The Democratic Presidential Debates

ecdanc

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right. 

You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters. 

When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you. 

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable. 

So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.

K. I’ll get back to you. 

I look forward to hearing what they say.

2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions. 

Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump. 

In my admittedly limited circle, POC and other marginalized groups commonly reject the false dichotomy (lesser evilism), because they’re accustomed to mobilizing for change in other ways. In other words, they don’t often buy that elections are the be-all-end-all of politics. 

Absolutely elections are not all of politics, but the question wasn’t “what else are your friends doing in terms of activism?”, it was who would they vote for in this election, given certain options. 

Yes, but then people here changed the conversation. 

I just read back over the last two pages and disagree that the conversation changed. Other people discussed other issues, but on this issue, the discussion continued to be whether someone would or would not vote whoever the D nominee is vs Trump in this election. 

"Wouldn't that depend on what your goal is?"

"Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other."

"Reap what ye shall sow, yo!"

Those were primarily the people discussing other issues. 

You're begging the question....with no discernible purpose. 

ecdanc

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

rgambs

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right. 

You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters. 

When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you. 

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable. 

So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.

K. I’ll get back to you. 

I look forward to hearing what they say.

2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions. 

That just makes me shake my head.  You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?

That’s not the only choice. 

It is.  The Democratic nominee will be President or Trump will be President. 
Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other.

I wish it wasn't this way as much as anyone, but it just IS.  

So the only things that affect people’s lives are presidential elections?

I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and it isn't even a logical extension of the argument I made.
The President will be the Democratic nominee or Trump.
Fact.

If one can countenance standing aside to allow Trump to be President by refusing to vote for his opponent, that is one's own choice.  That being said, it bothers the hell out of me when people refuse to accept that as reality.

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

She’s just sticking up for the downtrodden 8% because you know, Pete’s offensive and dangerous.

https://www.unionplus.org/page/benefits-union-membership

Wait, advocating for a small minority of people in a shitty position is a bad thing? Rock the vote!

No, but characterizing what Pete said as offensive and dangerous is. Rock the Vote was about way more than the 8%.

ecdanc

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right. 

You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters. 

When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you. 

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable. 

So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.

K. I’ll get back to you. 

I look forward to hearing what they say.

2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions. 

That just makes me shake my head.  You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?

That’s not the only choice. 

It is.  The Democratic nominee will be President or Trump will be President. 
Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other.

I wish it wasn't this way as much as anyone, but it just IS.  

So the only things that affect people’s lives are presidential elections?

I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and it isn't even a logical extension of the argument I made.
The President will be the Democratic nominee or Trump.
Fact.

If one can countenance standing aside to allow Trump to be President by refusing to vote for his opponent, that is one's own choice.  That being said, it bothers the hell out of me when people refuse to accept that as reality.

Ok, fine. Does this work better for you: saying that "is the only choice" is pedantically correct, but shifts the conversation in a way that misses the fucking point. You want to shake your head at a queer black guy who won't vote for someone with past actions that harmed POC? Go for it. But I know him, and I'd be willing to wager he's doing a hell of a lot more to change our political landscape than most of us here. 

Lerxst1992

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I thought about using that word sarcastically but I see it was a bad choice because it allows the reply to avoid explaining  why Pete is dangerous. 

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Lerxst1992

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right. 

You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters. 

When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you. 

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable. 

So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.

K. I’ll get back to you. 

I look forward to hearing what they say.

2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions. 

That just makes me shake my head.  You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?

That’s not the only choice. 

It is.  The Democratic nominee will be President or Trump will be President. 
Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other.

I wish it wasn't this way as much as anyone, but it just IS.  

So the only things that affect people’s lives are presidential elections?

I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and it isn't even a logical extension of the argument I made.
The President will be the Democratic nominee or Trump.
Fact.

If one can countenance standing aside to allow Trump to be President by refusing to vote for his opponent, that is one's own choice.  That being said, it bothers the hell out of me when people refuse to accept that as reality.

Ok, fine. Does this work better for you: saying that "is the only choice" is pedantically correct, but shifts the conversation in a way that misses the fucking point. You want to shake your head at a queer black guy who won't vote for someone with past actions that harmed POC? Go for it. But I know him, and I'd be willing to wager he's doing a hell of a lot more to change our political landscape than most of us here. 

Yes because voting 3rd party is helping trump to get reelected. 

ecdanc

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I thought about using that word sarcastically but I see it was a bad choice because it allows the reply to avoid explaining  why Pete is dangerous. 

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/02/pete-buttigieg-medicare-for-all-health

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/health-care-insurance-democratic-party-single-payer

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

Lerxst1992

Histrionic Personality Disorder. Histrionic personality disorder is characterized by constant attention-seeking, emotional overreaction, and seductive behavior. People with this condition tend to overdramatize situations, which may impair relationships and lead to depression.

ecdanc

Lerxst1992 said:

Histrionic Personality Disorder. Histrionic personality disorder is characterized by constant attention-seeking, emotional overreaction, and seductive behavior. People with this condition tend to overdramatize situations, which may impair relationships and lead to depression.

Keep researching......

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

It's like he's talking to you!!

ecdanc

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

rgambs said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

The Juggler said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

ecdanc said:

F Me In The Brain said:

Some descriptions/comments I've seen recently

An interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.

The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it. 

My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views.  The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -

 "I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".

Am I allowed to have an opinion?

It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.

And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).

All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right. 

You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters. 

When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you. 

I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable. 

So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.

K. I’ll get back to you. 

I look forward to hearing what they say.

2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions. 

That just makes me shake my head.  You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?

That’s not the only choice. 

It is.  The Democratic nominee will be President or Trump will be President. 
Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other.

I wish it wasn't this way as much as anyone, but it just IS.  

So the only things that affect people’s lives are presidential elections?

I didn't say that, I didn't imply that, and it isn't even a logical extension of the argument I made.
The President will be the Democratic nominee or Trump.
Fact.

If one can countenance standing aside to allow Trump to be President by refusing to vote for his opponent, that is one's own choice.  That being said, it bothers the hell out of me when people refuse to accept that as reality.

Ok, fine. Does this work better for you: saying that "is the only choice" is pedantically correct, but shifts the conversation in a way that misses the fucking point. You want to shake your head at a queer black guy who won't vote for someone with past actions that harmed POC? Go for it. But I know him, and I'd be willing to wager he's doing a hell of a lot more to change our political landscape than most of us here. 

Yes because voting 3rd party is helping trump to get reelected. 

I'm placing you in a timeout until you read the things you're responding to. 

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

“Overused sluts” and “spoiled brats.” I don’t believe I used either term. Quite the leap, wouldn’t you say? Is that what you think of when you see the word hysteria?

oftenreading

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

ecdanc

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

“Overused sluts” and “spoiled brats.” I don’t believe I used either term. Quite the leap, wouldn’t you say? Is that what you think of when you see the word hysteria?

Not at all. 

Halifax2TheMax

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Lerxst1992 said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.

If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.

Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.

Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic. 

People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today. 

I would have used “hysteria” if it was a tweet from Jimmy Hoffa. Like disagreeing that queersagainstpete is a political movement, I disagree that Sara’s interpretation of Pete’s words are offensive and dangerous. Hysteria.

Ummm, sure. What communist twitter did that come from?

It's like he's talking to you!!

It’d be helpful to know who the “who” is? Boris? Vlad? You talkin to me?

ecdanc

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

oftenreading said:

ecdanc said:

So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell". 

I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted. 

You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence. 

Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?

You're asking the communist that?

It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.

You can find her on Twitter.

For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many. 

1) I’m not on twitter

2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet. 

1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......

2) You have a weird definition of "tangent." 

Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not. 

You asked me a question; I responded. You then accused my answer of being tangential to Buttigieg's tweet. So, this entire post is a complete non sequitur. 

I guess that's the sort of answer we get from an anarchist

Or someone who can read.