called Fair Fight Georgia, which will be filing a federal lawsuit against the state
To each their own, but I see some striking similarities between the two. Both of them alleged foul play. Both brought about lawsuits to challenge the results. Both of them refuse to acknowelege that they lost in a fair manner, depsite rulings that indicate as such.
One is labeled a threat to democracy and their behavior in regards to this is described as being related to fascism (I'm not saying you're doing this, but others have). The other is applauded for fighting for what's right and calling out an unfair process (even though it was lated ruled to be fair).
I just see a lot of hypocrisy in the narratives that surround these two.
