Stacey Abrams running for governor again

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good to see some of you making progress on this...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Windham, Tolland and Middlesex counties are all solidly Republican and those Counties have all shrunk. I think the county that is shown population growth is Fairfield County . They also lag in income and there is a transfer of money from the Richer democratic counties to the poor Republican ones. Sound familiar as it's similar to what happens in the country as a whole.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

fairfield county lags in income? westport, new canaan, greenwich?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually according to the 2020 census CT’s population has increased in the past 10 years. Quality of life ranks pretty high.

it cranks very high if you can afford it, or if you ignore cost.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually according to the 2020 census CT’s population has increased in the past 10 years. Quality of life ranks pretty high.

hartford courant says it’s shrinking over time ( decade in census showed a tiny increase.). . and we’re down a congressional
seat.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cou...outputType=amp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

You're a one-trick angry person. All you care about is taxes. Where are the most highly educated highly paid people? If you think that's your idea of a s******* you need to look in the mirror
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

all i care about s taxes, yup.

i don’t deny Ct has a high education level. i’m just bit convinced that means what you think it means. we’re bankrupt paul. unfunded debt is over $50k per taxpayer. what happens when that’s due? any opinions?

very educated people applied high taxes to high incomes, then took billions from the casinos, and then spent zillions more than the tons of
money they had. if that’s what elite education gets you, i’m glad i went to uconn.

now we have legal
sports betting and legal
pot. hooray!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Wait...wait...he also cares about abortion and black unemployment. Oh, and his obsession with the Squad.

liberals don’t care about abortion! that’s why none of them are getting worked up about the SCOTUS case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

liberals don’t care about abortion! that’s why none of them are getting worked up about the SCOTUS case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why should barrett have recused herself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

“To follow her own 1998 law review article, Barrett should have recused herself from this case (indeed, all abortion cases) if she has any integrity at all.” But that’s a huge “if,” especially because her recusal would give Roberts the controlling vote!

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...use-herself-in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did you read that article? Barrett said that IF a catholic judge cannot put aside their catholicism in order to decide a case based on the law, then they must revise themselves. where is the evidence that Barrett cannot decide a case based on the law?

Barrett said in her conformation hearings, that she often decided cars in ways that resulted in an outcome that she didn’t like, but which was what the law required. that’s fine.

all judges have personal
opinions they are supposed to set aside. whether those opinions are formed from their parents, teachers, or religion, they must be put aside when deciding cases. a religiously-informed conscience is no more problematic for a judge than a conscience formed by what the judge was taught in school.

you sound like a religious bigot. there’s no rule that says only atheists can be good judges. if barrett supported a law that requires people to get communion on sunday’s, that would imply she’s putting her faith above the law. i know if no complaints that. suggest she puts her personal beliefs above the law.

another baseless argument, what a stupid article.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

did you read that article? Barrett said that IF a catholic judge cannot put aside their catholicism in order to decide a case based on the law, then they must revise themselves. where is the evidence that Barrett cannot decide a case based on the law?

Barrett said in her conformation hearings, that she often decided cars in ways that resulted in an outcome that she didn’t like, but which was what the law required. that’s fine.

all judges have personal
opinions they are supposed to set aside. whether those opinions are formed from their parents, teachers, or religion, they must be put aside when deciding cases. a religiously-informed conscience is no more problematic for a judge than a conscience formed by what the judge was taught in school.

you sound like a religious bigot. there’s no rule that says only atheists can be good judges. if barrett supported a law that requires people to get communion on sunday’s, that would imply she’s putting her faith above the law. i know if no complaints that. suggest she puts her personal beliefs above the law.

another baseless argument, what a stupid article.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She wrote the opinion that said

Barrett writes, “A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside” and “cuts himself loose from his moral moorings.” That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes — analogous to “looking lustfully at a woman” and thus committing adultery “in his thoughts.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

She wrote the opinion that said

Barrett writes, “A judge who suspends his moral judgment during sentencing sets his conscience aside” and “cuts himself loose from his moral moorings.” That unloosing is itself a sin, she concludes — analogous to “looking lustfully at a woman” and thus committing adultery “in his thoughts.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she also said a judge must revise if they’re unable to separate their religious beliefs from what the law says. she didn’t say all
catholics must recuse themselves.

a person whose personal
morals are derived from catholic teaching, is no less qualified to be a judge than a person whose moral
compass was informed
by what they were taught in college or by their parents. as long as a judge can set personal opinions aside when ruling, they’re fine. if a judge cannot out personal morals aside ( whether they are catholic morals or
liberal morals), that’s a bad judge.

there’s nothing unique about catholicism that makes one a bad judge. nothing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

According to the dark money that put her there, she was appointed to end abortion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

According to the dark money that put her there, she was appointed to end abortion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she’s superbly qualified to be a judge, way more so than sotomayor who was unanimously overturned by the supreme court on multiple
occasions ( meaning Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonio Scalia and everyone i. between, all agreed Sotomayor was wrong in the law).

there are plenty of non-catholic reasons to want it overturned. “search and seizure” is a very questionable way to conclude abortion is something for the feds to declare constitutional. search and seizure had to do with making sure the state has cause and a warrant before they attempt
to search you or your property. kind of a big legal
leap from
there to abortion.

there are plenty of
non catholics who think it should
be overturned.

even if it gets overturned ( zero chance in my opinion), that doesn’t mean abortion is illegal. it means states get to decide. there are plenty of blue states that will never outlaw it, so worst case scenario is women have to get to a blue state to get one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Safe abortion has always been available to rich people,
It wasn’t the wealthy dying of sepsis even before Roe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Safe abortion has always been available to rich people,
It wasn’t the wealthy dying of sepsis even before Roe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the wealthy always have better healthcare, that’s not limited to
abortion. it’s not an abortion issue.

defending abortion by saying people
will die during back room abortions, doesn’t work.

people get killed robbing banks, too. the solution, isn’t to legalize bank robbery. so spare me that stupidity.

i pay attention to these things. the pro abortion crowd never strays from talking about the convenience and benefits to the mother of abortion. they never talk about the baby’s point of view, never talk about adoption. Never. Because those facets of this issue, make your side look, well, bad.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Life is so simple in your world.
It turns out that George Carlin was right, women are just brood mares for the state, or are they as one politician said this week, vessels.

Have you ever known a woman who carried a baby to term and then gave it up for adoption?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Life is so simple in your world.
It turns out that George Carlin was right, women are just brood mares for the state, or are they as one politician said this week, vessels.

Have you ever known a woman who carried a baby to term and then gave it up for adoption?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t say simple.

but it’s a fact. you and i both agree thar women can choose what to do with their bodies, as long as someone else doesn’t get hurt. i see the baby as someone else. you don’t.

that’s the only difference we have on this issue. you’re not more pro choice than i am, or more pro woman than i am. the only distinction, is that you see the baby as nothing more than a lifeless clump. when i look at a high def ultrasound, i think i see a human being.

that explains 100% of our difference on that issue, yet the left spends 99% of its energy trying to avoid that discussion, because obviously it’s hard to demonize me for having empathy for an unborn baby.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Life is so simple in your world.
It turns out that George Carlin was right, women are just brood mares for the state, or are they as one politician said this week, vessels.

Have you ever known a woman who carried a baby to term and then gave it up for adoption?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“women are just brood
mares.”

there you go again, losing the debate so claiming i said something i never said.

i don’t think women have the right to
murder babies, and i consider that a human baby.

why are so many millions of women opposed to abortion? they’re all self
loathing masochists? all
of them? amy barrett is an idiot who advocates for her own enslavement?

i know one woman ( she was only 18) who carried a baby to term and gave it up for adoption. i don’t know why it’s relevant whether or
not i know someone who did so, but i do. carrying a baby to delivery isn’t trivial, but it’s not a huge deal for
most healthy women, either. it’s a whole lot less permanently invasive for the mom, than an abortion is for
the baby, that’s for sure.

my brother and sister in law also adopted three kids from russia. they couldnt have kids, so they adopted three.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Jim I’m curious if your daughter or a family members daughter is raped by the evil uncle or a first date gone horribly wrong, is it your belief she should be forced to carry to term? So your daughter or a close friends gets married and in her first pregnancy, it’s determined there is a high likelihood the baby with serious abnormalities and irreversible health issues will likely not be viable if carried to term, in your belief system and both scenarios your daughter needs to carry to term regardless of the health risks. Sorry for the young girl or women in either case. What if the girl is 13 at the time, still forcing her to carry to term Jim? Fuc*ed up is all I can say, I’m 100% behind a women being able to decide what course she takes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Jim I’m curious if your or a family members daughter is raped by the evil uncle or a first date gone horribly wrong, is it your belief she should be forced to carry to term? So your daughter or a close friends gets married and in her first pregnancy, it’s determined there is a high likelihood the baby with serious abnormalities and irreversible health issues will likely not be viable if carried to term, in your belief system, in both scenarios your daughter needs to carry to term regardless of the health risks. Sorry for the young girl or women in either case. What if the girl is 13 at the time, still forcing her to carry to term Jim? Fuc*ed up is all I can say, I’m 100% behind a women being able to decide what course she takes.

that’s a fair question.

before roe v wade, abortion was legal in the cases of rape and incest and when the life of the mom is in danger. i’d happily go back
to that.

abortions on rape victims are also rare, the vast majority of abortions are retroactive birth control for women who engaged in consensual sex.

so a law that only allowed abortions for rape, incest, and when the life of the mom is actually at risk, would
eliminate a huge percentage of abortions.

i see very big differences between a rape victim and someone who got pregnant from consensual
sex. i can’t imagine anyone going through that.

but if you think a baby is a human being at conception, the circumstances surrounding the conception don’t really matter that from the baby’s perspective. so i’d hope that rape victims
would somehow find it in them to give it up for adoption, but of
course that’s easy for me to say, having never been through that.

but again, i’d be very happy to return to pre roe v wade.

that’s a VERY fair and challenging question. but it also addresses a tiny percentage of abortions.

as far as abnormalities go, i don’t think people who weren’t born as lucky as you and i were, are any less human than we are, i don’t make those distinctions. killing people who have abnormalities sounds very Third Reich to me. i have a child with very slight special
needs, nothing too serious. It never occurred to me to chop him up in order to make my life easier. “God don’t make no junk”, as the expression goes.

i think the huge, huge majority of the pro life crowd would carve out exceptions for rape.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Jim I’m curious if your daughter or a family members daughter is raped by the evil uncle or a first date gone horribly wrong, is it your belief she should be forced to carry to term? So your daughter or a close friends gets married and in her first pregnancy, it’s determined there is a high likelihood the baby with serious abnormalities and irreversible health issues will likely not be viable if carried to term, in your belief system and both scenarios your daughter needs to carry to term regardless of the health risks. Sorry for the young girl or women in either case. What if the girl is 13 at the time, still forcing her to carry to term Jim? Fuc*ed up is all I can say, I’m 100% behind a women being able to decide what course she takes.

do you believe all women have that right, right up until the baby is out of the womb?

you pointed to an extreme scenario, so allow me to as well. healthy mom, consensual
sex, healthy baby, full term, mom decides she wants a 9th month abortion. you’re ok with that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1218837]Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

WRONG !!!
Most all conservatives are like me and have no problem with abortion as long as it’s done within a reasonable timeframe, NOT when the woman is 6-9 months and certainly not partial birth abortion!
Why any woman would be stupid enough to put her body through a pregnancy then abort it 6-9 months into it is #^&#^&#^&#^&ing retarded !!!

[Pete F.]

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1218875]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trumplicans would do anything to overturn Roe, using their typically variable belief in integrity.

WRONG !!!
Most all conservatives are like me and have no problem with abortion as long as it’s done within a reasonable timeframe, NOT when the woman is 6-9 months and certainly not partial birth abortion!
Why any woman would be stupid enough to put her body through a pregnancy then abort it 6-9 months into it is #^&#^&#^&#^&ing retarded !!!

You can discuss timeframe with Jim all you want.
I’m not the one to explain partial birth abortions and the reason they are performed to you.
Next time you go to your doctor, ask him what they are and why they are done. Tell him you’re concerned about what you’ve heard.
I assume since you’re trusting him with your life, you might value his opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

do you believe all women have that right, right up until the baby is out of the womb?

you pointed to an extreme scenario, so allow me to as well. healthy mom, consensual
sex, healthy baby, full term, mom decides she wants a 9th month abortion. you’re ok with that?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I don’t and most probably agree, if you have carried to term, you have basically already made that decision. Certainly in the early stages and certainly under the circumstances I detailed, I think it’s a women's choice not the governments. By extension, your standards and believe system shouldn’t be forced on anyone. A lot of young girls get pregnant and don’t know it until a lot of these proposed laws would outlaw abortion, I see no reason to force a young girl to carry to term due to a rape or a date going to far.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

No I don’t and most probably agree, if you have carried to term, you have basically already made that decision. Certainly in the early stages and certainly under the circumstances I detailed, I think it’s a women's choice not the governments. By extension, your standards and believe system shouldn’t be forced on anyone. A lot of young girls get pregnant and don’t know it until a lot of these proposed laws would outlaw abortion, I see no reason to force a young girl to carry to term due to a rape or a date going to far.

every single criminal law forces someone’s standards onto the rest of us, doesn’t it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

The 17-19 May national poll found that 53% of Republicans believe Trump, their party’s nominee, is the “true president” now, compared with 3% of Democrats and 25% of all Americans.

About one-quarter of adults falsely believe the 3 November election was tainted by illegal voting, including 56% of Republicans,

How many liberals think GA was stolen NONE

I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election,

Still waiting on you know who to concede


Jims evidence an Instagram post

Stacy (sic) Abrams had the governorship of Georgia stolen from her by a corrupt Secretary of State who abused his office to suppress the vote and hand himself the election,” the Instagram post by liberal account The Other 98% reads. “What did she do? She rolled up her sleeves, registered 800,000 new voters and is about to flip her state blue.”


It’s odd Jim you question vote counting changing over night and mail in ballots

But questing Georgia’s secretary of state. As secretary of state, Kemp who was in charge of running the state’s elections. While running for the office of Governor

, he trimmed more than 1.4 million inactive voters, with low-income and minority Georgians most likely to have their registrations canceled, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Over 668,000 of those registrations were canceled in 2017. In the lead-up to the 2018 election, Georgia put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, the majority of them Black voters, for additional screening.

Yes the law allowed him to do so ..but the optics .. that is the behavior Abrams protested against .

So when you can show that she sued in court to have votes thrown out or a phone call of her asking for anyone to find 55,001 votes so she can win

The 2 are not remotely the same as you insist , even after page after page of evidence which shows she concedes the election to Kemp. Abrams maintains that the 2018 Georgia election process was not fair (Not stolen)

And from your Ted cruise committee questions. You left out this committee statement .. The committee wrote that despite that, it learned “new, concerning information” about voter suppression in Georgia. After removing more than 500,000 voters from rolls – perhaps the largest single cancellation of voter registrations in U.S. history, said

but I get it… how dare a black women question the actions of a white dude in a state who’s racial past isn’t that far in the past…. But it’s ok for Trump to try to overturn a National election .. Americans are still waiting on Trumps and Rudy’s and the kraken and the pillow guys evidence

But but Abrams and classic conservatives tactic Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The 17-19 May national poll found that 53% of Republicans believe Trump, their party’s nominee, is the “true president” now, compared with 3% of Democrats and 25% of all Americans.

About one-quarter of adults falsely believe the 3 November election was tainted by illegal voting, including 56% of Republicans,

How many liberals think GA was stolen NONE

I acknowledge that former Secretary of State Brian Kemp will be certified as the victor in the 2018 gubernatorial election,

Still waiting on you know who to concede


Jims evidence an Instagram post

Stacy (sic) Abrams had the governorship of Georgia stolen from her by a corrupt Secretary of State who abused his office to suppress the vote and hand himself the election,” the Instagram post by liberal account The Other 98% reads. “What did she do? She rolled up her sleeves, registered 800,000 new voters and is about to flip her state blue.”


It’s odd Jim you question vote counting changing over night and mail in ballots

But questing Georgia’s secretary of state. As secretary of state, Kemp who was in charge of running the state’s elections. While running for the office of Governor

, he trimmed more than 1.4 million inactive voters, with low-income and minority Georgians most likely to have their registrations canceled, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Over 668,000 of those registrations were canceled in 2017. In the lead-up to the 2018 election, Georgia put 53,000 voter registrations on hold, the majority of them Black voters, for additional screening.

Yes the law allowed him to do so ..but the optics .. that is the behavior Abrams protested against .

So when you can show that she sued in court to have votes thrown out or a phone call of her asking for anyone to find 55,001 votes so she can win

The 2 are not remotely the same as you insist , even after page after page of evidence which shows she concedes the election to Kemp. Abrams maintains that the 2018 Georgia election process was not fair (Not stolen)

And from your Ted cruise committee questions. You left out this committee statement .. The committee wrote that despite that, it learned “new, concerning information” about voter suppression in Georgia. After removing more than 500,000 voters from rolls – perhaps the largest single cancellation of voter registrations in U.S. history, said

but I get it… how dare a black women question the actions of a white dude in a state who’s racial past isn’t that far in the past…. But it’s ok for Trump to try to overturn a National election .. Americans are still waiting on Trumps and Rudy’s and the kraken and the pillow guys evidence

But but Abrams and classic conservatives tactic Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.“
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"How many liberals think GA was stolen NONE "

Just because you say no one believes Abrams, doesn't make it so. I have seen the polling that an embarassing number of republicans think the election was stolen. I haven't seen any polling on how many Georgians believe Abrams. Neither have you. Yet you state no one believes her. You are making that up.

You just make up and fabricate what helps your case. You denied that Abrams said the election was stolen, even after I posted video of her saying exactly that Abrams is popular and mainstream and influential on the left, even though she is perpetuating the same lie that you attack Trump for telling. You don't care about spreading that lie, only when Republicans do it.

You care to be angered at people who don't get the vaccine. Trump is encouraging people to get vaccinated, Harris went on TV and said she would refuse to take any vaccine that came under the Trump administration. Yet you can't criticize Harris for encouraging people not to get vaccinated, she's a democrat, that's all that maters to you.


"Jims evidence an Instagram post"

You are very, very dishonest. My evidence was Abrams speaking in front of the US Senate on video, where she said it was stolen.

She's on video saying it, and you are still denying she said it. Amazing.

Every single voter that was trimmed from those voting rolls, every single one, still had the right to vote in that gubernatorial election. That is a fact.

And voter turnout, even among blacks, was very high.
Just watch the video, Wayne. The facts are there. Abrams doesn't deny the facts.

"how dare a black women question the actions of a white dude"

The last, pathetic, desperate act of a liberal moron who knows he lost the argument but can't admit a democrat can be wrong.

She's on video saying it was "stolen". But you deny she said it was stolen. That's rational.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

and the pillow guys evidence

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

those pillows are on deep discount and would make a tremendous Christmas gift for your loved ones...I bet you can get some at the Let's Go Brandon Store

[Jim in CT]

WDMSO:

"Stacey Abrams never said it was stolen, even though Jim posted a video where she told the US Senate it "was stolen". "

"NO ONE (even in caps for emphasis) in Georgia believes it was stolen. Anyway, it was stolen, because the white secretary of state stole it." - so which is it, was it stolen, or was it not stolen?

"64% of blacks aren't fully vaccinated, I bet those are the blacks who are Republicans"

"Republicans aren't getting vaccinated because of the immensely popular and influential person known as Bigtree".

That's some flawless logic there. Flawless.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO:

"Stacey Abrams never said it was stolen, even though Jim posted a video where she told the US Senate it "was stolen". "

"NO ONE (even in caps for emphasis) in Georgia believes it was stolen. Anyway, it was stolen, because the white secretary of state stole it." - so which is it, was it stolen, or was it not stolen?

"64% of blacks aren't fully vaccinated, I bet those are the blacks who are Republicans"

"Republicans aren't getting vaccinated because of the immensely popular and influential person known as Bigtree".

That's some flawless logic there. Flawless.

Who you love making stuff up!

Why do you take actual stories with links .. then insert your own interpretation…. With out reading the article


Maybe you get your info from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s claim that, “in most states,” Black residents are “the biggest group” of unvaccinated people.

He then added: “Well, the biggest group in most states are African Americans who have not been vaccinated. The last time I checked, over 90% of them vote for Democrats in their major cities and major counties.”

However, there is no support for the claim that Black people are the “biggest group” of people who have yet to get a shot.

a nonpartisan, health-issues organization, reported that across 40 states with comparable data as of Aug. 16, the percentage of people who had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine was 50% for whites, 45% for Hispanics and 40% for Blacks. Because Blacks (41.1 million) and Hispanics (62.1 million) make up a much smaller portion of the overall U.S. population than whites (204.3 million), those percentages indicate that, in raw numbers, far more white people remain unvaccinated against the disease.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/sc...-black-people/

I know fact-checking sites are fake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device