Kristin Mink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

I agree. She’s a great activist, but a terrible councilwoman. She can’t represent her constituents because she can’t see past her own priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

Yep, she is an activist, just like everyone else in the SS/TP mob. Activists make for terrible politicians, governance and policy makers though. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, oppression or not oppression.

The world does not work in binary tho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

Yep, she is an activist, just like everyone else in the SS/TP mob. Activists make for terrible politicians, governance and policy makers though. Everything is black or white, right or wrong, oppression or not oppression.

The world does not work in binary tho.

I'm guessing this is unintentional irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

I just posted saying that I don’t support labels or assumptions, and you ask me a question that contains both.

Since I don’t think all people feel the same way about any topic, I’m going to have a hard time answering that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

I just posted saying that I don’t support labels or assumptions, and you ask me a question that contains both.

Since I don’t think all people feel the same way about any topic, I’m going to have a hard time answering that question.

How do you think KKK members feel about African-Americans? How do you think Nazis feel about Jews? How do you think Hindu nationalists feel about Muslims in India? How do you think Burmese Buddhist nationalists feel about Muslims in Burma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

Which books, approved for the elementary school curriculum, contain "sexual content?"

Be specific please.

[Anonymous]

She isn't going around equating all the White Christians, Latinos or Black people who don't like LGBTQ+ people with White supremacists. She's playing into the notion that all Muslims are ISIS. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

My opinion is, when people label themselves, believe them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

I just posted saying that I don’t support labels or assumptions, and you ask me a question that contains both.

Since I don’t think all people feel the same way about any topic, I’m going to have a hard time answering that question.

How do you think KKK members feel about African-Americans? How do you think Nazis feel about Jews? How do you think Hindu nationalists feel about Muslims in India? How do you think Burmese Buddhist nationalists feel about Muslims in Burma?

I simply told you I don’t label people or make assumptions about their beliefs. For some reason, I think you found my reasonable and respectful approach to life insulting.

I watched the video of Mink’s comments, which made assumptions and labeled people. I simply stated that it’s too elementary to look at the opt-out group and label them as siding with white supremacists.

I’m going to continue being open-minded to those around me regardless of your extreme line of questioning. I see the attempt to paint me into a corner here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

I just posted saying that I don’t support labels or assumptions, and you ask me a question that contains both.

Since I don’t think all people feel the same way about any topic, I’m going to have a hard time answering that question.

How do you think KKK members feel about African-Americans? How do you think Nazis feel about Jews? How do you think Hindu nationalists feel about Muslims in India? How do you think Burmese Buddhist nationalists feel about Muslims in Burma?

I simply told you I don’t label people or make assumptions about their beliefs. For some reason, I think you found my reasonable and respectful approach to life insulting.

I watched the video of Mink’s comments, which made assumptions and labeled people. I simply stated that it’s too elementary to look at the opt-out group and label them as siding with white supremacists.

I’m going to continue being open-minded to those around me regardless of your extreme line of questioning. I see the attempt to paint me into a corner here.

I'm not the PP, but in this specific case, one subset of the Muslim American community DID align themselves with white supremacists by joining a court case with them.

[Anonymous]

I really can't believe that anyone who believes in equity and inclusion is supporting Mink describing Muslims who oppose having their kids read books about LGBTQ+ people as White supremacists. Do you know the difference between White supremacy and White supremacists? Do you not get that White supremacy is everywhere and large percentages of people of all religions are transphobic and homophobic and there is something messed up about equating Muslims specifically with White supremacist groups? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's clearly out of her depth. This is what happens when you elect an activist with no actual policy experience.

She lives in a binary world. You are either with her or against her. There is no middle ground.

Agree or disagree with her, she is very passionate about her activism. She’s a great activist! She cares deeply about trans LGBTQ issues.

What she is not, is a good council woman. She should never have gone into it, and she should not run again. She should keep her focus on her passion projects, where she will be very effective for them.

I browse her Twitter and you can tell what she cares about. I don’t see the apology on there, unless I missed it in one of her threads.

If you live in her district, and if she runs again, here's what you can do: vote for a different candidate. If you don't live in her district? *shrug*

Meanwhile the substance of what she said is correct. Even if the so-called-"Christian" nationalists/white supremacists happen to be on the same side as the Muslim parents at the protest on this specific issue, they are antithetical to everyone who is non-white and/or has any religious beliefs that aren't their particular brand. If anybody at the protest had asked me, I would have said: Don't ally with people who believe you have no right to exist, because you will lose even if you win.

Why jump all the way to that conclusion? Why assume that people who want to opt-out think you have no right to exist?

There are other reasons to opt out, which are far more benign. Some of the books contain sexual content that families may not want to expose their children to at a young age. Is that denying existence? No. That’s just upholding a different belief. It’s simple to lump everybody who disagrees into one “they are bad people” category, but the world doesn’t work that way. That’s why Mink’s comments are so concerning.

I personally would not opt out my own children, but I can respect the views of others. I am also against labeling people, which is happening FAR too frequently lately.

How do you think Christian nationalists and white supremacists feel about Muslim-Americans?

I just posted saying that I don’t support labels or assumptions, and you ask me a question that contains both.

Since I don’t think all people feel the same way about any topic, I’m going to have a hard time answering that question.

How do you think KKK members feel about African-Americans? How do you think Nazis feel about Jews? How do you think Hindu nationalists feel about Muslims in India? How do you think Burmese Buddhist nationalists feel about Muslims in Burma?

I simply told you I don’t label people or make assumptions about their beliefs. For some reason, I think you found my reasonable and respectful approach to life insulting.

I watched the video of Mink’s comments, which made assumptions and labeled people. I simply stated that it’s too elementary to look at the opt-out group and label them as siding with white supremacists.

I’m going to continue being open-minded to those around me regardless of your extreme line of questioning. I see the attempt to paint me into a corner here.

I'm not the PP, but in this specific case, one subset of the Muslim American community DID align themselves with white supremacists by joining a court case with them.

Did the SPECIFIC Muslim people Mink is referring to join this court case? Or do you just believe that all Muslims are friends and anything one Muslim does reflects on all Muslims?