Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[Elixir]

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?

It worked great last time we had a king.

 

[pood]

"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!!!"

You have a little dishonesty problem with your premise number 2: I did not say that I back y, z, and b. And even if I HAD said that, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I would think X SHOULDN’T run. In addition to learning to read, learn some logic.

 

[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.

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.

I did oversimplify the content of the executive order a bit (there is quite a bit more to it). If you want to read more, check this out:

Fact check: Posts criticizing Biden order on gender discrimination lack context

The claim: Biden's executive order says transgender female athletes must be allowed to compete against women and is tied to federal funding​

The order builds on the landmark ruling and directs federal agencies to extend protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and calls for the Supreme Court ruling to apply to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in federally funded schools.

The order mandates that all students, including transgender students, be able to learn without facing sex discrimination, and as part of that, transgender women should compete on female teams, according to the statement.

Our ruling: Missing context​

The claim that Biden's gender discrimination executive order says transgender women must be allowed to compete on women's teams is MISSING CONTEXT, based on our research. The order protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and states children should not be "denied access" to "school sports." The White House said this would include having transgender females play on women's teams. But the posts do not acknowledge that rules for transgender athletes are already in place at the college and Olympic levels, as well as in many states and school districts. Further, it is false to say any educational institution that receives federal funding must add biologically male athletes to teams.

 

[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!!!"

You have a little dishonesty problem with your premise number 2: I did not say that I back y, z, and b. And even if I HAD said that, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that I would think X SHOULDN’T run. In addition to learning to read, learn some logic.

I think you're being extremely disingenuous here, but I don't see how arguing the point any further will do any good. I concede that you did not, technically speaking, say that the Democratic Party should not run a gay candidate. Just as KCFlyer did not, technically speaking, argue that the DNC should cease defending trans rights.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/30/pete-buttigieg-gay-president-poll-061350

The above is an article that came out when Pete B ran for president in the 2020 primaries. It does say that a majority of people don't think a gay person could win an election for president at this time although a majority of Democrats say they would vote for a gay person. They don't think their neighbors would. So, it's pretty hard to tell for sure if certain minorities could win. It seems to me that homophobia has gotten worse over the past couple of years. Maybe it's just more in your face since Trump is back, but people in many religions think that being gay is a sin or immoral. I'd vote for most anyone who isn't a Republican regardless of race, gender sexual orientation, etc. But, I'm a bit skeptical that a majority would. I think that is our concern. We don't want another Republican president so we want a candidate who won't lose because of discrimination due to the person's identity as a minority of any type.

And, atheists and socialists are at the bottom, when it comes to who people would support. I read that in a different article. In fact someone who identifies as socialist had the smallest chance of winning, even less than someone openly atheist.

As the Democratic Party fields its first serious presidential contender who is openly gay, half of American voters say that they personally are ready for a gay or lesbian president, but are split about whether the country as a whole is ready.

According to a POLITICO/Morning Consult poll of registered voters, 50 percent of respondents said they were either definitely or probably ready to have a commander in chief who is openly gay, compared with 37 percent who said they were either definitely or probably not ready.

But Buttigieg’s sexuality “may be an issue for some voters as he remains in contention for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult”s vice president. “Notably, 58 percent of Republicans, 32 percent of independents and 22 percent of Democrats say they aren’t ready for a gay or lesbian president. The comparative figures not ready for a female president are 36 percent of Republicans, 15 percent of independents and 8 percent of Democrats.”

The POLITICO/Morning Consult survey results come days afterMcClatchy published internal focus group findings indicating that Buttigieg’s openness about his sexualty is one reason the young mayor has struggled to gain traction among black voters, a major Democratic constituency. According to a report summarizing the focus groups’ findings, undecided black voters in South Carolina viewed Buttigieg’s sexuality as “a barrier” to earning their votes, though not necessarily “a red line that they wouldn’t cross.” They also cited his age, name recognition and relative inexperience in government compared with other frontrunners in the race.

The hatred is disgusting, but that doesn't mean those of us who would happily vote for a gay person aren't worried that others might harbor a dislike of gay people, causing a good candidate to lose an election based on that bigotry.

If a straight Baptist woman running against a moronic psychopath lost, what makes anyone think that the same thing wouldn't happen to a short gay man? I couldn't find the article but I've read before that it's also very difficult for a short man to win a presidential election in our crazy country. Yes. That's nutty, but sadly it's another factor which might keep Pete B from victory.

And yes, apparently, "it's the economy stupid". I've read numerous articles that included interviews with Democrats who voted for Trump because they thought he could magically fix the economy. How stupid do you have to be? Those are some of the voters who now regret their vote for Trump. I guess people are very gullible.

 

[KCFlyer]

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.

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.

I was at an ACLU meeting last month. A spokeswoman for Kansas Teachers Union spoke. First out of her mouth was her name. Next was her pronoun. That's not "pushing" an agenda, but it sure opens the door for the GOP "chicks with dicks" narrative. And we don't really have a good answer for that one.

 

[bilby]

Well, that's an exaggeration. I doubt that everyone hates TSwizzle.

 

[Politesse]

I wish

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?

It worked great last time we had a king.

Oh, really now? "Just get rid of King George, we'll tackle institutional discrimination later" worked out real well for the women, slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, Jews, Indians, and factory workers of the former British colonies, did it? In nearly all cases, they'd have collectivized and achieved equity and abolition sooner as members of the United Kingdom than they were able to as unrecognized citizens of the United States, despite having been given the exact same extravagant promises by the Revolutionaries. You know all the black soldiers they edit out of the Revolutionary War movies? Both sides promised them emancipation for service, and both sides lied, but the US lied more, and I think you know that.

Or did you mean Nixon? Or King Cotton, perhaps.

 

[Elixir]

Just get rid of King George, we'll tackle institutional discrimination later"

That wasn’t the issue. It was taxation by the Crown.
Fixed.
We dealt with slavery a while after that.
POC are still discriminated against - maybe in another 200 years disabled people, Asians, Latinos, blacks, API persons, gays, women and old white men will all be on equal footing.
Right now we have a crop of that last thing that needs unseating. .

 

[Politesse]

Just get rid of King George, we'll tackle institutional discrimination later"

That wasn’t the issue. It was taxation by the Crown.
Fixed.

Yes, I know it wasn't the fucking issue. Not that this was made especially clear to all parties at the time, many of whom were promised contrarily by the Revolutionary government, but of course it wasn't the issue. We are never the fucking issue unless and until we demand to be. Waiting on the volunteered largesse of those in power is a historically doomed strategy. I note that taxation on imported tea and stamps did not end either, and the tax we pay to the federal govenrment today far exceeds that which any of our Colonial ancestors paid to the Crown. So even if I accepted that abolishing taxation was the most critical important issue to address, more important than the abuse and sale of human beings, I would hardly call taxation "fixed". Given that our current president doesn't even recognize the power of the Congress to determine funding for programs, we cannot even claim to have abolished taxation without representation.

We dealt with slavery a while after that.

Thirty years after the UK did, and unlike the UK, at the cost of more than 700,00 dead soldiers and the initiation of a conflict that we are still, essentially, fighting. And that only addresses the matter of African chattel slavery, not the other forms of slavery that continue to this day, despite having long been outlawed in Britain.

POC are still discriminated against - maybe in another 200 years disabled people, Asians, Latinos, blacks, API persons, gays, women and old white men will all be on equal footing.

Fucking bullshit they will, but if we are, it will be because we insisted on being treated as such, not because we "waited until the next election to address that" for 50 more elections. Yes, we're annoying, and scary, and shrill, and "screaming" per the OP, because that is the only way anything ever happens for anyone not already favored by a given status quo.

Right now we have a crop of that last thing that needs unseating. .

Which will be better accomplished by a STRONG liberal coalition that addresses the needs and concerns of its consituent demographics and organizations, than by an oligarchy of corporate lobbyists who are quicker to stab their own team in the back than to actually fight their enemies on anything. A fascist government is rising. Where are the fucking Democrats right now? What are they doing, for whom?

 

[Elixir]

Thirty years after the UK did, and unlike the UK, at the cost of more than 700,00 dead soldiers and the initiation of a conflict that we are still, essentially, fighting.

At least it’s not ALL about cotton now. At least that was a rational, if corrupt, motive.

Fucking bullshit they will, but if we are, it will be because we insisted on being treated as such, not because we "waited until the next election to address that" for 50 more elections.

If they aren’t, it could be because we kept nominating fringe minority candidates that bring out the collective xenophobia and paranoia of the electorate and never have a chance to gain even a plurality. .

[getting rid of the rich old white men oligarchy]will be better accomplished by a STRONG liberal coalition that addresses the needs and concerns of its consituent demographics and organizations, than by an oligarchy of corporate lobbyists who are quicker to stab their own team in the back than to actually fight their enemies on anything.

If that strong liberal coalition only gathers a third of the electorate, or needs more than majorities to overcome gerrymandering, vote suppression etc, we’ll be back to square one or worse - present condition being a blatant case in point. My immediate concern is that it won’t matter, if we don’t unseat them asap. We can’t settle for almost, nice try, see ya in the next cycle; this is an emergency and putting LGBTQ issues front and center is not addressing it.

 

[Politesse]

And that is why the Democrats will continue to fail.

When asked to do something for their own constituents, they're too busy, because it's a perpetual, never-ending emergency. When asked to deal with the emergency, they're asleep at the wheel.

 

[Derec]

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.

Hillary, for all her flaws - and they are legion - came very close to winning.
A radical candidate, such as Bernie, would have fared a lot worse.

 

[Derec]

Crockett/AOC for 2028.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

She didn't "look past states". The campaign didn't have the money to campaign in states deemed in the bag. The Clinton campaign was not only paying for itself, it was also financing the entire Democratic party because the party was essentially broke.

I get tired of having to repeat this when the situation is portrayed as some sort of moral failing on the part of the Clinton campaign. It wasn't.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

This is true. It wasn't a part of the Harris Campaign but the Trump team made it seem like it was, spending hundreds of million of dollars tying Harris to trans issues. Propaganda works if it is spread long and far..

 

[laughing dog]

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.

This is true. It wasn't a part of the Harris Campaign but the Trump team made it seem like it was, spending hundreds of million of dollars tying Harris to trans issues. Propaganda works if it is spread long and far..

It sure does. Who’d have thought free gender transformation for federal inmates would destroy the economy while a trade war with the world and giving Putin free reign would MAGA.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

She didn't "look past states". The campaign didn't have the money to campaign in states deemed in the bag. The Clinton campaign was not only paying for itself, it was also financing the entire Democratic party because the party was essentially broke.

I get tired of having to repeat this when the situation is portrayed as some sort of moral failing on the part of the Clinton campaign. It wasn't.

12 Days That Stunned a Nation: How Hillary Clinton Lost
I'm going off this rather detailed article dated Aug 23, 2017. It makes no mention of a lack of funds being any part of the equation.

As far as Buttigieg goes and his lack of "charisma", this can be learned. If he wants to engage his audience he needs to use devices that the audience will retain and carry with them, even repeat if engaging enough: metaphors, analogies, rhetorical questions, anecdotes. I can't recall if or how often he uses these devices. Where he does lack is the nonverbal: facial expressions, gestures, voice modulation.
Watching three YouTube videos of just nine days ago with Stephen Colbert, it doesn't look like he's making much progress. Perhaps he simply can't. Perhaps he like many people of the nerdy type simply struggle with conversation outside of the literal, precise meaning, and statements of fact.

 

[Swammerdami]

Just get rid of King George, we'll tackle institutional discrimination later"

That wasn’t the issue. It was taxation by the Crown.

Nitpick: I think it's a myth that taxation was the main reason for the revolt. Lack of representation in Parliament WAS an issue, but even that wasn't of greatest importance. I'll defer to our expert historians but I think the main reason for the revolt was that America's rich and powerful wanted to be even richer and more powerful. Blaming taxation (or even the lack of representation) was white-washing to make the war appear "moral."

In 1776, taxes in the American colonies were relatively low, with colonists paying around 1-2% of their income in taxes, compared to the British who paid significantly more, around 26 shillings per year, while the colonists paid only 1 shilling.

IIRC the allegedly "onerous" tax on tea was deliberately set low by the British to make it just a symbolic demonstration of authority -- they did NOT want to discourage Americans from purchasing British tea; after all Americans were big buyers of illegally-smuggled Dutch tea.

 

[BH]

we may well be moving into a post-election U.S.

If a whole bunch of trumpsuckers don’t come to their senses soon, it’s game over.
Loud protest by people who have known Trump to be a traitor, will only get them killed or disappeared to the gulags Trump is building.

We musn’t call them rednecks or Trumpsuckers, because, see, that is racist. Instead, we must try to understand their fee-fees, even as they say “fuck your feelings!” to everyone else. We must never, ever refer to them with R word, even as they call everyone else using the N-Word, the Q-Word, the F-word, and the B-word.

I just call them assholes. That's all they are.