Stacy Abrams Thread

#651
#651
Franklin Pierce said:
Stacey Abrams Charity Has a $500,000 Problem In Its Latest Tax Filing

Over half a million dollars is missing from the New Georgia Project, a discrepancy which experts say is grounds for state and federal investigations into the Stacey Abrams-founded group and the woman Abrams tapped to run it.

The New Georgia Project filed its 2021 Form 990 financial disclosure in January, two months after the form was due to the IRS, and three months after the charity’s board chairman fired CEO Nse Ufot, Abrams’s hand-picked leader for the group. In the disclosure, the New Georgia Project reports a $533,846 consulting payment and a $67,500 grant to the Black Male Initiative, an obscure charity run in part by Ufot’s brother, Edima, a former New Georgia Project employee.

But the Black Male Initiative says it never received any such consulting payment. The group provided the Washington Free Beacon with its IRS financial disclosures, which show it collected $0 in consulting income and just $255,000 in contributions from all sources in 2021.

Stacey Abrams Charity Has a $500,000 Problem In Its Latest Tax Filing
Click to expand...
Check Golden Corral. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ratvol
#653
#653
#657
#657
luthervol said:
She didn't. And she had some valid points in the first one.
Click to expand...
no she didn't. she just completely flip flopped on the expanded voting rights because an R put it into practice. all she did was drive the divide, and confuse the issue on a national scale, because people didn't know the context of the new voting laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and Sara Clark
#658
#658
LouderVol said:
no she didn't. she just completely flip flopped on the expanded voting rights because an R put it into practice. all she did was drive the divide, and confuse the issue on a national scale, because people didn't know the context of the new voting laws.
Click to expand...
Election lawsuit backed by Stacey Abrams goes to trial in Georgia

The lawsuit originally called for a sweeping overhaul of the state’s elections, but its scope was considerably narrowed after the state made changes that addressed some allegations and others were dismissed by the court.
 
#659
#659
luthervol said:
Election lawsuit backed by Stacey Abrams goes to trial in Georgia

The lawsuit originally called for a sweeping overhaul of the state’s elections, but its scope was considerably narrowed after the state made changes that addressed some allegations and others were dismissed by the court.
Click to expand...
why didn't you include the orange in your underline?
"Among other things, the state’s measure reduced the window to request an absentee ballot(1), stripped power from the secretary of state (2)and sharply curtailed the use of absentee ballot drop boxes (3) in populous and Democratic-voting metro Atlanta counties.."

1. All they did was define when Absentee ballots applications HAD to be responded to, either with denial or providing a ballot. Before this law there was no time frame that the state had to respond. So previously under the law the state could never respond to an absentee ballot request, or could wait until after the absentee ballots were accepted. yes the overall days got reduced, but it came with a guarantee of response within that window.The people can still send in their requests after the stated dates, its just not guaranteed that they will be responded to in time, based on demand. That seems pretty reasonable to me, and puts more emphasis on the state, defining the time when they HAD to respond. -this is her and you complaining because you do not know the context. SB202 Section 25 spells it out.
2. This is something that Abrams pushed for previously. because she alleged that they interfered and played politics with it. this was a non-partisan issue until she changed her mind and made it an issue under the new system there is an elected person specifically for this job and candidates had to come from both parties. SB202 Section 5-flip flop by Stacey.
3. similar to issue number 1. before this law there was ZERO requirement for drop boxes. even at polling locations. This law required all polling locations have drop boxes. AND there was at least one other drop box in every district. This law set a minimum number that has to be provided, not a maximum number that could be provided. - again you two not knowing the context. SB202 Section 26, "A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall establish at least one drop box 1173 as a means for absentee by mail electors to deliver their ballots to the board of registrars 1174 or absentee ballot clerk. "..."The drop box location shall have adequate lighting and be under 1187 constant surveillance by an election official or his or her designee, law enforcement 1188 official, or licensed security guard. During an emergency declared by the Governor 1189 pursuant to Code Section 38-3-51, drop boxes may be located outside the office of the 1190 board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk or outside of locations at which advance voting 1191 is taking place, subject to the other limitations of this Code section. "

as I said her case is BS and relies on ignorance.

Go find these actual issues in the law. provide the section number and line of text. because I am willing to bet these problems don't actually exist. They even make it clear what the law was previously, vs what it is now. and down the whole bill, it is almost always expansion, expansion, expansion. Its only by taking certain parts of the bill, while ignoring the context of the specifics, that they are able to find any real issues.

why not include any of the positive changes?
Expanding the possible volunteers and workforce
Expanding Voting hours SB202 Section 2 (5)
Guaranteed funds for all districts instead of only some Sb202 Section 2 (6)
The possibility of resolving issues between districts, previously if the locals had an issue there was no mechanism to resolve them. SB202 (7)
Section 18 SB202 specifies if people were not able to complete their voting by an hour after closing that that precinct had to be redesigned until they got to a point in the next election where voting could be completed in time.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498
 
#662
#662
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Well, at least she's found her calling in life now. Here's to hoping she stays there forever.
Click to expand...

I don't actually care about her one way or another. But it's odd how this new position of hers seem to somehow concern you rightists, very odd. It's as if you're fixated on Miz Stacy. Do you happen to be closet AOC admirers as well? Or, or, or, it's a him that smelt it dealt it type of thing with you lot.
 
#663
#663
LouderVol said:
why didn't you include the orange in your underline?
"Among other things, the state’s measure reduced the window to request an absentee ballot(1), stripped power from the secretary of state (2)and sharply curtailed the use of absentee ballot drop boxes (3) in populous and Democratic-voting metro Atlanta counties.."

1. All they did was define when Absentee ballots applications HAD to be responded to, either with denial or providing a ballot. Before this law there was no time frame that the state had to respond. So previously under the law the state could never respond to an absentee ballot request, or could wait until after the absentee ballots were accepted. yes the overall days got reduced, but it came with a guarantee of response within that window.The people can still send in their requests after the stated dates, its just not guaranteed that they will be responded to in time, based on demand. That seems pretty reasonable to me, and puts more emphasis on the state, defining the time when they HAD to respond. -this is her and you complaining because you do not know the context. SB202 Section 25 spells it out.
2. This is something that Abrams pushed for previously. because she alleged that they interfered and played politics with it. this was a non-partisan issue until she changed her mind and made it an issue under the new system there is an elected person specifically for this job and candidates had to come from both parties. SB202 Section 5-flip flop by Stacey.
3. similar to issue number 1. before this law there was ZERO requirement for drop boxes. even at polling locations. This law required all polling locations have drop boxes. AND there was at least one other drop box in every district. This law set a minimum number that has to be provided, not a maximum number that could be provided. - again you two not knowing the context. SB202 Section 26, "A board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk shall establish at least one drop box 1173 as a means for absentee by mail electors to deliver their ballots to the board of registrars 1174 or absentee ballot clerk. "..."The drop box location shall have adequate lighting and be under 1187 constant surveillance by an election official or his or her designee, law enforcement 1188 official, or licensed security guard. During an emergency declared by the Governor 1189 pursuant to Code Section 38-3-51, drop boxes may be located outside the office of the 1190 board of registrars or absentee ballot clerk or outside of locations at which advance voting 1191 is taking place, subject to the other limitations of this Code section. "

as I said her case is BS and relies on ignorance.

Go find these actual issues in the law. provide the section number and line of text. because I am willing to bet these problems don't actually exist. They even make it clear what the law was previously, vs what it is now. and down the whole bill, it is almost always expansion, expansion, expansion. Its only by taking certain parts of the bill, while ignoring the context of the specifics, that they are able to find any real issues.

why not include any of the positive changes?
Expanding the possible volunteers and workforce
Expanding Voting hours SB202 Section 2 (5)
Guaranteed funds for all districts instead of only some Sb202 Section 2 (6)
The possibility of resolving issues between districts, previously if the locals had an issue there was no mechanism to resolve them. SB202 (7)
Section 18 SB202 specifies if people were not able to complete their voting by an hour after closing that that precinct had to be redesigned until they got to a point in the next election where voting could be completed in time.

https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498
Click to expand...
Because it wasn't relevant to my point. I included it in the quote, just didn't underline it.
What I said was "she had some valid points." I'll stand by that.
She also had some invalid points, I guess we can both stand by that.
 
#664
#664
  • Like
Reactions: tbh and AirVol
#667
#667
luthervol said:
Because it wasn't relevant to my point. I included it in the quote, just didn't underline it.
What I said was "she had some valid points." I'll stand by that.
She also had some invalid points, I guess we can both stand by that.
Click to expand...
Those three items were the only items mentioned in her agenda after the changes. I directly quoted the parts of the bill that refute her, and your, argument. What else do you have?

I have always said, its one thing if you don't think SB202 went far enough; but as I have shown its an expansion in pretty much everything it touches. the only real limits placed were because previously those items weren't defined, or powers weren't defined, and that allowed a lot of funny business and inconsistencies in the poorer districts.

and whats more is that Stacey likely knows that its an actual expansion of what was here, she just doesn't care and is attacking it because of the party that passed it. and its not an R's wet dream of legislation either. electronic voting was standardized, expanded absentee voting was protected, voting days were increased, the acceptable forms of ID was increased.

but you aren't intellectually honest enough to admit these things.
 
#669
#669

Stacey Abrams' Brother-In-Law Arrested On Human Trafficking, Battery Charges​


Florida officials said Jimmie Gardner Engaged in Sexual Activity With A Minor Before Assaulting Her​

The brother-in-law of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a Democrat, has been arrested in Florida on charges of human trafficking, battery and lewd or lascivious touching of a minor, according to the Office of the State Attorney for the 13th Judicial Circuit.

"Jimmie Gardner, a youth motivational speaker and brother-in-law of former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, is facing serious charges of human trafficking and is currently in jail in Hillsborough County with no bond. Gardner is scheduled to face a judge in first [court appearance] in Tampa tomorrow," the office said in a Friday press release.

Tampa Police stated that the incident occurred early Friday morning at the Renaissance Hotel at International Plaza when 57-year-old Jimmie Gardner allegedly engaged in sexual acts with a 16-year-old girl before assaulting her during an altercation.


1700280379405.png
Jimmie Gardner, the brother-in-law of former Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (right). (Hillsborough County Sheriff/Getty Images)

www.foxnews.com

Stacey Abrams' brother-in-law arrested on human trafficking, battery charges

Stacey Abrams' brother-in-law has been arrested on multiple charges, including human trafficking, after allegedly engaging in sexual activity with a minor and assaulting her.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
#672
#672
A source familiar with the matter said Tuesday the group is continuing its “core operations of voter protection, communication, and operations.”

thehill.com

Fair Fight, group started by Stacey Abrams, lays off staff

Fair Fight, a political action committee founded by former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams (D), has laid off 19 members of its staff as lawsuits have left the group strapped. A source f…
thehill.com thehill.com
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top