Kristin Mink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like her. She’s basically our county’s version of AOC based on the outrage I’m reading here.

AOC is very thoughtful and intelligent, and actually engages on difficult policy issues. Not really like Mink in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her. She’s basically our county’s version of AOC based on the outrage I’m reading here.

I’m curious. You like a politician that causes this much outrage and division?

She seems to have a habit of making severely biased comments. Her Muslim comment is only the most recent.

it’s OK to be a bigot. It just matters who your bigotry is targeted against.

Gosh, I really hope this is a joke. No, it isn’t okay to be a bigot.

Bigot:
a person who is ***obstinately or unreasonably*** attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

So you are saying it’s NOT unreasonable to compare Muslims to white supremacists. Or favor inclusion of LGBTQ+ kids over Muslim kids. Gotcha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like her. She’s basically our county’s version of AOC based on the outrage I’m reading here.

I’m curious. You like a politician that causes this much outrage and division?

She seems to have a habit of making severely biased comments. Her Muslim comment is only the most recent.

it’s OK to be a bigot. It just matters who your bigotry is targeted against.

Gosh, I really hope this is a joke. No, it isn’t okay to be a bigot.

Bigot:
a person who is ***obstinately or unreasonably*** attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

So you are saying it’s NOT unreasonable to compare Muslims to white supremacists. Or favor inclusion of LGBTQ+ kids over Muslim kids. Gotcha

Wait… what?

Try to make your post a little more clear. Your two examples would fall under the definition of bigotry. I’m generally not a fan of bigotry in any form.

What are you trying to argue, exactly?

[Anonymous]

She and her husband once cut us off in line at a local establishment a while back when she was in campaigning mode. It was busy and we had been waiting in line for 10+ minutes. They were off to the side and not even in line. Then a person 3 or 4 ahead gets to the cashier to order, they went to the front to talk to them (presumably about politics? I couldn't hear) and also used that opportunity to sneak in their order.

It really irked me and permanently turned me off from ever voting for her. Forget politics, who in their right mind as a politician would cut their potential constituents off in line at an establishment that were waiting for a long time? It spoke volumes to me about her poor decision making, sense of entitlement, and massive ego. She just doesn't seem likeable at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She and her husband once cut us off in line at a local establishment a while back when she was in campaigning mode. It was busy and we had been waiting in line for 10+ minutes. They were off to the side and not even in line. Then a person 3 or 4 ahead gets to the cashier to order, they went to the front to talk to them (presumably about politics? I couldn't hear) and also used that opportunity to sneak in their order.

It really irked me and permanently turned me off from ever voting for her. Forget politics, who in their right mind as a politician would cut their potential constituents off in line at an establishment that were waiting for a long time? It spoke volumes to me about her poor decision making, sense of entitlement, and massive ego. She just doesn't seem likeable at all.

Wow. That would upset me, as well. I can see now that would influence your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For god's sake, Muslims are not aligning with white supremacists. Muslims are opposing the removal of an opt-out option in public school instruction. White supremacists are protesting LGBTQA existence. Only Kristin sees these as the same thing.

It was a joint protest event.

Moms for Liberty may be anti-LGBTQ+, but they are not white supremacists.

They are a national organization that has explicitly and repeatedly opposed lesson plans around civil rights. If they are not white supremacist, they are absolutely aligned with white supremacists in their desire to downplay a history of racial discrimination in this country.

I think CAIR is going to regret partnering with them, to be honest, because they have some fringe beliefs that absolutely will result in backlash against Muslim American communities.

Well if progressives in Moco think Muslims have white supremacist views then I'm not sure where else they are going to find allies. And this whole Muslim as white supremacist thing....wow. I'm kind of guessing that the extreme left just uses the "white supremacist" label on minority groups to other them without looking biased?

Once again, very slowly, I will repeat.

No one is saying that Muslims have white supremacist views. People are saying that some Muslim (including a prominent Muslim American lobbying group) have chosen to align themselves with white supremacists on this issue. Those people believe that this is a mistake, both because even a temporary and situational alignment with white supremacists is bad, and because white supremacists have a nasty habit of turning on you when the temporary alignment ends.

Do you realize how insane it is to compare two groups who have nothing to do with each other? It's an intentional attempt to change the discussion from religious people simply asking for an opt-out, to know throw them in the same bucket with a hate group, because they happen to agree on one issue.

It would be like if Donald Trump said he liked the Washington Nationals, and I said "yeah me too".

OH SO YOU ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS DONALD TRUMP ON THIS ONE, HUH?!

They were literally protesting the same thing at the same protest event. That's not "nothing to do with each other." It was a mistake for MoCo CAIR to have the joint protest with "Moms for Liberty", in my opinion. They should have had their own protest event.

This. If you co-sponsor and co-organize a political event with a white supremacist group, you should expect to be called out for it.

CAIR is in bed with bad people here, and the fact that they are a Muslim-American group should not stop anyone from pointing that out.

Except there's no evidence Moms For Liberty was even there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW she knows very well what she is doing. She knows if she tells Moms for Liberty that they are White supremacists (notice she didn't do that), they will vigorously deny it, maybe even sue her. She tells that to "Muslims" and she knows they don't want to be allied with White supremacists because when people assume Muslims are linked to violent extremists, they get persecuted.

Yes, progressives would not be able to tell Muslims that banning LGBTQ books is bigoted the same way they do to Christians. What they can do is white savior them from "joining in white supremacist views" which immediately discounts their views on a subject.

That's silly. I don't consider myself a progressive, but I'm perfectly comfortable telling ANYBODY that banning books with LGBTQ characters is bigoted.

The MoCo CAIR families get to make their own decisions about whom to ally with. I, personally, think it was a bad decision to ally with the astroturf book-banners, and if anybody had asked me, I would have said so, but nobody asked me.

1) they want the same thing as them which is why they are allying with them
2) they do not want any books banned. They want to be able to opt out of content that goes against their religious beliefs
3) Progressives are against charter schools and vouchers. The more they push their ideology in schools, the greater the support for vouchers will become. I am Muslim and every Muslim I have spoken to, all who vote democrat, are very uncomfortable with what’s happening. Some are even planning to vote republican in the next election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW she knows very well what she is doing. She knows if she tells Moms for Liberty that they are White supremacists (notice she didn't do that), they will vigorously deny it, maybe even sue her. She tells that to "Muslims" and she knows they don't want to be allied with White supremacists because when people assume Muslims are linked to violent extremists, they get persecuted.

Yes, progressives would not be able to tell Muslims that banning LGBTQ books is bigoted the same way they do to Christians. What they can do is white savior them from "joining in white supremacist views" which immediately discounts their views on a subject.

That's silly. I don't consider myself a progressive, but I'm perfectly comfortable telling ANYBODY that banning books with LGBTQ characters is bigoted.

The MoCo CAIR families get to make their own decisions about whom to ally with. I, personally, think it was a bad decision to ally with the astroturf book-banners, and if anybody had asked me, I would have said so, but nobody asked me.

I didn't hear Mink directing her comments at CAIR. The exact words she used were "some Muslim families".

CAIR = Council on American-Islamic Relations

Yes, I know. Did you know CAIR does not mean the same thing as "some Muslim families"? One is a specific organization, the other can be inclusive of nearly 2 billion people.

Oh good grief. "Some Muslim families" does not mean "every Muslim in the world". Similarly, when I refer to "the Muslim people at the protest that happened before the BoE meeting," I am also not referring to every Muslim in the world.

Have you asked any Montgomery County residents who are LGBTQ+ and Muslim how they feel about this?

I will weigh in, but obviously do not speak for all Muslims, who have diverse opinions.

What impressed me is her passion for her cause.

What disappointed me was her complete lack of understanding that people from different backgrounds have different challenges to navigate. And that lack of understanding seems to continue to be present in her apology.

One third of the county are immigrants. That includes some Muslim families like mine. We go back to our home country each year to be with close family. It requires what many here call code switching. I can act one way here, I must act another way there. Just as I had to make sure my young kids with their Arab names didn't joke about things like guns or bombs when flying, so to must parents make sure their kids don't talk about certain things that are completely unacceptable among large portions of populations "back home."

I can only speak for me and my family. Being gay is seen as just one permutation of God's work. God does not make mistakes. It is more likely to be accepted (by family and upper class individuals) although not flaunted, if that makes sense. But the whole boom in talking about transgender individuals is hard to manage. It is new and brings uncertainty. Muslims should honor the body they have been blessed with by God, and not change or deface it. God does not make mistakes. So many Muslims believe tattoos for example, are haram or religiously forbidden. Modifying ones body to change genitalia is such an extreme example of changing your body. How do parents make sure their kids don't innocently start talking about that back in their parents' "home" country?" To relatives who will not understand at all? Or worse, will anyone turn parents in? Will anyone hurt the kids? And perhaps in some cases, what if a child believes they are transgender? In some Islamic countries, being gay is a jailable offense. In others, it is a death sentence. But in all, I think, there are definitely people who will culturally not tolerate it, and may be prone to violence against those they perceive of as gay. And that cultural influence is here as well, among immigrant and close knit Muslim communities. It becomes a true safety issue. For some. Not all.

It is this type of complexity I wish Mink could acknowledge. Just because a parent wants to opt their child out of certain books doesn't mean they see gay and transgender kids as wrong. Sometimes it just means they are trying to navigate the unique complexities of their own lives, and opting out would make things a bit easier.

Our kids will gay and transgender in similar proportions as non-Muslims. Maybe not as obviously. My sister in law is gay and never married. She instead cares for our mother in law, and that is the acceptable cover for being single. She has had close friends. That part is much easier to hide. Yes, it is sad that she has to hide, and I have offered to bring her here. But she feels most comfortable in the culture she was raised in. She manages. But she does live in a country where sex outside of marriage is jailable.

So what does supporting gay rights have to do with objecting over a book that promotes drag to kindergarteners? I’m Muslim. I support gay marriage. I am against forcing my kids to read these books in schools.

[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.

For god's sake, Muslims are not aligning with white supremacists. Muslims are opposing the removal of an opt-out option in public school instruction. White supremacists are protesting LGBTQA existence. Only Kristin sees these as the same thing.

It was a joint protest event.

Moms for Liberty may be anti-LGBTQ+, but they are not white supremacists.

They are a national organization that has explicitly and repeatedly opposed lesson plans around civil rights. If they are not white supremacist, they are absolutely aligned with white supremacists in their desire to downplay a history of racial discrimination in this country.

I think CAIR is going to regret partnering with them, to be honest, because they have some fringe beliefs that absolutely will result in backlash against Muslim American communities.

Well if progressives in Moco think Muslims have white supremacist views then I'm not sure where else they are going to find allies. And this whole Muslim as white supremacist thing....wow. I'm kind of guessing that the extreme left just uses the "white supremacist" label on minority groups to other them without looking biased?

Once again, very slowly, I will repeat.

No one is saying that Muslims have white supremacist views. People are saying that some Muslim (including a prominent Muslim American lobbying group) have chosen to align themselves with white supremacists on this issue. Those people believe that this is a mistake, both because even a temporary and situational alignment with white supremacists is bad, and because white supremacists have a nasty habit of turning on you when the temporary alignment ends.

It’s funny that you think you can lecture Muslims over who they should ally with. CAIR is not a dumb organization. They know exactly what republicans are like. They don’t need you to tell them that “white supremacists have a nasty habit of turning on you when the temporary alignment end.” They know this and they are not stupid. But guess what? CAIR also view this as a temporary and very specific alignment. They share values with consebatives on this very specific issue.

[Anonymous]

We should be thanking Mink for her comments. Because what she is saying is that teaching gender ideology is SO unpopular, the coalition united against it is is incredibly diverse, includes Muslins, Christians, and White Supremacists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For god's sake, Muslims are not aligning with white supremacists. Muslims are opposing the removal of an opt-out option in public school instruction. White supremacists are protesting LGBTQA existence. Only Kristin sees these as the same thing.

It was a joint protest event.

Moms for Liberty may be anti-LGBTQ+, but they are not white supremacists.

They are a national organization that has explicitly and repeatedly opposed lesson plans around civil rights. If they are not white supremacist, they are absolutely aligned with white supremacists in their desire to downplay a history of racial discrimination in this country.

I think CAIR is going to regret partnering with them, to be honest, because they have some fringe beliefs that absolutely will result in backlash against Muslim American communities.

Well if progressives in Moco think Muslims have white supremacist views then I'm not sure where else they are going to find allies. And this whole Muslim as white supremacist thing....wow. I'm kind of guessing that the extreme left just uses the "white supremacist" label on minority groups to other them without looking biased?

Once again, very slowly, I will repeat.

No one is saying that Muslims have white supremacist views. People are saying that some Muslim (including a prominent Muslim American lobbying group) have chosen to align themselves with white supremacists on this issue. Those people believe that this is a mistake, both because even a temporary and situational alignment with white supremacists is bad, and because white supremacists have a nasty habit of turning on you when the temporary alignment ends.

It’s funny that you think you can lecture Muslims over who they should ally with. CAIR is not a dumb organization. They know exactly what republicans are like. They don’t need you to tell them that “white supremacists have a nasty habit of turning on you when the temporary alignment end.” They know this and they are not stupid. But guess what? CAIR also view this as a temporary and very specific alignment. They share values with consebatives on this very specific issue.

Actually, Montgomery County CAIR has prudently (and, I believe, correctly) made it clear that they are NOT aligned with the white supremacists/Christian nationalists on this issue. Which is good news for everyone, except the white supremacists/Christian nationalists.

https://moco360.media/2023/06/16/more-protests-planned-at-mcps-headquarters-over-lgbtq-inclusive-books/

[Anonymous]

The tells that Mink's comments were ridiculous are that:

1. Nobody calls Moms for Liberty a "White supremacist" group. I don't like Moms for Liberty, I think they are horrible, but I also believe words have meaning. Political and religious extremism is a big problem in the US. It's an important enough problem for folks to be careful and specific about the words they use.

2. She would never say "Some Christians are aligning themselves with White supremacists on this issue" even though that is no less true than saying "Some Muslims". Why focus on the Muslims? The whole "not all, but some" is just...what are you trying to say here lady? Why are you calling out one specific religion? Can't you just say "Some people, not all, but some"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tells that Mink's comments were ridiculous are that:

1. Nobody calls Moms for Liberty a "White supremacist" group. I don't like Moms for Liberty, I think they are horrible, but I also believe words have meaning. Political and religious extremism is a big problem in the US. It's an important enough problem for folks to be careful and specific about the words they use.

2. She would never say "Some Christians are aligning themselves with White supremacists on this issue" even though that is no less true than saying "Some Muslims". Why focus on the Muslims? The whole "not all, but some" is just...what are you trying to say here lady? Why are you calling out one specific religion? Can't you just say "Some people, not all, but some"?

Yes, they do.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-report-looks-at-the-changing-face-of-extremist-groups-in-america

Saying "some Christian nationalists are aligning themselves with white supremacists on this issue" would basically be like saying "some water is wet."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tells that Mink's comments were ridiculous are that:

1. Nobody calls Moms for Liberty a "White supremacist" group. I don't like Moms for Liberty, I think they are horrible, but I also believe words have meaning. Political and religious extremism is a big problem in the US. It's an important enough problem for folks to be careful and specific about the words they use.

2. She would never say "Some Christians are aligning themselves with White supremacists on this issue" even though that is no less true than saying "Some Muslims". Why focus on the Muslims? The whole "not all, but some" is just...what are you trying to say here lady? Why are you calling out one specific religion? Can't you just say "Some people, not all, but some"?

Yes, they do.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-report-looks-at-the-changing-face-of-extremist-groups-in-america

Saying "some Christian nationalists are aligning themselves with white supremacists on this issue" would basically be like saying "some water is wet."

Nobody in that article describes Moms for Liberty as a White supremacist group. In that article, the only time the words "White supremacist" are used is in reference to the KKK and neo Nazis. The SLPC does not describe Moms for Liberty as a White supremacist group. It does categorize it as an "extremist" group. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180486760/splc-moms-for-liberty-extremist-group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tells that Mink's comments were ridiculous are that:

1. Nobody calls Moms for Liberty a "White supremacist" group. I don't like Moms for Liberty, I think they are horrible, but I also believe words have meaning. Political and religious extremism is a big problem in the US. It's an important enough problem for folks to be careful and specific about the words they use.

2. She would never say "Some Christians are aligning themselves with White supremacists on this issue" even though that is no less true than saying "Some Muslims". Why focus on the Muslims? The whole "not all, but some" is just...what are you trying to say here lady? Why are you calling out one specific religion? Can't you just say "Some people, not all, but some"?

Yes, they do.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/new-report-looks-at-the-changing-face-of-extremist-groups-in-america

Saying "some Christian nationalists are aligning themselves with white supremacists on this issue" would basically be like saying "some water is wet."

Nobody in that article describes Moms for Liberty as a White supremacist group. In that article, the only time the words "White supremacist" are used is in reference to the KKK and neo Nazis. The SLPC does not describe Moms for Liberty as a White supremacist group. It does categorize it as an "extremist" group. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180486760/splc-moms-for-liberty-extremist-group

Besides this, of course: "What they want is a public education that prioritizes white cisgender children [over] other children of color and different gender identities."

I guess, if you want to say, "No! They're not white supremacists! They're Christian nationalists who support white supremacy!", then go ahead? I don't have the time or energy to engage with these superfine distinctions between overlapping extremist hate groups with similar aims.