mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

Queers against Pete:

https://www.queersagainstpete.com/letter?fbclid=IwAR2kFvqaVNeR-PTgxy9dLZpWThsubujr5IwDPW0JwCm0R5Cs6GJod0WzdD4

I m no bloodhound but I smell bs. 

What does that even mean?

That it’s not some grassroots level concern.  I agree.  This is coming from Sanders directly or from his supporters.

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? 

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.

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. 

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?"

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?

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.  

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.  
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. 

Perhaps they have different goals than you. 

Perhaps.  My goal is to have Trump out of the White House.  This 'group' does not move us towards that goal, IMO.  

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Queers against Pete:

https://www.queersagainstpete.com/letter?fbclid=IwAR2kFvqaVNeR-PTgxy9dLZpWThsubujr5IwDPW0JwCm0R5Cs6GJod0WzdD4

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?

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?

Wait, would you trust them more or less if they were 501c3?

More.

You have a highly circumscribed notion of what constitutes politics, it appears. 

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?

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?

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?

As for the last part, gtfo. Trust me: the queer folks I know have done more to combat Trump than most. 

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?

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.

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

Queers against Pete:

https://www.queersagainstpete.com/letter?fbclid=IwAR2kFvqaVNeR-PTgxy9dLZpWThsubujr5IwDPW0JwCm0R5Cs6GJod0WzdD4

I m no bloodhound but I smell bs. 

What does that even mean?

That it’s not some grassroots level concern.  I agree.  This is coming from Sanders directly or from his supporters.

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? 

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.  

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. 

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.  

except it isnt INTRA-party. Bernie is a fake democratic socialist who has spent all but 7 years plus his time running for a party he isnt a member of , as a independent and is only hijacking dem apparatus to avoid the hard work of getting on the ballot for what he is. ine tjing he isnt is a democrat.

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mcgruff10 said:

ecdanc said:

Queers against Pete:

https://www.queersagainstpete.com/letter?fbclid=IwAR2kFvqaVNeR-PTgxy9dLZpWThsubujr5IwDPW0JwCm0R5Cs6GJod0WzdD4

I m no bloodhound but I smell bs. 

What does that even mean?

That it’s not some grassroots level concern.  I agree.  This is coming from Sanders directly or from his supporters.

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? 

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.  

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. 

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.  

My concern is that these attacks don't just weaken the candidates, but they also weaken the ideologies or themes they're aspiring to represent (which transcend the specifics of a nominee) - sometimes creating rifts that can extend beyond the absurdly long primary season. Whether Bernie criticizes the powers that be today and it loses Democrats voters in the general election if a centrist turns out to be the nominee, or whether Biden or Buttigieg do the same towards the left, either way, the potential exists to dissuade Democrat general election voters.

Based on the loss last time, I still don't believe that either the left 'branch' of Democrat voters or the centrist 'branch' of Democrat voters can win the election on their own, so they sort of have to cross this new inner aisle which has formed. I think Bernie has opposed this notion and chosen a 'no compromises' approach and believes the left 'branch' is larger than typically believed, Biden isn't quite as ornery about centrist ideals but isn't believed by the left 'branch', and Buttigieg attempts to toe the line to appeal to the pragmatism in either cohort.

Lerxst1992 said:

dignin said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Biden's starting to look like this year's Jeb. Still early though. 

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.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/481972-buttigieg-surges-ahead-of-new-hampshire-primary-poll

Also thehill on Pete:

Panel: 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.

That's not being honest.

And if there's four more years of Trump, that's on the voters.

Seriously? Ok, hes a terrific debater. You convinced me.

Biden has by far the best foriegn  policy experience which should be essential in a post trump presidency.  To dems? Meaningless. Barely mentioned by voters.

Biden has the domestic policy that makes the most sense in 2020 with a right wing extremist in power, Medicare on a voluntary basis. To dems? 43% in IA have fantasies of socialist healthcare. Hello 4 more years. Thanks dems.

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

ecdanc said:

Queers against Pete:

https://www.queersagainstpete.com/letter?fbclid=IwAR2kFvqaVNeR-PTgxy9dLZpWThsubujr5IwDPW0JwCm0R5Cs6GJod0WzdD4

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?

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?

Wait, would you trust them more or less if they were 501c3?

More.

You have a highly circumscribed notion of what constitutes politics, it appears. 

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?

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?

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?

As for the last part, gtfo. Trust me: the queer folks I know have done more to combat Trump than most. 

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?

So, "queerindividualsagainstPete" would has been ok with you? 

I don't understand your last two questions. 

If that’s how you want to label yourself, that’s fine but you, or queersagainstpete, shouldn’t claim to speak for all queers and claim Pete’s policies are harmful to all queers.

Has Bernie endorsed or welcomed queersagainstpete’s advocacy? 

Read up on Russian troll farms manipulation of faceturd and social media to better understand how “movements” or political advocacy groups can appear to have a mass following when in fact it’s Putin on the ritz’s trolls. Hence my request for “legitimacy,” or a past history of similar advocacy.

Who is worse for queers, Team Trump Treason or Mayor Pete?

I don't think QueersagainstPete claims to have any sort of mass following. It looks to me like the small-scale political action I see all the time (and that, to me, is the essence of politics). I also don't think it claims either of the things you accuse it of in your first paragraph. 

As for your last paragraph, I offer you a quote from Stalin: "they're both worse." 

Again, read up on Putin on the ritz’s troll farms so you understand how that technique is now the operative method of almost any candidate, party and supporter because it’s so successful. The majority of those “small scale political actions” are complete fabrications.

As for your last sentence, sure they are, sure. You still haven’t answered my questions regarding Bernie’s welcoming of queersagainstpete’s advocacy. Why is that?