Talk:Stacey Abrams

Please discuss alternative language here. Thank you. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 23:58, 10 May 2021 (EDT)

I honestly don't give a darn about discussions, especially when they waste time and many times are unproductive. But fine, I'll humor you. The edit about Stacey Abrams was up and out sourced, and last I checked, if a wiki edit has sourced information, it is to STAY, UNLESS the source is up and out false and/or doesn't match up. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

It was sourced to Brad Raffensperger. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 05:33, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

So? It still is sourced showing how Abrams was ultimately a sore loser who would rather peddle conspiracy theories than accept her loss. And let me remind you that despite being a far-left website otherwise, HuffPost actually DID give an article that gave surprisingly severe condemnation of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

Does Brad Raffensaperger represent a conservative perspective? is he a credible source? RobS^{Free Kyle!} 05:50, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

Brad Raffensperger cannot be used without naming him by name to make him look credible. Failing to do so appears to be the work of woke leftists. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 05:56, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

HuffPost is a very left-wing source, yet when even THEY admit that Che Guevara was a scumbag who shouldn't be worshipped, broke ranks with their fellow leftists at that, it's still grounds for citation despite that. I'm pretty sure even Raffensberger still qualifies as a valid source in this particular case as well. Either way, I fail to see how Stacey Abrams comes out clean with that source, and if anything removing it is more likely to aid her than it is to aid Conservativism. To put it another way, I fail to see how Woke Leftists would have anything to gain citing Raffensberger at all, especially when if anything that would cause them to stop supporting Abrams. Pokeria1 (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

It was never mentioned that Brad Raffensperger was the source trashing Abrams. Using his name might have even generated some sympathy for Abrams rather than making her look like a paranoid conspiracy kook. RobS^{Free Kyle!} 06:10, 11 May 2021 (EDT)

And would the fact that Raffensberger was technically on her side be more of a reason to use it as a source since he's literally condemning her? Besides, woke leftists don't even listen to him anyways, even when he's capitulating to their ends. Even though George W. Bush was closer in political outlook to George Lucas regarding globalism, the latter STILL trashes the former as a provincial boob who doesn't care about the world. It would be the same deal here. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2021 (EDT)