Wisconsin's largest LGBT group endorses Clinton.

[kstewart33]

The group said: “In the U.S. Senate, Clinton championed hate crime legislation, fought for federal non-discrimination legislation to protect LGBT Americans in the workplace, and advocated for an end to restrictions that blocked LGBT Americans from adopting children. As Secretary of State, she advanced LGBT rights abroad and enforced stronger anti-discrimination regulations within the State Department, declaring on the global stage that “gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.”

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.”

http://wisconsingazette.com/2016/03/30/states-largest-lgbt-group-endorses-clinton/

[Gothmog]

1. This is another great endorsement

[cosmicone]

2. Go Hillary!! n/t

[CalvinballPro]

3. Cue the "gays aren't real progressives anyway" attempt to throw them under the bus.

They'll be in great company though, alongside Elizabeth Warren, Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, Barney Frank, and every major gay rights organization that has also endorsed Clinton.

[CalvinballPro]

7. Your hatred of valid arguments shines through in your casual attempt to put words in my mouth.

I'm not anti-gay, and there's nothing from my original comment that indicates anything along those lines. You don't like the fact that I'm right that Bernie supporters will throw any progressive organization that doesn't drink the Kool-Aid under the bus.

Way to build alliances and convince people to support your candidate. No wonder he's failing. People like you have been undermining him since Day One. I hope when you look back on Sanders' failed campaign that you acknowledge your part in it. He couldn't have lost it without you.

[forjusticethunders]

58. "He couldn't have lost it without you"

He couldn't have lost it without you.

This is THE story of the primary. Hillary was (and technically still is) beatable, the fact that it's still theoretically possible for her to lose speaks to that. But the fact is people look at the "movement" and see anger, immaturity, tone-deafness entitlement, defensiveness, and a complete lack of grace and humility, not to mention a distinct aura of "amateur hour". I love Bernie's ideas, he's an actual progressive unless Hillary who needs to be pushed to do progressive things, but Hillary is getting more people to support her. Period. That is the reality. Do I like it? No. But that is the reality. I don't think most of this was Sanders, but it turns out that the supporters did matter, and no matter how much it hurts to admit, the BernieBro thing was a real thing, not just a meme (and when one realizes that some of the loudest and most obnoxious Bernie voters were 2008/2012 Ron Paul voters...)

Also another story of the primary is that elections are won and revolutions are made by building solidarity on the streets, not screaming at people on the net. I hope the next progressive candidate learns this. Ideological purity doesn't win elections or make revolutions without an actual grassroots mass movement to back it up.

[CalvinballPro]

61. I hope voters in the remaining primaries don't let anger overcome reason, I really do.

Anger vs anger in November will be terrible for everyone.

I have said from early on that I could be supporting a movement like Sanders', but only if it were directed at Congress where legislation is actually written. POTUS doesn't write laws, and putting one person in that office won't change the Constitution. Instead, I haven't heard one peep from the Sanders movement about Congressional races, except to say that Sanders is too busy running for President to support them. Really? Clinton is raising money for down-ticket candidates all over the place.

[forjusticethunders]

65. The issue is less about Bernie

And more about the complete lack of organization that the left of this country has. Without Bernie Sanders, what the fuck is there? Just a gaping void. Bernie Sanders has had to cobble all this together, mostly by himself, because there was simply no organized movement for left-wing ideas until he showed up. There was nothing. Nada. Jackshit. And whose fault is that? The fact that Sanders is even still in a position to win at this point (even if it's like an 8% chance right now) is miraculous - but it also speaks to the fact that there is a vast untapped market for progressive ideas but no movement to harness it until now.

The left keeps looking to some messianic political figure to save them and then cries when it predictably doesn't work out. Even when the candidate does half the work for them (and politicians really shouldn't be in the business of building movements by themselves, they should be moved by the movement), it's still the same. Hell, you could probably build a SuperPAC off small donations to identify, promote and fund progressive candidates both as primary challengers against conservative Democrats but in races where Repubs run unopposed. Even if you can't elect a Kshama Sawant in Louisiana or Texas, running politicians like that nationwide changes the narrative, gets the foot in the door, and slowly moves the OW left. But the professional left in this country doesn't have the vision or the drive to get any of this done.

[PeaceNikki]

5. Fair Wisconsin is a great organization.

[PeaceNikki]

8. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

Clinton's LGBT agenda

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.” The group detailed her LGBT agenda, which includes:

Fighting for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Clinton has said that she would work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts to clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.”

Supporting LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Clinton has vowed to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act to combat bullying.

Honoring the military service of LGBT people. Clinton said that as commander-in-chief she would upgrade the service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation and support efforts to allow transgender personnel to serve openly.

Securing affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS. Clinton would work with governors to extend Medicaid coverage to people living with HIV, cap out-of pocket expenses for people with HIV/AIDS, and expand the utilization of HIV prevention medications, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Protecting and advancing transgender rights. Clinton would direct the federal government to improve its reporting of hate crimes and streamline identity documents that impose barriers on transgender Americans seeking official identification documents.

Promoting human rights of LGBT people around the world. Clinton would continue to ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world. She would increase the U.S. investment in the Global Equality Fund to advance the human rights of LGBT people around the world.

[beam me up scottie]

11. It was their PAC not the group or its members.

The op edited that part out.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Their PAC endorsed her, not the group. Why did you edit that part out?

Fair Wisconsin PAC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in next week’s Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary.

In a press statement announcing the endorsement, the group’s political action committee called Clinton “a champion for LGBT equality.”

Nice try.

[PeaceNikki]

12. PACs are typically the only arm of *any* organization who ever endorse.

[beam me up scottie]

13. It's disingenuous to say the group endorsed her.

And even more so to ignore her abysmal record on marriage equality.

[PeaceNikki]

14. No, it's really pretty common. And it's the headline of the article in the OP.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Except the op deliberately left out the first two paragraphs.

[kstewart33]

26. I posted the thread. And just stop it.

I didn't deliberately leave anything out. The only thing that I deliberately did was to post the thread.

Who are you to state as fact something you know nothing about as to a person's motives or thinking.

What's next? That I am a dishonest, lying corporate shill because I post something that you don't like? How Democratic is that?

[beam me up scottie]

28. You skipped the first two paragraphs.

I base my opinion of why that happened on your other ops.

What's next? That I am a dishonest, lying corporate shill because I post something that you don't like? How Democratic is that?

Strawman.

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

48. Not true.

the 501(c)(4) arm, which is different from the PAC but can have the same members, can endorse or oppose candidates.

[PeaceNikki]

50. *Can*? Sure. Does? That's not typically how they work.

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

53. Yes, it is, especially social justice organizations.

c3 does the community educational work and cannot publicly support any legislation, while the c4 actively lobbies for legislation and endorses/opposes candidates.

For what it's worth, I have worked in the LGBTQ non profit world for over 30 years.

[Onlooker]

23. Duh! A nonprofit cannot endorse, so the PAC does the endorsement ... n/t

[beam me up scottie]

25. So the op misrepresented the truth by omission.

We went over this last night when you did the same thing, remember? Lying by omission fallacy?

Duh indeed.

[Onlooker]

31. Largest Peace Group Endorses Sanders

Just want to show you how wrong you are. The same point you're making could be made about almost any nonprofit that endorses through its political arm. But, perhaps you want to go after Common Dreams for their omission fallacy, too?

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/02/10/largest-peace-group-endorses-sanders

[beam me up scottie]

32. That doesn't prove I'm wrong, I said the op omitted the information.

And that the PAC endorsed her not the group, how was I wrong?

[Sheepshank]

35. you certainly did attempt to imply the PAC dos not speak for the organization--

the only thing you have to hang your hat on is that the OP didn't use more of the article, even though a link was provided and that you didn't like the way the heading was worded...you attempt to walk it back is weak sauce.

[beam me up scottie]

36. Nice try, SS. Unless you can link to my saying those words you're lying.

You just don't like the fact that the truth was pointed out.

Too bad.

[Sheepshank]

37. and who's the liar now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1616610

[beam me up scottie]

38. That would be you. The PAC did endorse her, the group didn't.

Fair Wisconsin PAC today announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in next week’s Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary.

In a press statement announcing the endorsement, the group’s political action committee called Clinton “a champion for LGBT equality.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1616610

You said:

you certainly did attempt to imply the PAC dos not speak for the organization--

[Sheepshank]

39. You implied much much more, and now walking it all back..weak n/t

and you were given example of how Bernie benefited from the same type of activity and yet you are mum.

It's so pathetic, your attempt to divert a positive narrative when it's to Hillary's benefit

I'll not further engage you, your badgering process is old and worn out and I think I've said enough. The readers can judge for themselves.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Maybe you should try addressing what I actually posted instead of using strawman arguments.

You're not very good at it and you just end up looking foolish.

[Onlooker]

56. Scottie, come on, avoid the personal attacks

Clearly you were trying to diminish the endorsement by drawing a technicality, but perhaps the next time someone posts an endorsement for Bernie where it fails to distinguish between the nonprofit and its political arm, you'll be the first to pipe in and imply that Bernie's endorsement is less meaningful than it sounds. You ought to learn to let these things fade away, since I really don't think many people will back you up, and all you're doing is keeping this gay group endorsement of Hillary high up on the page.

[beam me up scottie]

62. No I clearly wasn't, I was posting the facts, how you feel about them is irrelevant.

And after looking at your transparency page should you really be lecturing anyone about personal attacks?

[PyaarRevolution]

60. The PAC does not represent the opinions of its members necessarily.

Keith Ellison is part of the CBC and endorses Bernie. Do you think he approves of the fact the CBC PAC endorses Hillary?! Heck no.

[Onlooker]

63. I doubt many groups are unanimous one way or the others

The fact that the CBC PAC endorses Hillary means that the CBC endorses Hillary. If a majority endorsed Bernie, the PAC would have endorsed him.

Here's an example. Once again, the headline says the Michigan Nurse's Assoc. endorsed Bernie, but Scottie would be quick to point out that's incorrect. It was there political action committee. Are we to presume that means every one of their 11,000 members endorsed Bernie? Of course not, just a majority, perhaps a strong majority. But, thanks for allowing this thread to keep getting bounced up on the page!

http://minurses.org/news-and-events/p/openItem/5691

[Sheepshank]

34. DING DING DING....winner n/t

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

55. The c4 arm of nonprofits endorse all the time.

It's not just the PACS that engage is this activity.

[geek tragedy]

10. just waiting for the inevitable "Stockholm syndrome" Bernsplanation nt

[ibegurpard]

16. And HRC endorsed Ron Kirk...

So much for LGBT groups representing my interests.

[PeaceNikki]

17. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

Clinton's LGBT agenda

FW went on to praise Clinton for having “the most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate.” The group detailed her LGBT agenda, which includes:

Fighting for full federal equality for LGBT Americans. Clinton has said that she would work with Congress to pass the Equality Act, continue President Obama’s LGBT equality executive actions, and support efforts to clarify that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.”

Supporting LGBT youth, parents, and elders. Clinton has vowed to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act to combat bullying.

Honoring the military service of LGBT people. Clinton said that as commander-in-chief she would upgrade the service records of LGBT veterans dismissed due to their sexual orientation and support efforts to allow transgender personnel to serve openly.

Securing affordable treatment for people living with HIV and AIDS. Clinton would work with governors to extend Medicaid coverage to people living with HIV, cap out-of pocket expenses for people with HIV/AIDS, and expand the utilization of HIV prevention medications, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Protecting and advancing transgender rights. Clinton would direct the federal government to improve its reporting of hate crimes and streamline identity documents that impose barriers on transgender Americans seeking official identification documents.

Promoting human rights of LGBT people around the world. Clinton would continue to ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world. She would increase the U.S. investment in the Global Equality Fund to advance the human rights of LGBT people around the world.

Fair Wisconsin is a fantastic organization.

[beam me up scottie]

18. She was there alright, standing in their way:

She did evolve finally but let's not whitewash her history.

[PeaceNikki]

19. "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate"

That quoted text is on point and they explain why - in great detail.

Yeah, we could discuss the "evolution" of both candidates on SSM, but that seems odd. What are their policy plans for the future?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

But Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.

...

Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it. Sanders’ rhetoric leads listeners to believe that the congressman championed gay rights and rebuked Congress’ homophobia during the DOMA debate. But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.

...

Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.

...

Still, Sanders’ exaggeration of his marriage equality record is strange and unwise. If Sanders were honest about his evolution—and, yes, it was an evolution—then he could still brag about supporting marriage equality long before his chief primary rival. Instead, he has attempted to reframe his somewhat tepid support as vociferous and unabating. The LGBTQ community can surely forgive Sanders’ less-than-spotless record on gay rights—but that process can only begin once he’s honest about it. And in the Democratic candidates’ race to secure the gay community’s vote, honesty has been in surprisingly short supply.

[beam me up scottie]

20. Oh please, that's been debunked so many times, Bernie never opposed marriage equality.

The Slate blogger lied through his teeth, here's the transcript to that video:

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.

He opposed allowing the feds to overturn states who had passed same sex legislation.

Bernie never needed to evolve because he never opposed marriage equality. He voted against DOMA and knew that same sex legislation wouldn't pass on Vermont so he said to wait, and he was right.

[PeaceNikki]

21. OK, I guess you didn't read what I posted. I didn't say that he opposed marriage equality

But he, too, evolved.

And HRC still has the "most comprehensive and far-reaching LGBT policy agenda ever produced by a presidential candidate".

[beam me up scottie]

22. He didn't "evolve" because he always supported marriage equality.

She didn't come around until 2013.

[riversedge]

29. I took the poster all of 5 minutes to respond and probably took that long to

to his post. it is a quick one.

[beam me up scottie]

30. "it"? Now Hillary supporters are using gender based slurs when they can't counter arguments?

One of your little friends got a timeout for doing that.

They're still flagged as a matter of fact.

[riversedge]

42. I did not and do not know if you are male or female. "it' is gender neutral

term as I understand.

So you can cut with the slur comments that you directed at me.

[beam me up scottie]

44. The correct pronoun is "they", "it" is used as an insult.

Don't play coy, you could have used my username.

[riversedge]

51. Not playing coy. I gave you my reason. Simple as that.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Oh and "she" is quick because "she" knows how to do a search.

You really should stop embarrassing yourself.

[riversedge]

43. Then the compliments is yours.

[geek tragedy]

24. so now you consider all GLBT groups to be untrustworthy because of HRC? nt

[Democrats Ascendant]

27. Great!

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

41. Color me unimpressed.

Just look at their minuscule budget, size of staff and political clout for their regions. Definitely not movers and shakers in the LGBTQ silo.

And also consider how infrequent their blog posts are updated. Doesn't appear to be a very active organization.

[riversedge]

46. Do you know something about their 'political clout"??

[BlackCoffeeinNYC]

49. Yes.

[riversedge]

45. REC. and Thank you.

[EndElectoral]

47. Maybe it was the Nancy Reagan comments that put her over the top

[revbones]

52. I'm sure their members voted on it too right? nt

[obamneycare]

54. I can't find any account of whether members were consulted in any way. But this is interesting...

...

The only voice you seem to hear accounting for this endorsement, is that of its Chair, Nancy Nusbaum:

“Fair Wisconsin PAC is proud to endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton for President,” said Nancy Nusbaum, Chair of Fair Wisconsin PAC. “Secretary Clinton has a distinguished record as a champion for LGBT equality on both the domestic and international stage, as Secretary of State and U.S. Senator. We are confident that she is the best candidate to continue and expand on the legacy of the Obama Administration as the most pro-fairness in history.”

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.Iml?Article=367971

... but who exactly is Nancy Nusbaum, anyway?

Nusbaum advances in Cowles recall election
July 12, 2011

Former Brown County Executive Nancy Nusbaum trounced "fake Democrat" Otto Junkermann in Tuesday's 2nd Senate District Democratic primary.

Nusbaum now moves on to face Sen. Robert Cowles (R-Green Bay) in the Aug. 9 recall election.

The primary offered Democrats a choice between a former Republican supported by Democratic leaders and a current Republican running as a Democrat at the behest of GOP leaders.

Nusbaum, the "official" Democratic candidate, was elected to the nonpartisan offices of De Pere mayor, where she served from 1988 to 1995, and Brown County executive, where she served from 1995 to 2003. She ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Republican in 1994, served in a Democratic attorney general's office from 2003 to 2005, and then lost another congressional election as a Democrat in 2006.

Nusbaum, 64, is a retired teacher.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/125460763.html

[img][/img]

[PeaceNikki]

57. Yes, she used to be a Republican. So what? So was Elizabeth Warren.

[obamneycare]

59. Voting Republican is one thing. But RUNNING FOR CONGRESS as a Republican...

... and then, years later, running as a Democrat after you lose...



... Then again, what am I saying -- I suppose it's no different than David Brock... [img][/img]

... and we all trust his sincere concern for progressive values... [img][/img]

[pantsonfire]

64. Five of HRC's endorsements voted in favor of the Anti-LGBTQ bill in NC....n/t