Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[Elixir]

one thing the Democrats need to dial WAY back on is the transgender issue. At the very least, drop the "pronoun" bullshit.

It sure makes them (us) seem tone deaf. There are plenty of issues confronting us that don’t include irrational visceral kneejerk reactions.
Get into office first.
Then if there’s time and resources, tackling injustices meted out to marginalized minorities might be do-able. .

 

[thebeave]

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.

If you remember back on Biden's early days in office (maybe even on the first day), he signed an executive order to allow transwomen to compete in women's sports. This gives an appearance that transgender issues was apparently a priority of his.

ETA: Actually, he signed it on the first day, the fourth executive order signed for his administration.

 

[Politesse]

When has the Democratic Party as a political institution ever consistently championed trans rights? It's more like they're grudgingly obliged to take the pro-trans position by the vehemence of right wing attacks. You don't see liberal legislators proposing laws about pronouns, surgeries, sports, etc., the Republican Party is the major sponsor of laws that concern trans people, with the Democrats taking the defensive position at best, and that only occasionally in the and in the safest of blue states. That being the case: if their only actions are defensive, and they only sometimes do even that, how are they supposed to be "less radical", except by abandoning their own voters to the mercy of fascists?

Democrats think they have a natural right to any and all so-called "minority" votes by virtue of not being overt Nazis, despite never sticking your neck out or taking any risks to help us, then when you take a break from fence-sitting to openly stab us in the back you have the nerve to complain about our disloyalty for protesting your infidelity to your own supposed principles! It's getting old.

I remember how I won the "right" to marry, and it wasn't the useless fucking Democrats taking action. No, "liberal" California was the open and undisguised aggressor in that case. We sued, and we won, because it was obvious even to a relatively conservative Court that the right we demanded was one already guaranteed to us as citizens. If the government wanted to legislate marriage, it had no legal recourse to do so in a way that violated freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any other Constitutional right of a citizen.

Trans people are in the same boat. The federal government has no right, has never had the right, to legislate which citizens are allowed to be themselves, or force anyone to identify as anything they are not. Defending the law as it already exists is not "activism", or even politically leftist act. I also remember way back when conservatives were keen to defend the Constitution against attack, not gleefully dismantle it. When a government official demands to inspect a child's genitals or sample their blood or access their medical records any other means of determining sex, it is the responsibility of every patriot in this country to refuse them such an obvious abrogation of the boundaries our forefathers prudently placed around the prerogatives of government. This isn't about your position on fucking communism. Even jack-shit-ignorant John Tyner knew the government had no right to "touch his junk".

In summary, fuck your party and it deserves to die, if it thinks electoral wins are more important than the fundamental principals of law, order, and the rights of the citizen. This is why the country is falling to fascism, not because we have public debates about social policy (those are healthy) but because the ruling class has utterly abandoned its responsibility to govern. Their commitment to preserving democratic rule vanishes whenever it disadvantages them personally to do so. You say "just elect us first, and then we'll advocate for your rights", but here we are just two months in to a new presidency and we're already being told, "shut up about your rights, the important thing is winning the next election". The magical plateau between elections - when we're told the DNC will temporarily give a genuine shit about human rights - no longer exists, it's always the next election the second the previoys election ends. Ideological liberalism died halfway through the Obama administration, and it never came back.

 

[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.

If you remember back on Biden's early days in office (maybe even on the first day), he signed an executive order to allow transwomen to compete in women's sports.

I don't recall that.

ETA: Actually, he signed it on the first day, the fourth executive order signed for his administration.

Section 1 . Policy.
Every person should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love. Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports. Adults should be able to earn a living and pursue a vocation knowing that they will not be fired, demoted, or mistreated because of whom they go home to or because how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes. People should be able to access healthcare and secure a roof over their heads without being subjected to sex discrimination. All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.
...
Enforcing Prohibitions on Sex Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.
(a) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions (“agency actions”) that:

(i) were promulgated or are administered by the agency under Title VII or any other statute or regulation that prohibits sex discrimination, including any that relate to the agency's own compliance with such statutes or regulations; and

(ii) are or may be inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(b) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable and as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), consider whether to revise, suspend, or rescind such agency actions, or promulgate new agency actions, as necessary to fully implement statutes that prohibit sex discrimination and the policy set forth in section 1 of this order.

(c) The head of each agency shall, as soon as practicable, also consider whether there are additional actions that the agency should take to ensure that it is fully implementing the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. If an agency takes an action described in this subsection or subsection (b) of this section, it shall seek to ensure that it is accounting for, and taking appropriate steps to combat, overlapping forms of discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of race or disability.

(d) Within 100 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall develop, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, a plan to carry out actions that the agency has identified pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

Might be why I didn't remember Biden signing an "executive order to allow transwomen to compete in women's sports."

And to note, based on the information we have these days, transwomen in women's sports is generally not going to provide for a fair playing field, though for some reasons that will be extremely ironic to the very vocal anti-transwoman in woman sports. And I'm assuming you used the word transwoman right, because I haven't committed that terminology to memory yet.

 

[Politesse]

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.

If you remember back on Biden's early days in office (maybe even on the first day), he signed an executive order to allow transwomen to compete in women's sports. This gives an appearance that transgender issues was apparently a priority of his.

ETA: Actually, he signed it on the first day, the fourth executive order signed for his administration.

No, he didn't. His executive order guaranteed that Title IX applied to all students regardless of gender, which was already true and should not have needed clarification, but apparently did, because when the law became controversial, which students did he throw under the bus first? You guessed it.

 

[Politesse]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

 

[robnisch]

Last I heard from him about his future was that he was thinking about running for governor.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

 

[Politesse]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

 

[Politesse]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

 

[laughing dog]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

If one is predisposed to look for insults.

I think the intent is opine the US voting public is not sufficiently predisposed to support a candidate on those issues enough to that candidate to victory. It is more an indictment of the US voting public than an attack on anyone’s sexuality or rights.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

If one is predisposed to look for insults.

I think the intent is opine the US voting public is not sufficiently predisposed to support a candidate on those issues enough to that candidate to victory. It is more an indictment of the US voting public than an attack on anyone’s sexuality or rights.

Yes. I would also add that some of us have stated our opinion that Pete isn’t the most charismatic person in the world. He’s a great policy wonk and is very very smart. But does he have the charisma to lead a very large political tent to victory?

 

[Elixir]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

If one is predisposed to look for insults.

I think the intent is opine the US voting public is not sufficiently predisposed to support a candidate on those issues enough to that candidate to victory. It is more an indictment of the US voting public than an attack on anyone’s sexuality or rights.

Yes. I would also add that some of us have stated our opinion that Pete isn’t the most charismatic person in the world. He’s a great policy wonk and is very very smart. But does he have the charisma to lead a very large political tent to victory?

I agree that he is not a timely candidate and that it's mostly if not entirely because he's gay.
I like listening to Pete more than any other political candidate since Barack Obama. He's brilliant and effortlessly masterful with his choice of words. It feels like you're actually getting something, a refreshing departure from the feathers and fluff that dominate the landscape of political speech.
We could surely use someone of that talent. But to win an election they will need that "straight from central casting" look, and be a CIS male with a beautiful wife and 2 kids that are too young to be big trouble yet.

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections?

All of them, if necessary.
Just get the fucking legislature and white house away from these Nazi insurrectionists.
We can start breaking campaign promises once that's taken care of.

 

[TomC]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

No.
Losing the power to take care of the common rights of most citizens is the strategic error.

Democrats did that, yet again, in 2024.
Once again, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

One might think that they don't care about the rights of citizens, they only care about their next fundraiser. They need victims.

Cooperation with the Teaparty fascists will deliver them.
Fuck those Democrats.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

All of them, if necessary.
Just get the fucking legislature and white house away from these Nazi insurrectionists.
We can start breaking campaign promises once that's taken care of.

When has that strategy ever, ever worked for racial, class, romantic, or religious minorities in the United States?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

No.
Losing the power to take care of the common rights of most citizens is the strategic error.

Democrats did that, yet again, in 2024.
Once again, they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Did they? Biden's polling was down because of high prices in grocery stores. No Democrat selected was going to not have that hanging around their neck. Biden wasn't replaced because the Democrats found someone who wouldn't be bothered with the economy that the GOP convinced enough people was the worst since... ever. They replaced him because he didn't have the stamina to run for President and he exposed that in the debate.

One might think that they don't care about the rights of citizens, they only care about their next fundraiser. They need victims.

Well, fundraising is a major part of being an elected official. We tried to deal with that, but then SCOTUS fucked America. Not that money and politics wasn't an issue before Citizens.

The Democrats suck as messaging. Have for a long time now. The GOP and their willingness to ignore shame has been growing since '94. Even right now, the Democrats are looking at signing off on the House budget bill, without even presenting a viable, easy to comprehend case regarding Trump's illegal impoundment of funds and trying to at least regain Congressional control of the purse. Sen. Schumer is shrewd. He got two Budget reconciliation bills through to provide Biden some sort of legacy. That he is giving up without even a fight is hard to swallow... and an indication of just how little backbone is left in the GOP in the Senate themselves.

 

[pood]

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

Who in this thread has said that Pete Buttigieg should not run for president because he is gay? I haven’t read all the posts, but my guess is NO ONE. Certainly not me. To say that a gay candidate is highly unlikely to win is not the same thing as saying he should not run. So why do you keep twisting around what people say and impute to them notions they do not have? Does it make you feel morally superior?

 

[Politesse]

What other minorities should Democrats throw under the bus to win elections? Don't be afraid to spitball, who else does everyone hate?

?? So are you saying that Biden shouldn’t have signed that executive order??

How the hell did you get that? Of course he should have. If the president is unwilling to defend the common rights of the citizen, he should be removed.

You are not carefully reading posts; then making wrong assumptions, then taking great offense. No one is attacking Pete’s sexuality or Trans rights in this thread.

Saying that it is a "strategic error" to defend the comon rights of the citizen is attacking trans rights. Saying that a gay candidate should not run for the presidency is attacking Pete Buttigieg's sexuality.

If one is predisposed to look for insults.

I think the intent is opine the US voting public is not sufficiently predisposed to support a candidate on those issues enough to that candidate to victory. It is more an indictment of the US voting public than an attack on anyone’s sexuality or rights.

I don't know what to tell you. The DNC is committing mistake after mistake, and it is costing them the next generation of voters. If you can't see it, even as their failures have resulted in a substantive coup, you're just going to continue not seeing it.

 

[Politesse]

"Who should run?"

"Well, X can't win. I back y, z, and b."

"So you think X shouldn't run?"

"How dare you put words in my mouth, you lying scoundrel!!!"