The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
So one thing you have to understand about the Hill. It is owned by a major Trump supporter and close friend. So all this pro-Bernie stuff and anti-Pete and anti- Biden narrative that comes from Krystal Ball and these people is also dirty. Pete's win isn't 'fake'. WTF does that even mean? He and Bernie essentially tied and they both declared victory. Good for both of them. And yes, Pete's bump is real.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Also thehill on Pete:mrussel1 said:
I think that the left-center support is starting to coalesce around Pete. There's a feeling he may be real and has a chance, which wasn't the case a few months ago. As Pete surges, Biden will fall. The same is happening on the Sander/Warren side.Ledbetterman10 said:Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-pollPanel: Did Pete's 'fake' win give him a real bump?
https://youtu.be/RDDYEJXTGoc0 -
Are you against all "negative" campaigning? I put the word "negative" in quotes, because I don't mean it in the traditional sense. Rather, I mean are you against all forms of politics that say "I'm against X" (with X either being a political position or a candidate)? And thus the only form of acceptable statement is "I'm for X" (with X being either a political position or a candidate)? If that's so, I don't necessarily disagree; I just think it would be a tough stance to uphold.mrussel1 said:
No, it's that the positions look so perfectly aligned, they appear to be Sanders supporters who are running what is essentially a negative ad against Pete. I don't find it unusual that queer leftists support Sandes, nor would I expect homogeneous support of Pete just because he's gay. At the same time, when the pattern of 'complaints' against Pete so perfectly tie into Sanders campaign promises, then I think it's dirty pool. If you want to advocate for Bernie, that's great. I love it. But don't do it in this way, designed to specifically damage Pete's support in the community, without making it clear that you're really pro-Bernie.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:0 -
I don't like negative campaigning in general, but I agree that's a tough stance. However, I definitely do not like negative campaigning intra-party. You damage the party candidate and it's hard to walk that back. But if you're going to do it, at least be transparent. This is both negative and lacks transparency IF (and I say if which is the basis of my critique) it came from a group of people/person specifically aligned with Sanders.ecdanc said:
Are you against all "negative" campaigning? I put the word "negative" in quotes, because I don't mean it in the traditional sense. Rather, I mean are you against all forms of politics that say "I'm against X" (with X either being a political position or a candidate)? And thus the only form of acceptable statement is "I'm for X" (with X being either a political position or a candidate)? If that's so, I don't necessarily disagree; I just think it would be a tough stance to uphold.mrussel1 said:
No, it's that the positions look so perfectly aligned, they appear to be Sanders supporters who are running what is essentially a negative ad against Pete. I don't find it unusual that queer leftists support Sandes, nor would I expect homogeneous support of Pete just because he's gay. At the same time, when the pattern of 'complaints' against Pete so perfectly tie into Sanders campaign promises, then I think it's dirty pool. If you want to advocate for Bernie, that's great. I love it. But don't do it in this way, designed to specifically damage Pete's support in the community, without making it clear that you're really pro-Bernie.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:0 -
Anyone rallying around anything that calls itself "_____ Against _____" during a primary of your own parties candidates are a bunch of lapdogs for one of the other candidates. Bernie and his supporters always act this way. Since they know they can't get enough people "for" them....start tearing down the threats.ecdanc said:
I can't judge his intent, only what he wrote. Here's my take: this is a group of authentic individuals 1) who are queer, 2) who see a member of the LGBTQIA community who is gaining in popularity and who has political stances with which they don't agree, and 3) whose politics align with Sanders's. Is that grassroots? Are some Sanders supporters part of the "grassroots" and others aren't? Or are they all, by definition, not (which is what mrussel seemed to imply)? Is there some litmus test for what constitutes "a sincere call to action?"benjs said:
He said what he didn't think the site was, based on the way the site presents, then he said what he does think it was, based on the way the site presents (i.e. almost a carbon copy of Bernie's stated policies in list form). Then, add in the context of Bernie Bros behaviours from the last election, the fact that Sanders and Buttigieg were neck-in-neck in Iowa, and it's pretty hard to see this site as a sincere call to action.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:
I also don't think there was any intention to highlight those as opposites or to create a contrast - your response was the first time I even thought about this as an 'either/or' discussion.
Like, I get disagreeing with the positions--that's expected and part of the political landscape. I don't really get the attempt to invalidate the people (not just their political stances) by drawing a divide between "real" people practicing politics and the implicit "fake" people (Russians even!) posters here seem to be worried about. I don't find it difficult to believe the veracity/authenticity of QueersagainstPete because I know a ton of people like this--they're a huge part of my Facebook feed. Are they Sanders supporters? Yes! Are they sincere in their concern about Buttigieg? Absolutely. What's weird about that?hippiemom = goodness0 -
Again, what does that mean? Pretend I'm one of your students: how is this site bs?mcgruff10 said:
No I am saying the web site is bs. (Although I don’t agree with any of the positions on the web site)ecdanc said:
Ah, I get what you're saying: you think the positions themselves are bullshit; I thought you were saying the page wasn't real or something.mcgruff10 said:0 -
Ugh. Krystal Ball, she gives me the creeps.mrussel1 said:
So one thing you have to understand about the Hill. It is owned by a major Trump supporter and close friend. So all this pro-Bernie stuff and anti-Pete and anti- Biden narrative that comes from Krystal Ball and these people is also dirty. Pete's win isn't 'fake'. WTF does that even mean? He and Bernie essentially tied and they both declared victory. Good for both of them. And yes, Pete's bump is real.Spiritual_Chaos said:
Also thehill on Pete:mrussel1 said:
I think that the left-center support is starting to coalesce around Pete. There's a feeling he may be real and has a chance, which wasn't the case a few months ago. As Pete surges, Biden will fall. The same is happening on the Sander/Warren side.Ledbetterman10 said:Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-pollPanel: Did Pete's 'fake' win give him a real bump?
https://youtu.be/RDDYEJXTGoc
The lefts answer to the Shaun Hannitys of the world. Intellectually and morally bankrupt.0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
Also thehill on Pete:mrussel1 said:
I think that the left-center support is starting to coalesce around Pete. There's a feeling he may be real and has a chance, which wasn't the case a few months ago. As Pete surges, Biden will fall. The same is happening on the Sander/Warren side.Ledbetterman10 said:Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-pollPanel: Did Pete's 'fake' win give him a real bump?
https://youtu.be/RDDYEJXTGoc
We had one candidate, one, that had a solid ten point lead over trump.
But he is not a shining glossy debater, so we've ripped him to shreds.
Every single general election poll is now much worse than it's been since the midterms. At one point trump was unpopular in iowa as Dems came within a whisker of winning all house seats there. Now trump is solidly ahead there. Thanks Bernie.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/#
Thanks democrats and thanks Warren Sanders for your fantasies of turning our healthcare and colleges into socialist havens.
Now we are gunning for Pete
Four more years. Thanks. Bernie.0 -
So anyone who isn't a PAC or "any type of organization" can't make a credible political statement? Are you a PAC? Can you make credible political statements?Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe I should have said are they registered as a PAC or any type of organization that would lend them an ounce of credibility? It seems you may confuse what might be legitimate in this age of troll farms and social media that can’t possibly influence an election, particularly a democratic primary season. Did you register on their site or link for the email blasts?ecdanc said:
You have a highly circumscribed notion of what constitutes politics, it appears.Halifax2TheMax said:
More.ecdanc said:
Wait, would you trust them more or less if they were 501c3?Halifax2TheMax said:
I’d have more faith in them if there had been a QueersAgainstTrump organization and mobilization drive. Seems more like a Putin on the ritz troll farm operation than a legit politic organization. They registered as a 501c3?ecdanc said:
Did you hear all of Team Trump Treason’s comments about all the hot body, good looking dudes who supported him throughout impeachment? I mean it really bordered on getting sexual, breathless as he was in his descriptions. Maybe he should just come out? NTTIAWWT. He’d still be POTUS and first is better than third. And some think Biden is creepy?
Berniebrosises not having a queersagainsttrumppence after Team Trump Treason embraced the rainbow flag then basically did an about face on so many LGBTA policies should be a clue, yes?
As for the last part, gtfo. Trust me: the queer folks I know have done more to combat Trump than most.0 -
Center will suffice.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
“Obama...a leftist.” That’s rich.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Bernie Bro number 1:
Bernie Bro number 2:
Are those old videos? If you are going to post old videos it would be helpful to include the date. Pete’s comment is from 2017. I’m assuming Bloomberg is the same.Context is everything. Back in 2016/17 democrats significantly underestimated Trumps impact and loyalty among his base. And since then, trump has solidified his hold over conservatives and right leaning moderates. Back then, many thought Never Trumpers would be a real thing in the gop. Now they only exist on TV, not IRL. Also since then, Sanders has been tagged a socialist which is a dirty word in the states. Back then, he did have a chance to sneak in, especially having Obama as a leftist president with the bully pulpit.Bloomberg is smart, and supports what would be by far the most progressive healthcare plan in the history of the US. Bloomberg has opened up full time campaign offices and hired full time staff that will stay open until November whether he wins the nomination or not. THAT is a smart team player. Meanwhile, Bernie lost half his IA voters from last time. If this was a Bernie revolution, why would he lose supporters, even if there are more candidates?
Would you rather "left of center president?"0 -
Maybe they don't fucking care about the sanctity of the Democratic Party.cincybearcat said:
Anyone rallying around anything that calls itself "_____ Against _____" during a primary of your own parties candidates are a bunch of lapdogs for one of the other candidates. Bernie and his supporters always act this way. Since they know they can't get enough people "for" them....start tearing down the threats.ecdanc said:
I can't judge his intent, only what he wrote. Here's my take: this is a group of authentic individuals 1) who are queer, 2) who see a member of the LGBTQIA community who is gaining in popularity and who has political stances with which they don't agree, and 3) whose politics align with Sanders's. Is that grassroots? Are some Sanders supporters part of the "grassroots" and others aren't? Or are they all, by definition, not (which is what mrussel seemed to imply)? Is there some litmus test for what constitutes "a sincere call to action?"benjs said:
He said what he didn't think the site was, based on the way the site presents, then he said what he does think it was, based on the way the site presents (i.e. almost a carbon copy of Bernie's stated policies in list form). Then, add in the context of Bernie Bros behaviours from the last election, the fact that Sanders and Buttigieg were neck-in-neck in Iowa, and it's pretty hard to see this site as a sincere call to action.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:
I also don't think there was any intention to highlight those as opposites or to create a contrast - your response was the first time I even thought about this as an 'either/or' discussion.
Like, I get disagreeing with the positions--that's expected and part of the political landscape. I don't really get the attempt to invalidate the people (not just their political stances) by drawing a divide between "real" people practicing politics and the implicit "fake" people (Russians even!) posters here seem to be worried about. I don't find it difficult to believe the veracity/authenticity of QueersagainstPete because I know a ton of people like this--they're a huge part of my Facebook feed. Are they Sanders supporters? Yes! Are they sincere in their concern about Buttigieg? Absolutely. What's weird about that?0 -
It isn't credible to me because it is not a true reflection of the lgbtq community. This could be three people sitting down and making a web page. It is a bunch of Sanders supporters pitching Bernie's ideas while at the same time making Pete look bad.ecdanc said:
Again, what does that mean? Pretend I'm one of your students: how is this site bs?mcgruff10 said:
No I am saying the web site is bs. (Although I don’t agree with any of the positions on the web site)ecdanc said:
Ah, I get what you're saying: you think the positions themselves are bullshit; I thought you were saying the page wasn't real or something.mcgruff10 said:I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Why aren't you voting for a candidate that want to remove the "socialist havens" that are public schools, roads, public parks, medicare for elders?Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
Also thehill on Pete:mrussel1 said:
I think that the left-center support is starting to coalesce around Pete. There's a feeling he may be real and has a chance, which wasn't the case a few months ago. As Pete surges, Biden will fall. The same is happening on the Sander/Warren side.Ledbetterman10 said:Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-pollPanel: Did Pete's 'fake' win give him a real bump?
https://youtu.be/RDDYEJXTGoc
We had one candidate, one, that had a solid ten point lead over trump.
But he is not a shining glossy debater, so we've ripped him to shreds.
Every single general election poll is now much worse than it's been since the midterms. At one point trump was unpopular in iowa as Dems came within a whisker of winning all house seats there. Now trump is solidly ahead there. Thanks Bernie.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/#
Thanks democrats and thanks Warren Sanders for your fantasies of turning our healthcare and colleges into socialist havens.
Now we are gunning for Pete
Four more years. Thanks. Bernie.
Seems to be your thing.
Don't be a hypocrite now.
And Bernie is beating Trump, more so than Pete does in polls. Right?
So, four more years.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Yes. And that's a real difference against teh other candidates. I have not seen this type of behavior from Biden, Pete, Klobuchar, Yang or even Warren. Now Kamela definitely tried that crap early. But at the end of the day, advocate FOR your positions. Draw contrasts, that's fine. But don't go negative like this.cincybearcat said:
Anyone rallying around anything that calls itself "_____ Against _____" during a primary of your own parties candidates are a bunch of lapdogs for one of the other candidates. Bernie and his supporters always act this way. Since they know they can't get enough people "for" them....start tearing down the threats.ecdanc said:
I can't judge his intent, only what he wrote. Here's my take: this is a group of authentic individuals 1) who are queer, 2) who see a member of the LGBTQIA community who is gaining in popularity and who has political stances with which they don't agree, and 3) whose politics align with Sanders's. Is that grassroots? Are some Sanders supporters part of the "grassroots" and others aren't? Or are they all, by definition, not (which is what mrussel seemed to imply)? Is there some litmus test for what constitutes "a sincere call to action?"benjs said:
He said what he didn't think the site was, based on the way the site presents, then he said what he does think it was, based on the way the site presents (i.e. almost a carbon copy of Bernie's stated policies in list form). Then, add in the context of Bernie Bros behaviours from the last election, the fact that Sanders and Buttigieg were neck-in-neck in Iowa, and it's pretty hard to see this site as a sincere call to action.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:
I also don't think there was any intention to highlight those as opposites or to create a contrast - your response was the first time I even thought about this as an 'either/or' discussion.
Like, I get disagreeing with the positions--that's expected and part of the political landscape. I don't really get the attempt to invalidate the people (not just their political stances) by drawing a divide between "real" people practicing politics and the implicit "fake" people (Russians even!) posters here seem to be worried about. I don't find it difficult to believe the veracity/authenticity of QueersagainstPete because I know a ton of people like this--they're a huge part of my Facebook feed. Are they Sanders supporters? Yes! Are they sincere in their concern about Buttigieg? Absolutely. What's weird about that?
Again, my whole basis for this critique is IF it was done by actual Bernie supporters. If it's authentic, then great. Use your voice.0 -
So, we're back where we started: it's bs because you disagree with it.mcgruff10 said:
It isn't credible to me because it is not a true reflection of the lgbtq community. This could be three people sitting down and making a web page. It is a bunch of Sanders supporters pitching Bernie's ideas while at the same time making Pete look bad.ecdanc said:
Again, what does that mean? Pretend I'm one of your students: how is this site bs?mcgruff10 said:
No I am saying the web site is bs. (Although I don’t agree with any of the positions on the web site)ecdanc said:
Ah, I get what you're saying: you think the positions themselves are bullshit; I thought you were saying the page wasn't real or something.mcgruff10 said:0 -
I disagree with this take because no one person or group represents all members of a community. And I hate when people frame their opinions or views as representative of a community of diverse human beings. I mean diversity of thought and experiences, not color, race, orientation.mcgruff10 said:
It isn't credible to me because it is not a true reflection of the lgbtq community. This could be three people sitting down and making a web page. It is a bunch of Sanders supporters pitching Bernie's ideas while at the same time making Pete look bad.ecdanc said:
Again, what does that mean? Pretend I'm one of your students: how is this site bs?mcgruff10 said:
No I am saying the web site is bs. (Although I don’t agree with any of the positions on the web site)ecdanc said:
Ah, I get what you're saying: you think the positions themselves are bullshit; I thought you were saying the page wasn't real or something.mcgruff10 said:0 -
I’m an individual speaking up and out for myself and not trying to represent or misrepresent a group and claim to speak for them. Has Bernie endorsed or made public statements to the effect of I welcome the support of queersagainstpete? Let me guess, you have 6,000 Facebook friends?ecdanc said:
So anyone who isn't a PAC or "any type of organization" can't make a credible political statement? Are you a PAC? Can you make credible political statements?Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe I should have said are they registered as a PAC or any type of organization that would lend them an ounce of credibility? It seems you may confuse what might be legitimate in this age of troll farms and social media that can’t possibly influence an election, particularly a democratic primary season. Did you register on their site or link for the email blasts?ecdanc said:
You have a highly circumscribed notion of what constitutes politics, it appears.Halifax2TheMax said:
More.ecdanc said:
Wait, would you trust them more or less if they were 501c3?Halifax2TheMax said:
I’d have more faith in them if there had been a QueersAgainstTrump organization and mobilization drive. Seems more like a Putin on the ritz troll farm operation than a legit politic organization. They registered as a 501c3?ecdanc said:
Did you hear all of Team Trump Treason’s comments about all the hot body, good looking dudes who supported him throughout impeachment? I mean it really bordered on getting sexual, breathless as he was in his descriptions. Maybe he should just come out? NTTIAWWT. He’d still be POTUS and first is better than third. And some think Biden is creepy?
Berniebrosises not having a queersagainsttrumppence after Team Trump Treason embraced the rainbow flag then basically did an about face on so many LGBTA policies should be a clue, yes?
As for the last part, gtfo. Trust me: the queer folks I know have done more to combat Trump than most.
But where were the wueersagainsttrumppence when it mattered most? Stamping their feet and pouting because Bernie wasn’t the nominee. Queersagainstpete only exist because Pete is the berniebrosises biggest threat right now. Did queersagainstpete exist when he ran for mayor seeing how the housing issue was such a hot, local issue for them? I honestly don’t know but I doubt it.Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
That's not being honest.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
Also thehill on Pete:mrussel1 said:
I think that the left-center support is starting to coalesce around Pete. There's a feeling he may be real and has a chance, which wasn't the case a few months ago. As Pete surges, Biden will fall. The same is happening on the Sander/Warren side.Ledbetterman10 said:Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-pollPanel: Did Pete's 'fake' win give him a real bump?
https://youtu.be/RDDYEJXTGoc
We had one candidate, one, that had a solid ten point lead over trump.
But he is not a shining glossy debater, so we've ripped him to shreds.
Every single general election poll is now much worse than it's been since the midterms. At one point trump was unpopular in iowa as Dems came within a whisker of winning all house seats there. Now trump is solidly ahead there. Thanks Bernie.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/#
Thanks democrats and thanks Warren Sanders for your fantasies of turning our healthcare and colleges into socialist havens.
Now we are gunning for Pete
Four more years. Thanks. Bernie.
And if there's four more years of Trump, that's on the voters.0 -
Perhaps they have different goals than you.mrussel1 said:
Yes. And that's a real difference against teh other candidates. I have not seen this type of behavior from Biden, Pete, Klobuchar, Yang or even Warren. Now Kamela definitely tried that crap early. But at the end of the day, advocate FOR your positions. Draw contrasts, that's fine. But don't go negative like this.cincybearcat said:
Anyone rallying around anything that calls itself "_____ Against _____" during a primary of your own parties candidates are a bunch of lapdogs for one of the other candidates. Bernie and his supporters always act this way. Since they know they can't get enough people "for" them....start tearing down the threats.ecdanc said:
I can't judge his intent, only what he wrote. Here's my take: this is a group of authentic individuals 1) who are queer, 2) who see a member of the LGBTQIA community who is gaining in popularity and who has political stances with which they don't agree, and 3) whose politics align with Sanders's. Is that grassroots? Are some Sanders supporters part of the "grassroots" and others aren't? Or are they all, by definition, not (which is what mrussel seemed to imply)? Is there some litmus test for what constitutes "a sincere call to action?"benjs said:
He said what he didn't think the site was, based on the way the site presents, then he said what he does think it was, based on the way the site presents (i.e. almost a carbon copy of Bernie's stated policies in list form). Then, add in the context of Bernie Bros behaviours from the last election, the fact that Sanders and Buttigieg were neck-in-neck in Iowa, and it's pretty hard to see this site as a sincere call to action.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:
I also don't think there was any intention to highlight those as opposites or to create a contrast - your response was the first time I even thought about this as an 'either/or' discussion.
Like, I get disagreeing with the positions--that's expected and part of the political landscape. I don't really get the attempt to invalidate the people (not just their political stances) by drawing a divide between "real" people practicing politics and the implicit "fake" people (Russians even!) posters here seem to be worried about. I don't find it difficult to believe the veracity/authenticity of QueersagainstPete because I know a ton of people like this--they're a huge part of my Facebook feed. Are they Sanders supporters? Yes! Are they sincere in their concern about Buttigieg? Absolutely. What's weird about that?
Again, my whole basis for this critique is IF it was done by actual Bernie supporters. If it's authentic, then great. Use your voice.0 -
So, "queerindividualsagainstPete" would has been ok with you?Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m an individual speaking up and out for myself and not trying to represent or misrepresent a group and claim to speak for them. Has Bernie endorsed or made public statements to the effect of I welcome the support of queersagainstpete? Let me guess, you have 6,000 Facebook friends?ecdanc said:
So anyone who isn't a PAC or "any type of organization" can't make a credible political statement? Are you a PAC? Can you make credible political statements?Halifax2TheMax said:
Maybe I should have said are they registered as a PAC or any type of organization that would lend them an ounce of credibility? It seems you may confuse what might be legitimate in this age of troll farms and social media that can’t possibly influence an election, particularly a democratic primary season. Did you register on their site or link for the email blasts?ecdanc said:
You have a highly circumscribed notion of what constitutes politics, it appears.Halifax2TheMax said:
More.ecdanc said:
Wait, would you trust them more or less if they were 501c3?Halifax2TheMax said:
I’d have more faith in them if there had been a QueersAgainstTrump organization and mobilization drive. Seems more like a Putin on the ritz troll farm operation than a legit politic organization. They registered as a 501c3?ecdanc said:
Did you hear all of Team Trump Treason’s comments about all the hot body, good looking dudes who supported him throughout impeachment? I mean it really bordered on getting sexual, breathless as he was in his descriptions. Maybe he should just come out? NTTIAWWT. He’d still be POTUS and first is better than third. And some think Biden is creepy?
Berniebrosises not having a queersagainsttrumppence after Team Trump Treason embraced the rainbow flag then basically did an about face on so many LGBTA policies should be a clue, yes?
As for the last part, gtfo. Trust me: the queer folks I know have done more to combat Trump than most.
I don't understand your last two questions.0 -
Perhaps. My goal is to have Trump out of the White House. This 'group' does not move us towards that goal, IMO.ecdanc said:
Perhaps they have different goals than you.mrussel1 said:
Yes. And that's a real difference against teh other candidates. I have not seen this type of behavior from Biden, Pete, Klobuchar, Yang or even Warren. Now Kamela definitely tried that crap early. But at the end of the day, advocate FOR your positions. Draw contrasts, that's fine. But don't go negative like this.cincybearcat said:
Anyone rallying around anything that calls itself "_____ Against _____" during a primary of your own parties candidates are a bunch of lapdogs for one of the other candidates. Bernie and his supporters always act this way. Since they know they can't get enough people "for" them....start tearing down the threats.ecdanc said:
I can't judge his intent, only what he wrote. Here's my take: this is a group of authentic individuals 1) who are queer, 2) who see a member of the LGBTQIA community who is gaining in popularity and who has political stances with which they don't agree, and 3) whose politics align with Sanders's. Is that grassroots? Are some Sanders supporters part of the "grassroots" and others aren't? Or are they all, by definition, not (which is what mrussel seemed to imply)? Is there some litmus test for what constitutes "a sincere call to action?"benjs said:
He said what he didn't think the site was, based on the way the site presents, then he said what he does think it was, based on the way the site presents (i.e. almost a carbon copy of Bernie's stated policies in list form). Then, add in the context of Bernie Bros behaviours from the last election, the fact that Sanders and Buttigieg were neck-in-neck in Iowa, and it's pretty hard to see this site as a sincere call to action.ecdanc said:
Now THIS is some bullshit. You draw a false (convenient, for you) dichotomy between "grassroots" concerns and "Sanders....supporters." Do you people find it somehow surprising that queer leftists agree with the farthest left candidate?mrussel1 said:
I also don't think there was any intention to highlight those as opposites or to create a contrast - your response was the first time I even thought about this as an 'either/or' discussion.
Like, I get disagreeing with the positions--that's expected and part of the political landscape. I don't really get the attempt to invalidate the people (not just their political stances) by drawing a divide between "real" people practicing politics and the implicit "fake" people (Russians even!) posters here seem to be worried about. I don't find it difficult to believe the veracity/authenticity of QueersagainstPete because I know a ton of people like this--they're a huge part of my Facebook feed. Are they Sanders supporters? Yes! Are they sincere in their concern about Buttigieg? Absolutely. What's weird about that?
Again, my whole basis for this critique is IF it was done by actual Bernie supporters. If it's authentic, then great. Use your voice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help