The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:
Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types.
"I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you0 -
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.0 -
pjl44 said:
For sure. I don't know that there's an Obama in this group. I know what the national polls say, but going up against an incumbent in a strong economy is an uphill battle as it is.mrussel1 said:
They stayed home in 16, didn't in 08 and 12. Look at what staying home has wrought compared to the Obama years.pjl44 said:
People are worn out on The Lesser Evil. They'll stay home. They need a reason to vote *for* someone.rgambs said:
That just makes me shake my head. You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
On strictly a policy basis there are at least 3 candidates very similar to Obama. People might not like the packaging as much so they wont fall in love, but that's why democrats lose.0 -
I just read back over the last two pages and disagree that the conversation changed. Other people discussed other issues, but on this issue, the discussion continued to be whether someone would or would not vote whoever the D nominee is vs Trump in this election.ecdanc said:
Yes, but then people here changed the conversation.oftenreading said:
Absolutely elections are not all of politics, but the question wasn’t “what else are your friends doing in terms of activism?”, it was who would they vote for in this election, given certain options.ecdanc said:
In my admittedly limited circle, POC and other marginalized groups commonly reject the false dichotomy (lesser evilism), because they’re accustomed to mobilizing for change in other ways. In other words, they don’t often buy that elections are the be-all-end-all of politics.cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
1) I’m not on twitterecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
"Wouldn't that depend on what your goal is?"oftenreading said:
I just read back over the last two pages and disagree that the conversation changed. Other people discussed other issues, but on this issue, the discussion continued to be whether someone would or would not vote whoever the D nominee is vs Trump in this election.ecdanc said:
Yes, but then people here changed the conversation.oftenreading said:
Absolutely elections are not all of politics, but the question wasn’t “what else are your friends doing in terms of activism?”, it was who would they vote for in this election, given certain options.ecdanc said:
In my admittedly limited circle, POC and other marginalized groups commonly reject the false dichotomy (lesser evilism), because they’re accustomed to mobilizing for change in other ways. In other words, they don’t often buy that elections are the be-all-end-all of politics.cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
"Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other."
"Reap what ye shall sow, yo!"
0 -
Well he's not all that "hinged" now, but I get what you mean.Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you
Election day is November 3rd. Roger Stone will be pardoned on November 4th.
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 -
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......oftenreading said:
1) I’m not on twitterecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."0 -
I don't think policy positions "very similar to Obama" are much of a selling point at the moment.Lerxst1992 said:pjl44 said:
For sure. I don't know that there's an Obama in this group. I know what the national polls say, but going up against an incumbent in a strong economy is an uphill battle as it is.mrussel1 said:
They stayed home in 16, didn't in 08 and 12. Look at what staying home has wrought compared to the Obama years.pjl44 said:
People are worn out on The Lesser Evil. They'll stay home. They need a reason to vote *for* someone.rgambs said:
That just makes me shake my head. You know your choice is _____ or Trump and you can't bring yourself to vote for _____?ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
On strictly a policy basis there are at least 3 candidates very similar to Obama. People might not like the packaging as much so they wont fall in love, but that's why democrats lose.0 -
Honest question: do you imagine there are voters for whom pardoning Roger Stone would swing their vote?Ledbetterman10 said:
Well he's not all that "hinged" now, but I get what you mean.Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you
Election day is November 3rd. Roger Stone will be pardoned on November 4th.0 -
ecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.
If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.
Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.
Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic.
0 -
I'm sure there are people on Trump's campaign who believe that.ecdanc said:
Honest question: do you imagine there are voters for whom pardoning Roger Stone would swing their vote?Ledbetterman10 said:
Well he's not all that "hinged" now, but I get what you mean.Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you
Election day is November 3rd. Roger Stone will be pardoned on November 4th.
I also believe it would turn off some voters and motivate others.0 -
Very few, not enough to really hurt Trump. Still, I think he'll wait on this. He's been dodging the question over the past few days. If he really wants to do it, I think he'd be *wise* to just tell Stone to sit in prison until November. Then, whether reelected or not, Trump can pardon him.ecdanc said:
Honest question: do you imagine there are voters for whom pardoning Roger Stone would swing their vote?Ledbetterman10 said:
Well he's not all that "hinged" now, but I get what you mean.Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you
Election day is November 3rd. Roger Stone will be pardoned on November 4th.
*Using a loose interpretation of the word "wise" here.
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 -
Those were primarily the people discussing other issues.ecdanc said:
"Wouldn't that depend on what your goal is?"oftenreading said:
I just read back over the last two pages and disagree that the conversation changed. Other people discussed other issues, but on this issue, the discussion continued to be whether someone would or would not vote whoever the D nominee is vs Trump in this election.ecdanc said:
Yes, but then people here changed the conversation.oftenreading said:
Absolutely elections are not all of politics, but the question wasn’t “what else are your friends doing in terms of activism?”, it was who would they vote for in this election, given certain options.ecdanc said:
In my admittedly limited circle, POC and other marginalized groups commonly reject the false dichotomy (lesser evilism), because they’re accustomed to mobilizing for change in other ways. In other words, they don’t often buy that elections are the be-all-end-all of politics.cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
"Anything other notion is wishing in one hand and shitting in the other."
"Reap what ye shall sow, yo!"my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
She’s just sticking up for the downtrodden 8% because you know, Pete’s offensive and dangerous.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.
If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.
Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.
Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic.
https://www.unionplus.org/page/benefits-union-membership
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 -
Nelson herself isn't objecting to for profit health care, she (appears to be) objecting to the fact that not all union members have it, and claiming that Buttigieg said they did, which he did not.ecdanc said:
1) Well, I'm not going to speak for her, so......oftenreading said:
1) I’m not on twitterecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
2) Sure, but tangential to what he said in the tweet.
2) You have a weird definition of "tangent."my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
dignin said:
I'm sure there are people on Trump's campaign who believe that.ecdanc said:
Honest question: do you imagine there are voters for whom pardoning Roger Stone would swing their vote?Ledbetterman10 said:
Well he's not all that "hinged" now, but I get what you mean.Lerxst1992 said:cincybearcat said:
Interesting. Cause I know I have some built in benefits so a 2nd trump term likely won’t effect me personally a whole lot. But I would think it would effect a queer black man pretty directly. So I would have assumed (apparently wrongfully) that he’d be anyone but trump.ecdanc said:
2nd response. Queer black man in his 30s. Says he doesn't think he could bring himself to vote for Buttigieg or Klobuchar, citing specifically their anti-black policies/actions.cincybearcat said:
I look forward to hearing what they say.ecdanc said:
K. I’ll get back to you.cincybearcat said:
So ask your friends. If Pete gets the nomination, will they vote trump? Stay home? Or vote democrat.ecdanc said:
I'm not extrapolating anything. I'm challenging the notion that courting the middle is desirable.The Juggler said:
You're quoting a few of your friends here and, I guess, somehow extrapolating those few opinions towards millions of voters.ecdanc said:
It's a discussion board: the goal of most posts is to elicit responses.F Me In The Brain said:
My opinion is that you are posting things like this to elicit responses - specifically to try and anger people who you believe oppose your views. The response I have is to laugh & to find the humor in idiotic statements like this -ecdanc said:
The word you're looking for is "liar" if you'd like to go ahead and say it.F Me In The Brain said:Some descriptions/comments I've seen recentlyAn interesting tactic to take no responsibility for things one types."I fucking despise Pete Buttigieg, and the insufferable whiteness of the secure cis gays who support him.".Am I allowed to have an opinion?
And, no, I'm not trying to anger people. I'm responding to the numerous people on this thread (and others) who literally can't imagine that such people exist (see the entire "QueersagainstPete" exchange).
All of the people I quoted above plan to vote in the general election (I'm not sure if they plan to participate in their respective Democratic primaries/caucuses), yet this board seems to think that the only votes to be gained or lost are the moderates. I think it's worthwhile to point out that's not the case. People her keep talking around the concept of "electability" (i.e. who can beat Trump), but many of you seem to imagine that all voters are like you or to your right.
When you have the chance, could you get back to us with your Aunt's neighbor's son's opinion on Joe Biden please? Thank you.
Trump will be unhinged in his 2nd term.
He will go after care for people with preexisting conditions , ss and medicare. The targeted beneficiaries will be even more military spending and the top 1% in wealth.
Perhaps that's a built in benefit for you but it will certainly effect you
Election day is November 3rd. Roger Stone will be pardoned on November 4th.
I also believe it would turn off some voters and motivate others.
Isnt there a reason sessions was fired moments after the midterms?
He was partially unhinged after that election, even more so with having a stooge run the DoJ but he hasn't yet gone after the legacy liberal safety net. yet. ( Outside of aca.)
That will obviously change in the 2nd term. And the military and wealthy will benefit. If the dems dont drum that into everyone's head now til nov and are too busy with which version of M4A is best, they're even bigger idiots0 -
People here going all-in on the sexist dog-whistling today.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.
If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.
Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.
Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic.0 -
Wait, advocating for a small minority of people in a shitty position is a bad thing? Rock the vote!Halifax2TheMax said:
She’s just sticking up for the downtrodden 8% because you know, Pete’s offensive and dangerous.Lerxst1992 said:ecdanc said:
You can find her on Twitter.oftenreading said:
It would be better for Nelson to answer that, but sure, do your anarchic best.ecdanc said:
You're asking the communist that?oftenreading said:
Where is the evidence that Buttigieg has caused an injury with his tweet?ecdanc said:
You might want to put a little more emphasis on her last sentence.oftenreading said:ecdanc said:
So pointing out that some union members have health coverage, for which they have fought as an benefit of their employment, is now offensive to those union members who don't have health coverage? Particularly as Buttigieg himself pointed out that they "fought hard", and yet she argue against this by saying that they "had to fight like hell".
I fail to see how that makes sense. Perhaps some context is lost in the snippet of the tweet that you've posted.
For me, the answer is simple: the very existence of (any) healthcare for profit is an injury to many.
Pete is offering choice. If you WANT medicare (but not afford it) you get to have it.
If you want to keep your current plan you can choose that as well.
Maybe Sara has theories that this could collapse the health insurance companies but that sounds too much like the GOP fearmongering about ACA ten years ago. Even if it does, it can be fixed.
Or perhaps Sara has some other theory. But to call Pete's policy dangerous without substantiation is histrionic.
https://www.unionplus.org/page/benefits-union-membership0
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
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help