|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 9:44:33 GMT -5
"Geez...why do those gays have to be all in our face about it?" Give me a break. Eugh. Yeah. I mentioned my dad in my prior post - he's basically a See & Say loaded with every last roundabout argument that any sort of focus on marginalized populations is the primary breeding ground for divisive prejudice against the non-margianalized. When is Straight Pride Month?
When is White History Month?
I'm straight - you don't see me flaunting it for the world to see.
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Sept 25, 2019 10:10:53 GMT -5
This is not a gay game straight topic. Keep it about the topic at hand or I’ll start deleting crap and reporting. I’m trying to be a nice guy here
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 10:28:39 GMT -5
This is not a gay game straight topic. Keep it about the topic at hand or I’ll start deleting crap and reporting. I’m trying to be a nice guy here I suppose it'll continue to fall under the header of redundancy to routinely point these things out...but the rights of the LGBTQ+ community at large continue to be a hot button issue when it comes to electoral discourse. You can't just sit there, cherry pick topics that may arise in a wide ranging discussion on the upcoming election simply because they're uncomfortable or draw deeply emotional responses on either side of the coin, and exclude them whilst purporting to allow the broader discussion to continue. If you're going to "be a nice guy" and allow a discussion on the current state of affairs in the country, then yes, a Presidential Election topic is also a topic that's going to cover innumerable sub-topics, even *gasp* matters relative to the LGBTQ+ community.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Sept 25, 2019 10:50:56 GMT -5
This is not a gay game straight topic. Keep it about the topic at hand or I’ll start deleting crap and reporting. I’m trying to be a nice guy here I suppose it'll continue to fall under the header of redundancy to routinely point these things out...but the rights of the LGBTQ+ community at large continue to be a hot button issue when it comes to electoral discourse. You can't just sit there, cherry pick topics that may arise in a wide ranging discussion on the upcoming election simply because they're uncomfortable or draw deeply emotional responses on either side of the coin, and exclude them whilst purporting to allow the broader discussion to continue. If you're going to "be a nice guy" and allow a discussion on the current state of affairs in the country, then yes, a Presidential Election topic is also a topic that's going to cover innumerable sub-topics, even *gasp* matters relative to the LGBTQ+ community. Especially when our current President has made it easier for employers to fire and discriminate against people who are LGBTQ+ and is tirelessly working against protections for them. LGBTQ+ rights are absolutely part of the subject matter of the Democratic Debates, and the election as a whole. Other topics that will come up when talking about current politics include but are not limited to: Racism Religion Xenophobia Nationalism Wage stagnation Healthcare Guns, gun control, mass shootings, and red flag laws Domestic Terrorism Treason Immigration, legal and illegal Taxes Gaslighting Fear Mongering Socialism The Military Patriotism and/or the lack thereof Social Welfare Corporate Welfare Billionaire Welfare Drugs, illegal and legal
|
|
|
Post by ET had AIDS on Sept 25, 2019 11:10:54 GMT -5
This is not a gay game straight topic. Keep it about the topic at hand or I’ll start deleting crap and reporting. I’m trying to be a nice guy here Why?
|
|
|
Post by ~*Young $ Money*~ on Sept 25, 2019 11:20:38 GMT -5
This is not a gay game straight topic. Keep it about the topic at hand or I’ll start deleting crap and reporting. I’m trying to be a nice guy here Why? Bc it’s a presidential debate not to sit here and argue about of being gay is a mental illness
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 11:26:16 GMT -5
Bc it’s a presidential debate not to sit here and argue about of being gay is a mental illness Again...this is a talking point that is commonly divided, to a certain but by no means definitive degree, along party lines. It's going to come up frequently over the next year. There is currently a candidate seeking the Democratic nod that is, in fact, a gay man. To try and stifle discussion of the matter because you deem it "off topic" demonstrates a woefully narrow purview of the weight and expanse of this election.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2019 11:36:43 GMT -5
I'm gay. Pete Buttigieg doesn't speak for me.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 11:38:54 GMT -5
I'm gay. Pete Buttigieg doesn't speak for me. I find that more people I know cut from the same cloth seem to agree with this sentiment than don't.
|
|
|
Post by ET had AIDS on Sept 25, 2019 11:49:23 GMT -5
Bc it’s a presidential debate not to sit here and argue about of being gay is a mental illness Again...this is a talking point that is commonly divided, to a certain but by no means definitive degree, along party lines. It's going to come up frequently over the next year. There is currently a candidate seeking the Democratic nod that is, in fact, a gay man. To try and stifle discussion of the matter because you deem it "off topic" demonstrates a woefully narrow purview of the weight and expanse of this election. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 12:09:07 GMT -5
I'm straight, fat, and married, and I don't let any politicians speak for me. I think it's perfectly fine to throw in with the candidate you find best suited to lead the charge, but there's nothing healthy about adhering to any particular figure's every last talking point. I mean, how many people do you know outside the realm of politics that you agree with that much? That's the sort of cult of personality following that breeds every day folk hanging Trump flags outside their front door at the very height of the post election dead period. Stuff like that has a very staunchly North Korean vibe to it.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Sept 25, 2019 13:14:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 25, 2019 14:12:43 GMT -5
I'm gay. Pete Buttigieg doesn't speak for me. Pete Buttigieg speaks only for his donors. He has little, if any, grassroots support and his entire campaign has been a vanity project from the jump IMO. But I'm sure he's going to sell a pile of books eighteen months from now. Bc it’s a presidential debate not to sit here and argue about of being gay is a mental illness Again...this is a talking point that is commonly divided, to a certain but by no means definitive degree, along party lines. It's going to come up frequently over the next year. There is currently a candidate seeking the Democratic nod that is, in fact, a gay man. To try and stifle discussion of the matter because you deem it "off topic" demonstrates a woefully narrow purview of the weight and expanse of this election. Anyone who attempts to intellectualize the "homosexuality is a mental illness" right-wing talking point is a bigot. There is absolutely zero room for nuance here. I can't believe people are still trying to do this in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2019 18:46:27 GMT -5
People who are all like "We are going to get President Pelosi now" clearly don't know how things work.
|
|
|
Post by bad guy™ on Sept 25, 2019 18:50:03 GMT -5
I'm gay. Pete Buttigieg doesn't speak for me. Pete Buttigieg speaks only for his donors. He has little, if any, grassroots support and his entire campaign has been a vanity project from the jump IMO. But I'm sure he's going to sell a pile of books eighteen months from now. Again...this is a talking point that is commonly divided, to a certain but by no means definitive degree, along party lines. It's going to come up frequently over the next year. There is currently a candidate seeking the Democratic nod that is, in fact, a gay man. To try and stifle discussion of the matter because you deem it "off topic" demonstrates a woefully narrow purview of the weight and expanse of this election. Anyone who attempts to intellectualize the "homosexuality is a mental illness" right-wing talking point is a bigot. There is absolutely zero room for nuance here. I can't believe people are still trying to do this in 2019. Agreed regarding Buttigieg. I don't think he's inherently a bad guy by any means, he's just your standard run of the mill lobby backed politician who just happens to be gay. The latter part of that description though, sadly, is gaining him a lot of support. I've no issue that he's gay, his husband actually sounds like a pretty chill dude in the few interviews I've taken in from him. But being gay is not a platform. Advocating for gay rights is. He's hinting at the latter, but abusing the hell out of the former which is the issue. I have similar opinions on Tulsi Gabbard, sorry to disappoint Slappy. She SCREAMS shill, and has for quite a while. Of the remaining members of the Democratic National Clowncar remaining in the race, the only person I inherently do not like whatsoever is Biden. I had some semblance of respect for him when he left office and chose not to run in 2016, one of the chief reasons that is not a closed door plan by Wasserman-Schultz being because he didn't want to put his family through the hell Trump would unleash on them about Beau not even a year after his death. I respect that choice. But I've basically lost what respect I had for him during this run. Once the herd thins more, I'm really anxious to see what moves Yang makes. I have some disagreements about positions of his, but the dude is winning a monumental race by not only remaining relevant, but rising in the polls given a year ago, he was literally no different than some of these wacky third party groups that put up a "candidate" but can't make it onto a single state's ballot. I'm still undecided. I supported Bernie in 2016, he still has my backing now. But I'm not afraid to say my mind can be changed in the next eight months before Pennsylvania has its primary. Also: completely agree on your last point. People are more than welcome to have the opinion that it's a mental problem, but it's also welcome for people to remind them that they're wrong and scientific study has proven them wrong. But there's little chance of changing their minds, as they'd declare the sky purple just to be contrarian.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 18:55:42 GMT -5
Buttigieg has a wild following in NH, which I can only attest to having seen it first hand. Granted, it was a baseline audience (NH Democratic Convention), but until Sanders and Warren got their turn, that guy had the largest (and loudest) non-delegate base in the building. If one were polling strictly off of the noise in that place that day, it would have gone Warren, Sanders, and Mayor Pete.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2019 19:53:57 GMT -5
Tulsi is polling well in NH. Hopefully after the next debate she'll be ahead of Kamala since she is, I believe, only a point behind her.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Sept 25, 2019 20:05:36 GMT -5
Tulsi is polling well in NH. Hopefully after the next debate she'll be ahead of Kamala since she is, I believe, only a point behind her. She’s got an interesting groundswell out here. Early on and out of nowhere, he signs and billboards went up everywhere. She’s literally the only candidate I’ve seen with a “yard sign” presence. Every candidate has their visibility game up here, but she’s the only one I’ve yet to see with signs placed on private homes (and I routinely cover a lot of ground in NH). Curiously, I’m not certain she has an office up here. If she does, it’s not in one of the two locales candidates usually set up shop in.
|
|
|
Post by Old School Collector on Sept 27, 2019 0:24:12 GMT -5
You mean stabs like this ? ... this is what keeps these topics going AND on track 🤔 Instead of replying to anything that I said, this was purposely picked out and quotes just to get a rise out of me, in hopes that I’d reply and then I’d be the one who gets in trouble. Yea, so, since this went completely against what had just been stated NUMEROUS times above ... it gets a pass as well ? Again, I can discuss topics that I don’t agree with somebody on, but I guarantee you had I just done that, then I’d have been jumped on for it ... yet I’m supposed to ignore it. I’ll wait for an answer on this .... On topic : The only one that’s getting the nominee from the Democrat aide aill be Joe Biden ... that’s the male version of Hillary Clinton. The whole impeachment nonsense comes at just the perfect time, wouldn’t you think ? I mean the Democratic party is all up in arms because they claim that the President went through a foreign country to dig up dirt on an opponent, but yet this js coming from a party that had paid a foreign spy a ton of money [millions of dollars] for a totally fabricated, and fake dossier 🤦🏼♂️ The same ones also compared the President to a Mafia Boss for trying to strong-arm the Ukrainian government ... yet, at the same tim we have Joe Biden on video threatening to withhold millions of dollars from that same government, if they do not fire a prosecutor investigating a company that his son is in bed with. So, would someone from the Democrat side care to explain this and how come this has been neglected, but yet the President is under attack ? I’m open to hearing opinions from both sides, but I’d really love to hear the left’s point of view on this one.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Sept 27, 2019 1:33:18 GMT -5
Like the ramblings of a deranged person.
|
|