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.
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.
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’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?
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.
You could have said that earlier.
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?
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.
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.
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.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
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?
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.
You could have said that earlier.
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
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.
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.
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.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.
Biden has by far the best foriegn policy experience which should be essential in a post trump presidency.
The dude voted for the war crime that is the Iraq war. "best foreign policy".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1
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.
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.
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.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.
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.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
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.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
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.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
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.
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?
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.
You could have said that earlier.
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?
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.
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.
And that is why Rs win more often. They step in line and support their party no matter what.
I thought that was because of gerrymandering and the amounts of votes not mattering.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Other people are awful!! You should be awful too!!"
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you think all people who disagree with you are the same. Don’t be dense.
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.
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?
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.
You could have said that earlier.
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?
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.
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.
A straightforward question: are my friends who agree with the site, but are not affiliated with it, part of a “legitimate political movement?”
It's awesome if you like Donald J. Trump as your president.
Trump is a symptom, not the disease.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that damaging any D candidate can't hurt our chance of knocking him off. If you're expecting the worker's revolution to happen before November, I suggest a different strategy.
Comments
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.
Do you know anyone who started the “organization” queersagainstpete?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm sorry, I didnt realize you were a conservative.
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.
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.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
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.
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.
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
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I will continue to research.
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 not
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
That link is exactly why the world has 4 more years to look forward to.
He has no plan to restore the right to vote for either formerly or currently incarcerated citizens.
He has no plan to create an alternative to police.
He has no plan to end cash bail.