Democrat U.S. House candidate accused of alcohol-fueled profanities toward pre-teen girls

...“She proceeded to tell me that Abby Broyles had been at the house and was very drunk and calling them all mfer’s, f’er this f’er that,” Matthews said. “[Broyles] called somebody acne f’er, somebody Hispanic f’er, called my daughter judgey f’er for not wanting to sleep with a blanket that she cleaned up wine with.”

...The mom on the phone told KFOR her daughter was brought to tears. She said Broyles came to apologize to her daughter that night, but that Broyles was too drunk to talk and instead vomited. The homeowner, who told us she didn’t want her name released, tells us that this happened at her home and that she’d never seen Broyles like that in the past.

Source kfor.com/news.

She's a top dem. She's a journalist. She's a lawyer like Hillary Clinton.

And she verbally abused preteen girls at a sleepover.

She goes on to blame hallucinations for her behavior. And she initially denied being at the sleep over.

What.is to be done about top dems?

I plan to help defeat them politically.

 

Dems do what Dems do.

 

Its true. Dems gonna Dem.

 

Why is there nary a dem to explain this?

Nary!

 

Aren't you the politically active, socially-conscious, citizen warrior! (?)


Your thread fails to define what is clearly one of its important points-- warranting inclusion, originally, in your title, though I see that has now disappeared-- that this person, who your conclusion implies you regard as such a threat to our country*, is a, "Top Dem." She is, it seems, merely a CANDIDATE,
making it hard to fathom the absolute Party condemnation, which is your reaction-- *as if being drunk, profane, and insulting, towards girls, at a sleep-over, is both a fair indictment of the Democratic Party, at large, and several standard deviations worse, than anything we know of, about former Republican candidates for office or, for that matter, about current Republican office-holders.


I will applaud the humor, however, in your inclusion of Hillary Clinton in the thread, because, like Clinton, the office-candidate, who is the focus of your noble quest, and implied call-to-arms, for others, "is a lawyer," as if that did not apply to the the majority of Republicans in the Senate, absolutely, and probably in the House, as well.



Epilogue:
I just went to research my last claim there, and while I was very safe, in saying that this is the most popular profession in Congress, of both Parties, I found it interesting to see that the preeminence of lawyers, among our national leaders, has been waning, for some time now.


https://thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/declining-dominance/


[SNIP]

In the mid-19th century, around 80 percent of the U.S. Congress were lawyers. By the 1960s, this number had dropped to about 60 percent. Today, just under 40 percent of the U.S. Congress are lawyers. The presidency has witnessed a similar pattern. While about 60 percent of all U.S. presidents since Independence have been lawyers, just four of the last 10 presidents have been lawyers.

 

So nothing about the.thread topic?

 

From what little was sketched out, in your OP, this story seems to rise barely above the level of those of the "human interest"- variety. I would only consider it of any relevance, at all, if I were one of the constituents, this woman was hoping to represent.

 

Shes running for the house, has nearly a million constituents, and the bar association might wanna know.

Do you want this top dem around kids let alone making laws that impact them?

I say nay.

Nay I say.

 

I saw no link.

For what Congressional District, is she running?*

Has she, yet, received the official Democratic Party endorsement?




* BTW, most districts have a good bit fewer than a million constituents. The math is not difficult: there are 435 Congressional Districts. If they averaged a million each, that would rough out to a population of about 435 million. Ours is actually more like 325 million. However, that doesn't mean that the district, in question here, may not have a higher number. Your post, thus, touches on an issue that I would rate of much greater concern, than whether some hopeful Dem Representative, got drunk & used the F- word, in front of some young girls. Hell, if she'd done it while rifling pot- shots, over their heads, to teach 'em a lesson, I might wax hopefully about a Dem who could be an interceding diplomat, between Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and some of the Dems that she gets a kick out of menacing.

This more important issue, which I only recently learned was the case, myself, is that the number of representives awarded each state, is not based strictly on any national standard, number of constituents. In fact-- and I've been wanting to investigate this further, anyway, if you want to make this, a part of your thread-- populous, mostly Blue, States' constituents get ripped off, by having to share each Rep with a greater number of others, while people in sparsely- populated, mostly Red States, have fewer constituents, per Representative.

Cumulatively speaking, this creates the greater problem of an inequality of proportional representation in the national Legislature, shorting voters living in Blue States, beyond the advantage already given to small states, by giving those, an equal number of members in the Senate, as even the most populous state.



But it doesn't end there-- because the total number of Congresspersons (House + Senate), representing any given state, matches the number of ELECTORAL VOTES for PRESIDENT, that each state gets. So larger, more populous states, are not only handicapped, in the Senate, as was part of the Constitutional design, and in their House delegations, as well, but also in the size of their voices, relative to population, they are given towards the choice of the leader of our Executive Branch.



History's most wicked twist of circumstance, however, has been the majority of these small-population states, COMBINING TOGETHER, their "GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE," ADVANTAGE, thereby allowing 41% of the country's population, to control the agenda, for the other 59%!


Now that, to anyone concerned for our country's future, is something worth talking about!

 

No - I wouldn't want her around kids and I wouldn't vote for her - for same reasons I wouldn't vote for Trump with his 20 plus accusations of sexual
impropriety - his screwing of porn stars while his wife was at home taking care of their new-born son, and his misuse of charity funds ...

 

Don't you know that, "this has nothing to do with Trump?" Do you want to be labelled as suffering from TDS, or whatever are the initials, of that made-up condition?
Do you want to be accused of Whataboutism?
Or, possibly, of presenting a Straw Man argument-- thereby discrediting your opinion, which will be taken as boosting the credibility of u.s.Conservative's position?

The odd thing about that, of course, being that, on its face, this thread should be about only one individual, but the OP has turned it into an indictment of the entire Democratic Party, or at least, "top Dems," which the thread- creator vows to oppose. Yet, he uses the "top Dem," term to apply to someone who does not hold ANY political office. Nor does she hold ANY POSITION in the DNC or other Party Organization post. She is-- and I don't say it this way, intending it to imply any disrespect, at all, for the profession-- just a journalist.

In fact, u.s.Conservative has yet to answer my question, as to if she even has the official Democratic Party endorsement. Still, the mere fact that she wishes to hold office, and is a registered Democrat, I guess, is all the reason he needs to fight Democratic leadership, writ large-- thereby acting to boost the success of Republican candidates.

And the "top Repub"-- supported by many of these Republicans who u.s.Conservative will be aiding (through is opposition of "top Dems")-- is, of course, Donald Trump.
But this thread is not supposed to be about Trump!

 

TLDNR

How can you spend that amount of time on a reply complete with color font instead of googling the district?

 

Trumffffff!!!!

You just can't help it.

He's coming.

 

As for the quality of my post, I believe in trying to do well, anything that I do; and, not unrelated to that idea--
How could you neglect to mention the District?

 

At least she apologized. That's more than what can be said of you, after many of your threads have been proven to be based on lies. So, look in the mirror first, before you cast the first stone.

 

The first time she tried to apologize she vomited.

 

Was the person being yelled at white? If so then it’s ok.
Don’t forget your CRT lessons folks.
All white children are responsible for the events that occurred 100s of years ago
This is science and cannot be proven wrong!

 

Good, now that you have become an expert on apologies, maybe you can try to apologize next time one of your copy-pasta threads from extreme RW sources is proven to be fake news. It should be liberating.

 

Democrat and Republican politicians are scumbags. Thats what the corrupt power of Washington attracts.

 

You ain't lying.

 

Strike 1 Democrat
Strike 2 Oklahoma
Strike 3 mixes alcohol with pills.

Yer out!

 

Funny, coming from someone who seems unable to post a simple link in their OPs...

 

And yet this.is who.top dems are and no link is.required in opinions.

Must frustrate some.

 

But Googling IS required?

 

Top dems? Never heard of her before this thread, and Google doesn't show any record of her ever holding elected office. She's running as a Democrat in Oklahoma City, which means that ain't likely to change. Relevance/Give a **** level = nonexistent. Reich-wing desperation level = sloppy reach around...