Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[bilby]

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.

The big grievance that the instigators of the Boston Tea Party had was that the tea from England had ceased to be taxed at a sufficient rate to make their smuggling operation profitable.

The British were guilty of pulling the rug out from under their criminal enterprise, without first asking the American oligarchs for permission.

"No reductions in taxation without representation" doesn't make a very good slogan, though, so they shortened it.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

Obviously all the tea in question came from China (or Japan -- tea production in South Asia didn't begin until the 19th century). The distinction is whether it was transported by the Dutch East India Company or by the (British) East India Company. These were the two early Hugely powerful corporations. (Not just Americans but also the English preferred the cheaper illegal (Dutch) tea.

In addition to the two big East Indies corporations, some tea was sold by small-timers after it "fell off the back of a truck."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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's talking about parts of America, not his position.

 

[pood]

You would think that would be obvious, right? [removed] It was not an attack on LGBTQ but on intolerant right wingers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

How is he saying they are a risk? He's saying that many fear them, not that the fear is justified. Something can be true and yet bad. That's why I recently asked for the "I Agree" response--you can agree with a dark truth without liking it.

 

[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's talking about parts of America, not his position.

You think he's saying the rural whites he's slurring want to be called r*dnecks, not that he thinks they are?

 

[Politesse]

You would think that would be obvious, right? Not to Politesse, who either has reading comprehension problems or loves to twist what others say so she can get on her high horse and play the moral-superiority card. It was not an attack on LGBTQ but on intolerant right wingers.

High horse? What the fuck country are you in? Our horse is not high. Gay and trans citizens are being hounded out of every area of public life.

 

[bilby]

Our horse is not high.

Try mixing a little hemp into its feed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Pronouns are useful. It's not just a trans issue, what about those of us with gender-confused names? When I was born "Loren" was male, "Lauren" was female. Now there is no male, I'm routinely misgendered. To me it's also a so-what, I don't care when people mess it up and rarely bother to correct them. But to those who care...

 

[WAB]

You would think that would be obvious, right? Not to Politesse, who either has reading comprehension problems or loves to twist what others say so she can get on her high horse and play the moral-superiority card. It was not an attack on LGBTQ but on intolerant right wingers.

High horse? What the fuck country are you in? Our horse is not high. Gay and trans citizens are being hounded out of every area of public life.

You know, I think I know and everybody knows that you guys are arguing over a simple misunderstanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

As others have said, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Politesse]

Hiding behind statements like "A lot of people are saying that such-and-such is dangerous", "No one trusts x minority", "Most people don't believe in that theory" etc, is cowardly, and a frequently used page in the Trump playbook. If you don't agree with that common opinion you're retweeting, say so. Otherwise, it's just a retweet.

 

[Politesse]

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.

As others have said, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

This is a stupid fucking opinion, just like the bullshit ivory tower thing people are always pulling out. It doesn't even make sense. What "perfect" candidate am I arguing for? It's fucking bullshit. There are no perfect politicians. There aren't even any good ones. There's just the ones you're apparently willing to turn your brain off for, and those you aren't. I refuse to turn my brain off for anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Yup. Politics is far more about picking the least bad rather than actually getting great.

 

[bilby]

Politics is far more about picking the least bad rather than actually getting great.

Not so.

It's about vetoing the worst.

All non dictatorial systems are about ways to get rid of bad rulers. Ideally (but not always) before they reach office, while avoiding the difficulty of assasination, and/or the expense of open warfare.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

It also makes no mention of her state to state strategy. It is primarily about the Comey email investigation release of new information* and the fallout from that.

*Something that is usually against the rules.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

As others have said, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

This is a stupid fucking opinion, just like the bullshit ivory tower thing people are always pulling out. It doesn't even make sense. What "perfect" candidate am I arguing for? It's fucking bullshit. There are no perfect politicians. There aren't even any good ones. There's just the ones you're apparently willing to turn your brain off for, and those you aren't. I refuse to turn my brain off for anyone.

You're the one demanding the Democrats do more about trans issues--but they already pushed it too far for many voters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Politics is far more about picking the least bad rather than actually getting great.

Not so.

It's about vetoing the worst.

All non dictatorial systems are about ways to get rid of bad rulers. Ideally (but not always) before they reach office, while avoiding the difficulty of assasination, and/or the expense of open warfare.

It's not a week, it's only seven days!

 

[Politesse]

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.

As others have said, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

This is a stupid fucking opinion, just like the bullshit ivory tower thing people are always pulling out. It doesn't even make sense. What "perfect" candidate am I arguing for? It's fucking bullshit. There are no perfect politicians. There aren't even any good ones. There's just the ones you're apparently willing to turn your brain off for, and those you aren't. I refuse to turn my brain off for anyone.

You're the one demanding the Democrats do more about trans issues--but they already pushed it too far for many voters.

I've made no such argument. What did they do to "push it too far"? They've done jack shit. I do not approve of Democrats actively attacking trans people to impress Republican voters, however, which is the only way they could do less than they are already doing.

 

[bilby]

Politics is far more about picking the least bad rather than actually getting great.

Not so.

It's about vetoing the worst.

All non dictatorial systems are about ways to get rid of bad rulers. Ideally (but not always) before they reach office, while avoiding the difficulty of assasination, and/or the expense of open warfare.

It's not a week, it's only seven days!

The distinction is important.

How many times do you hear "I didn't/won't bother voting, because I don't like any of the candidates"?

How many times do you hear "I had/have got to make sure that I vote, because I don't like any of the candidates, and some are clearly even worse than the rest"?

The former is the disastrous result of your spin; The latter would be much better, but is vanishingly rare, because your spin is the dominant one.

Of course, best of all would be "I am going to run for office myself, because these other candidates are all awful".