Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[Politesse]

There is no way redneck America is going to elect a gay man with a husband. Forget it.

Ah, a racial slur and homophobia. What a charming contribution from the (sub?)urban left.

He wasn’t talking about himself. I think that he is very correct that many will not vote for a gay person. I’d also add my opinion that many will never vote for a woman. Very sad…

Really. How in the FUCK did she conclude from what I wrote that I was a homophobe?

Are you not, in fact, expressing a fear of gay political candidates? You're displacing it onto other people, but pragmatically there's really not much difference between saying "LGBTQ people should be excluded from public office because conservatives are afraid of them" and "LGBTQ people should be excluded from public office because I am afraid of them". If you're advocating for social exclusion, who cares why you are doing it? Maybe you're right about the "rednecks", and maybe you ain't, but I know for sure that you're more responsible for what you actually say, than you are for what you claim they say. If the "rednecks" want to object, they can do so on their own without your help.

If you don't like Trump, don't volunteer to help him. If you reject his values, don't replicate them. If it's true that America isn't "ready" for a gay president, then that is something that needs to change. Shoving us all back into closets and coffins won't change a damn thing.

 

[Ford]

The guy comes off as being extraordinarily sharp. He has a very fast wit. Generally former Sec of Transportation don't become Presidents and his only other real job was being Mayor of South Bend... and you can kiss Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan goodbye with that. j/k But seriously, Mayor of a modest small city is small fry. Of course, if fucking Trump can be President....

He lacks charisma, but would be awesome in front of the press as well as in a debate. Of course, we know debates can only be lost, they can't be won.

The thing I noticed when he was running for the Democratic nomination (and has been played out in his cable news appearances since) is that unlike most politicians he doesn't use a question (at a town hall, debate, etc) to pivot towards prepared talking points about some vaguely related issue. It's not "well that's a great question, Chris. This is why I'm running against the radical left agenda of my opponent, and if we can secure the border, this problem will solve itself." (when asked about a tax break for a manufacturing plant in Terra Haute)

Mayor Pete seems to be able to answer questions directly. Are some of his answers prepared? Yes, but they're also well-researched and relevant. He's a technocrat, to be sure, but comes off as competent as opposed to someone like Tommy Tuberville or Marjorie Trailer Queen who goes for bombast and ignorance.

But yeah...the fact that Trump is in the White House tells me we're nowhere near ready for a short, gay President no matter how competent he might be.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This "screaming liberal" likes Mayor Pete just fine, despite our many disagreements. And we do have many disagreements. It is possible to disagree with someone, even publically disagree with them, and not hate them or want them to die. It is even possible to actually hate someone but still vote for them. People are complicated, they aren't storybook characters who can be summarized as simply Good or Bad without losing sight of reality. That myopic inability some seem to have to see the good in one's foes or the flaws in one's allies has greatly contributed to Trump's rise. He's made everyone afraid to crificize him, and publically shames them if they do. Not because they are wrong, but because they were "rude". Well, if your sense of manners compels you to give lip service to dictators, or even to remain silent when more well-meaning politicians make grave mistakes, I say "fuck manners". I'd rather have a functioning democracy, staffed by real human beings, than a superficial pageant of a government with fictionalized demigods as the principal characters.

It's also possible to have many disagreements, not hate them or want them to die, and not want them to run.

 

[Politesse]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything, I highly recommend C.P. Cavafy's excellent poem "Waiting for the Barbarians":

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.

Why isn’t anything going on in the senate?
Why are the senators sitting there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What’s the point of senators making laws now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.

Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate,
in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader.
He’s even got a scroll to give him,
loaded with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don’t our distinguished orators turn up as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.

Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians haven't come.
And some of our men just in from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.

Now what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
Those people were a kind of solution.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

 

[pood]

There is no way redneck America is going to elect a gay man with a husband. Forget it.

Ah, a racial slur and homophobia. What a charming contribution from the (sub?)urban left.

He wasn’t talking about himself. I think that he is very correct that many will not vote for a gay person. I’d also add my opinion that many will never vote for a woman. Very sad…

Really. How in the FUCK did she conclude from what I wrote that I was a homophobe?

Are you not, in fact, expressing a fear of gay political candidates? You're displacing it onto other people, but pragmatically there's really not much difference between saying "LGBTQ people should be excluded from public office because conservatives are afraid of them" and "LGBTQ people should be excluded from public office because I am afraid of them".

This is total bullshit, of course. I do NOT favor excluding LGBTQ people from anything. I was not making a recommendation, but a prediction — that the U.S,, being full of immature, bigoted and frightened individuals, simply would not elect a gay man. They have already rejected two eminently qualified women. Anyone who thinks homophobia isn’t still a huge force in this country has their head stuck up a precious ivory tower. It’s probably an even bigger force than racism and sexism.

If you're advocating for social exclusion, who cares why you are doing it?

I am NOT advocating for social exclusion. Learn to read!

Maybe you're right about the "rednecks", and maybe you ain't, but I know for sure that you're more responsible for what you actually say, than you are for what you claim they say. If the "rednecks" want to object, they can do so on their own without your help.

They do it all the time. Have you any contact with anyone outside the college you apparently teach or work at?

If you don't like Trump, don't volunteer to help him. If you reject his values, don't replicate them.

It appears YOIU are the one replicating his values, by baselessly slurring other people.

If it's true that America isn't "ready" for a gay president, then that is something that needs to change.

I agree!

Shoving us all back into closets and coffins won't change a damn thing.

I am not advocating shoving ANYONE back into the closet, but in getting them out into the open and MORE into public life. It is truly bizarre the way you so often misread my, and other people’s, posts.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

 

[thebeave]

I think white and male is considered OK, as long as they are also gay. Its the straight ones that are problematic.

What country do you live in?


I live in the USA. Trump and Musk and Vance are the top dogs. Somehow, you think that being a straight white male is a problem?

Wtf?
Tom

Re-read the context I was responding to. As a presidential nominee for the "screaming liberal side", straight white male is problematic. Gay, white and male? Not so much...but not ideal either.

 

[Harry Bosch]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

? I don’t think that she is a radical (nor Harris for that matter). You’d have to ask people in swing states why they preferred Trump. But going to her left isn’t going to get their vote.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

? I don’t think that she is a radical (nor Harris for that matter).

So then it would be rather odd that she ought to run "more to the right". Bit of a discrepancy.

 

[Politesse]

It appears YOIU are the one replicating his values, by baselessly slurring other people

I'm not the one throwing slurs around, here.

I get a good chuckle every time someone calls my shitty little office an ivory tower, though. The ivory shipment must have been delayed at Atwater station about 102 years.

 

[Politesse]

I think white and male is considered OK, as long as they are also gay. Its the straight ones that are problematic.

What country do you live in?


I live in the USA. Trump and Musk and Vance are the top dogs. Somehow, you think that being a straight white male is a problem?

Wtf?
Tom

Re-read the context I was responding to. As a presidential nominee for the "screaming liberal side", straight white male is problematic. Gay, white and male? Not so much...but not ideal either.

Don't worry, as long as the "moderate" liberals are on your side, the screaming ones are no threat to you.

 

[Patooka]

Crockett/AOC for 2028.

Or Newsome just to watch TSwiz's head explode.

 

[TV and credit cards]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

? I don’t think that she is a radical (nor Harris for that matter).

So then it would be rather odd that she ought to run "more to the right". Bit of a discrepancy.

You are starting from a false premise. Clinton lost because she looked past states she thought she had in the bag and because of the very public statement of the FBI taking another look at her emails. Prior to this it looked like she had the race sewn up. Her not being center/right enough was not the issue.

Trump and Clinton were two very unpopular candidates. Biden was a safe bet to beat Trump. Biden fucked the Democrats with Harris as he put her as a Black woman solidly in the I'm next category. The Democratic Party now has a fresh start. No one is owed anything. If they've learned that the POTUS is not a DEI hire, is above and beyond such consideration and no one single individual is owed their shot, a good candidate will emerge. But public speaking ability is a necessity to capture the attention of the electorate and I don't know that Pete has this often enough.

 

[Politesse]

Or Newsome just to watch TSwiz's head explode.

Please no.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

? I don’t think that she is a radical (nor Harris for that matter).

So then it would be rather odd that she ought to run "more to the right". Bit of a discrepancy.

You are starting from a false premise. Clinton lost because she looked past states she thought she had in the bag and because of the very public statement of the FBI taking another look at her emails. Prior to this it looked like she had the race sewn up. Her not being center/right enough was not the issue.

The interesting thing is that the Dems didn't fuck up in 2024 in the north. And they still lost those states. Implying had Clinton heeded the warnings, it might not have been enough.

Trump and Clinton were two very unpopular candidates. Biden was a safe bet to beat Trump. Biden fucked the Democrats with Harris as he put her as a Black woman solidly in the I'm next category. The Democratic Party now has a fresh start. No one is owed anything. If they've learned that the POTUS is not a DEI hire, is above and beyond such consideration and no one single individual is owed their shot, a good candidate will emerge. But public speaking ability is a necessity to capture the attention of the electorate and I don't know that Pete has this often enough.

I don't think Biden was anyone's first or second choice in this web board in 2020. Pete Buttigieg has the intelligence, but not quite the charisma. I don't know if being gay is going to be that much of an anchor. We aren't in the 1990s. It is impossible to tell what state the nation will be in both economic and politically in three years. Trump could make this a cakewalk for Buttigieg. Or the election might be a formality due to other things occurring. Heck, we don't know where this nation will stand next month!

So he is free to try. If the guy can raise the dough, then that implies he has a shot. One of the complaints on Harris was speaking with the press. Buttigieg will have no problem there (on multiple accounts).

 

[GenesisNemesis]

On the topic of just sitting on your ass and letting your civilation fall apart because you're worried about the reaction of morons to fixing anything...

Speaking of that I've always thought it was interesting how people are calling for "less radical" democrats to run, when we ran Hillary Clinton already, who was one of the least radical possible candidates, and she still lost. Kind of puts a dagger into the whole "run less radical candidates" stupidity.

She won the popular vote by 6 million votes, lost the election in a couple more conservative swing states. That denotes that she should have run a little to the right in those states. Harris ran to HRC’s left, lost by more votes.

What in particular was radical about Hillary's campaign?

? I don’t think that she is a radical (nor Harris for that matter).

So then it would be rather odd that she ought to run "more to the right". Bit of a discrepancy.

You are starting from a false premise.

The point is people are acting like running less radical candidates is a sure way to win and we know that's not the case regardless of what their platform is.

 

[KCFlyer]

I wish Buttigieg would have been the candidate. The guy is sharp. The gay will be a tough sell in states where some men will fuck a sheep but be repulsed by a man kissing another man. I live in Kansas and we have an openly gay woman who is our representative for my district. Her name is Sharice Davids, and we could use about 400 more of her. The GOP has tried to gerrymander her out of office but failed because - she's good. The gay question came up and when someone asked if she was gay she said "Yes, I am. Next question". And at the risk of sounding like a "hater"....one thing the Democrats need to dial WAY back on is the transgender issue. At the very least, drop the "pronoun" bullshit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wish Buttigieg would have been the candidate. The guy is sharp. The gay will be a tough sell in states where some men will fuck a sheep but be repulsed by a man kissing another man. I live in Kansas and we have an openly gay woman who is our representative for my district. Her name is Sharice Davids, and we could use about 400 more of her. The GOP has tried to gerrymander her out of office but failed because - she's good. The gay question came up and when someone asked if she was gay she said "Yes, I am. Next question". And at the risk of sounding like a "hater"....one thing the Democrats need to dial WAY back on is the transgender issue. At the very least, drop the "pronoun" bullshit.

Dial back on transgender issue? The Democrats weren't exactly pushing it in the first place. Generalized transgenders things were more public / social things and the GOP and right wing media dialed transgender issues up to 11.