The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
0 -
You could have said that earlier.ecdanc said:
I should add that many of my Facebook friends and a fair number of my real-life friends are going to be disappointed to learn they're actually Russian-troll fabrications.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.
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?
As for your last paragraph, I offer you a quote from Stalin: "they're both worse."
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?
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?09/15/1998 & 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 -
The dude voted for the war crime that is the Iraq war. "best foreign policy".Lerxst1992 said:
Biden has by far the best foriegn policy experience which should be essential in a post trump presidency."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.0 -
I do not, but I know people (some of whom are queer) with the exact same views. I worry that you'll use your fear of Russian trolls to pretend they don't exist.Halifax2TheMax said:
You could have said that earlier.ecdanc said:
I should add that many of my Facebook friends and a fair number of my real-life friends are going to be disappointed to learn they're actually Russian-troll fabrications.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.
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?
As for your last paragraph, I offer you a quote from Stalin: "they're both worse."
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?
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?0 -
ecdanc said:
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.0 -
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
The dude voted for the war crime that is the Iraq war. "best foreign policy".Lerxst1992 said:
Biden has by far the best foriegn policy experience which should be essential in a post trump presidency.
I disagreed with that vote but it was taken in the wake of 9 11 and presented to the country as part of the retaliation. As someone standing on Manhattan island on that morning,I fully understand how a senator fell for that crap.
In 2020, it will be essential for our next president to rebuild our alliances, especially in Europe. That is a hell of a lot more important than a bad vote while being lied to 17 years ago.
Instead we are hoping for socialist healthcare, get out of college debt free and bashing queers against Pete is what will beat trump. It won't
I might as well join the party and vote for him with an eminence front. Dressed to kill.0 -
First - I said "center" because I didn't want to go down this path of "well actually, it's center-right". That's an insignificant footnote in the context of the point I'm trying to make.ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Next, I don't believe I implied anything about you stamping your feet or being a Bernie bro. The message I'm trying to make is that I believe Bernie feels the left 'cohort' within DNC voters is larger than what is typically believed, and that therefore, he can use rhetoric that doesn't necessarily appeal to centrists, and not worry about their opinions on the matter, but that in the instance that he fails at winning the nomination, this would potentially carry a cost to a centrist nominee. To me, that's Bernie-centric calculus, not democracy-centric calculus.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
ecdanc said:
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
The end of your post is what gets me. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but I abhor Biden and the "centrist" (center right from where I'm standing) wing of the DNC. I'm a minority amongst even my own circle, but I simply cannot vote for someone like Biden, or even Buttigieg. Saying that gets me accused of stamping my feet (or of being a Bernie bro). Yet I don't hear the same complaints (or at least they aren't at the same volume) about centrists who would refuse to vote for Sanders.benjs said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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:
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.
Abhor?
4 years ago we had tapes of trump bragging about walking into a roomful of naked 15 year old girls and bragging he likes to grab women by the genitals so he can f*ck them.
And what did Rs and right leaning moderates do? They showed up and voted for him. And to this day support him more than ever before.
Compare that bragging with your use of Abhor and you'll likely understand why the Supreme Court will be conservative for the next 40 years.
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I was joking and I could claim denseness on your comment as well.
Abhor Biden? I was hoping for a defense of that, unless you are looking forward to 4 more years.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.0 -
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.Lerxst1992 said:And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.Lerxst1992 said:And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I'll cut you slack as you're from Europe but trump winning has nothing to do with gerrymandering and more to do with the electoral college. For that reason alone dems need probably close to a 5% popular vote cushion to win these days.0 -
Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.Lerxst1992 said:And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I'll cut you slack as you're from Europe but trump winning has nothing to do with gerrymandering and more to do with the electoral college. For that reason alone dems need probably close to a 5% popular vote cushion to win these days.Spiritual_Chaos said:I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Unfortunately 5 points is probably about right.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.Lerxst1992 said:And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I'll cut you slack as you're from Europe but trump winning has nothing to do with gerrymandering and more to do with the electoral college. For that reason alone dems need probably close to a 5% popular vote cushion to win these days.0 -
Joe Walsh will "help" the democrats. He is obviously a really dumb person. Like an idiot. But anyways.
He might even end up a Bernie Bro
"I would rather have a socialist in the white house than a dictator, than a king"
That's the opposite of @mcgruff10
https://youtu.be/gJJUc8K4LNA
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
Sorry, but I'm not buying that queersagainstpete is some legitimate political movement. And I wouldn't dismiss the LGBTIA community's grievances as a fabrication of putin on the ritz's. The dems need to appeal to indies and Bernie ain't appealing to indies and to even less of dems than 2016. I can't wait for the queersagainstbillionaires political movement to get going. Should be about 6-8 weeks from now.ecdanc said:
I do not, but I know people (some of whom are queer) with the exact same views. I worry that you'll use your fear of Russian trolls to pretend they don't exist.Halifax2TheMax said:
You could have said that earlier.ecdanc said:
I should add that many of my Facebook friends and a fair number of my real-life friends are going to be disappointed to learn they're actually Russian-troll fabrications.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.ecdanc said:
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.
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?
As for your last paragraph, I offer you a quote from Stalin: "they're both worse."
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?
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?09/15/1998 & 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 -
@ecdanc lots of filters at work but how about this: https://joebiden.info
I will continue to research.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.Lerxst1992 said:And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I'll cut you slack as you're from Europe but trump winning has nothing to do with gerrymandering and more to do with the electoral college. For that reason alone dems need probably close to a 5% popular vote cushion to win these days.Spiritual_Chaos said:I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
The amount of votes matters alot. It's just weighted in a way that the Ds need +5 overall probably to beat trump.
We need to be committed and united to beat trump. Judging by the campaign so far, it looks like we are not0 -
My lord those are some creepy .gifsmcgruff10 said:@ecdanc lots of filters at work but how about this: https://joebiden.info
I will continue to research.
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
Ledbetterman10 said:
My lord those are some creepy .gifsmcgruff10 said:@ecdanc lots of filters at work but how about this: https://joebiden.info
I will continue to research.
That link is exactly why the world has 4 more years to look forward to.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