Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[Harry Bosch]

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.

With respect, but the first rule of being in a hole: Stop Digging!

 

[Politesse]

I dunno, man. It's fucking obvious that Harris' strategy of reaching out to conservatives and pretending not to know any socialists in order to "win back the middle" didn't work in the slightest. Despite dropping half a billion dollars on trying to woo them, almost no voters who had previously voted for Trump voted for her, and he himself gained formerly Democratic voters in the vast majority of districts, even in supposed safe zones. Notice how all the actual conservatives in this thread not only give her no credit for her last minute right wing shift, but actually think she was a terrifying woke social justice warrior of some kind? If the strategy going forward to look even more conservative, all it's going to do is lose votes from leftists staying home. The people who think, who earnestly believe, that Kamala Harris was too left wing are not going to vote for Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Pete Buttigieg or Tim Walz no matter how many minorities they try to distance themselves from first.

I don't what's so hard to understand about the fact that the alt-right doesn't play fair, or tell the truth about most issues. Their leader is a professional conman who was impeached for treason against two nations and then again for inciting a coup. His lieutenants are all billionaire clowns. He's not going to compromise. His people aren't going to compromise. His voters aren't looking for an olive branch, or a torch to lead them out of the dark.

But do you know who did show up for Kamala on voting day? For no other reason than unfounded hope? Trans people, and other victims of the alphabet soup. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that if you're leaking voters like the Titanic leaked aristocracy and your only clear strategy for winning the next election is to openly reject the help of the single voting demographic that's still consistently on your side, the equation is not going to magically balance itself in 2028.

 

[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.

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...

And my name is Joe but I went to school with a girl named JoAnn, who went by Jo. It was obvious to anyone looking at as that one was a he and one was a she. Together we were a they or a them, however individuals are misgendered because someone called them he or she instead of them. The PROBLEM is....pronoun is silly 99.9% of the time, but some feel we need to use our pronouns as a form of introduction. That just opens the door to the other radical issue that the right has picked up and ran with....our insistence that "identity" is all it takes.

 

[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!

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".

Picking the least bad is the same as vetoing the worst.

 

[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...

And my name is Joe but I went to school with a girl named JoAnn, who went by Jo. It was obvious to anyone looking at as that one was a he and one was a she. Together we were a they or a them, however individuals are misgendered because someone called them he or she instead of them. The PROBLEM is....pronoun is silly 99.9% of the time, but some feel we need to use our pronouns as a form of introduction. That just opens the door to the other radical issue that the right has picked up and ran with....our insistence that "identity" is all it takes.

Anyone looking. It basically never happens in person, but online or on the phone it's very common. And the inverse of the problem--wouldn't let me pick up my order because she wasn't there and I wasn't listed on the order. She had my ID in her hand, it still didn't register that it was my order, not my wife's.

 

[southernhybrid]

I dunno, man. It's fucking obvious that Harris' strategy of reaching out to conservatives and pretending not to know any socialists in order to "win back the middle" didn't work in the slightest. Despite dropping half a billion dollars on trying to woo them, almost no voters who had previously voted for Trump voted for her, and he himself gained formerly Democratic voters in the vast majority of districts, even in supposed safe zones. Notice how all the actual conservatives in this thread not only give her no credit for her last minute right wing shift, but actually think she was a terrifying woke social justice warrior of some kind? If the strategy going forward to look even more conservative, all it's going to do is lose votes from leftists staying home. The people who think, who earnestly believe, that Kamala Harris was too left wing are not going to vote for Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Pete Buttigieg or Tim Walz no matter how many minorities they try to distance themselves from first.

I don't what's so hard to understand about the fact that the alt-right doesn't play fair, or tell the truth about most issues. Their leader is a professional conman who was impeached for treason against two nations and then again for inciting a coup. His lieutenants are all billionaire clowns. He's not going to compromise. His people aren't going to compromise. His voters aren't looking for an olive branch, or a torch to lead them out of the dark.

But do you know who did show up for Kamala on voting day? For no other reason than unfounded hope? Trans people, and other victims of the alphabet soup. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that if you're leaking voters like the Titanic leaked aristocracy and your only clear strategy for winning the next election is to openly reject the help of the single voting demographic that's still consistently on your side, the equation is not going to magically balance itself in 2028.

I disagree. The evidence strongly suggests that she lost because too many people believed Trump's bullshit that he could fix the economy in days, as well as people's hatred towards immigrants. This included, based on many articles I've read that interviewed Trump supporters, registered Democrats who believed his bullshit. Surely you recall the "Republicans for Harris" movement?

There are other reasons why she lost, primarily because she is a female. I have two Black friends who each have a Trump supporting relative who voted for Trump because, and I quote, "women are too weak to be president". Some Black men voted for a racist asshole instead of a highly experienced woman who did her best to reach out to not just both sides of the aisle, but to all kinds of people. A lot of young men, regardless of race voted for Trump because they perceived him as macho. I know a lot of Trump supporters and I've spoken to them about why they voted for Trump. They believed the bullshit that Biden was letting criminals to come across the border and/or they believed that Trump would lower grocery prices etc. A lot of these folks are very nice people who are low information or victims of religious indoctrination. A former nurse I worked with feels the it was gods' will that Trump won and she is thrilled about that. She is poor and dependent on SS, but she is also a conservative Christian. Others I know only get their fake news from Newsmax. Idiocracy and bigotry gave Trump the win, imo.

She was criticized by the right for supporting trans people, and the Republicans used that support of hers to smear her, as sadly, too many people don't understand or simply hate trans folks. In fact they hate gay folks, and any minority that isn't straight and white. I'll take most any Democrat over Trump, but I want someone who has a good chance of defeating someone like Trump, or JD Vance or anyone else that is dangerous for the country. At this point in time, sadly that probably can only be a straight white male. I hate that, but that's the reality we are currently living in. Hopefully, that will change in time, but I'll probably be dead by then.

And yes, I think we all know that the LBGTQ community voted for Harris. I have always voted, often for candidates that I didn't especially like, but they were always much better than the alternative. Btw, do you know of the Log Cabin Republicans are still around or did they wise up and leave that party?

 

[Elixir]

Idiocracy and bigotry gave Trump the win, imo.

Manifest in a tidal wave and ongoing flood of misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and outright lies spread on social media and right wing/ Russian “news” outlets.
In a word, American complacency gave the fascists the win, just like Germans in the 30’s.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I dunno, man. It's fucking obvious that Harris' strategy of reaching out to conservatives and pretending not to know any socialists in order to "win back the middle" didn't work in the slightest. Despite dropping half a billion dollars on trying to woo them, almost no voters who had previously voted for Trump voted for her, and he himself gained formerly Democratic voters in the vast majority of districts, even in supposed safe zones. Notice how all the actual conservatives in this thread not only give her no credit for her last minute right wing shift, but actually think she was a terrifying woke social justice warrior of some kind? If the strategy going forward to look even more conservative, all it's going to do is lose votes from leftists staying home. The people who think, who earnestly believe, that Kamala Harris was too left wing are not going to vote for Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer or Pete Buttigieg or Tim Walz no matter how many minorities they try to distance themselves from first.

I don't what's so hard to understand about the fact that the alt-right doesn't play fair, or tell the truth about most issues. Their leader is a professional conman who was impeached for treason against two nations and then again for inciting a coup. His lieutenants are all billionaire clowns. He's not going to compromise. His people aren't going to compromise. His voters aren't looking for an olive branch, or a torch to lead them out of the dark.

But do you know who did show up for Kamala on voting day? For no other reason than unfounded hope? Trans people, and other victims of the alphabet soup. I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that if you're leaking voters like the Titanic leaked aristocracy and your only clear strategy for winning the next election is to openly reject the help of the single voting demographic that's still consistently on your side, the equation is not going to magically balance itself in 2028.

“How are democrats “openly rejecting the help of the trans people”?

 

[Elixir]

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

The germane question is “among those gor whom trans rights is a determinative factor, are there more voters who are trans rights supporters, or are there more voters who are afraid/ freaked out by trans rights?
That’s what matters at the end of the day.

 

[thebeave]

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

The germane question is “among those gor whom trans rights is a determinative factor, are there more voters who are trans rights supporters, or are there more voters who are afraid/ freaked out by trans rights?
That’s what matters at the end of the day.

I don't know what you mean, or intended to mean, by "gor" but IMHO the main thorny issue with trans rights is the right for transwomen to compete against biological women (or if you prefer, non-transwomen) in sporting events. The majority of the general public, including Democrats are opposed to it. And no, they're aren't "afraid" or "freaked out" by it. Like myself, they just want women, and especially girls, to be able to have a fighting chance of competing in a fair match.

NYT poll finds majority of Democrats oppose transgender athletes in women's sports

A recent New York Times/Ipsos survey found the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don't think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women's sports.

"Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female — do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?" the survey asked.

Of the 2,128 people who participated, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women's sports.

A recent example:

Trans High School Track Star Wins Triple Jump by 8 Feet

In late February, AB Hernandez, a transgender junior at Jurupa Valley High School in California, competed in the girls track and field meet securing first place in the high jump (4 feet, 10 inches), long jump (17 feet, 6 inches) and triple jump (40 feet, 0.5 inches) at the Ontario Relays. That triple jump performance was eight feet further than the runner-up.

In addition, more recently, Hernandez competed in the Roosevelt Invitational on Saturday, also securing first place in the long jump and the triple jump.

This is not the first time Hernandez has positioned herself to possibly win a title as she previously finished third in the triple jump behind two seniors at last year's outdoor track state championship meet.

Eight feet? How in the holy fuck is this even close to a fair competition?

 

[Politesse]

“How are democrats “openly rejecting the help of the trans people”?

What, in specific terms, do you feel feel Democrats should "back off on" in terms of trans rights?

"We still want your votes, we just won't lift a finger to stop it when people propose legislation explicitly designed to harm you, anymore" is not support, it's exploitation.

Elixir keeps insisting that we shouldn't consider principles or morals here, we should only be thinking about numbers here. Win the next election, and we can worry about ethics later. In that light, it doesn't matter whether you agree with me that the DNC is discriminating against trans people or not. What matters is whether LGBTQ people - like me - feel that the Party has abandoned us, and start sitting out elections. All this "signalling" that the Demcrats are trying to do, all these "hints" and symbols of sympathy with the far right, aren't actually winning them any votes. But they might lose them some votes.

 

[Politesse]

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

The germane question is “among those gor whom trans rights is a determinative factor, are there more voters who are trans rights supporters, or are there more voters who are afraid/ freaked out by trans rights?
That’s what matters at the end of the day.

I don't know what you mean, or intended to mean, by "gor" but IMHO the main thorny issue with trans rights is the right for transwomen to compete against biological women (or if you prefer, non-transwomen) in sporting events. The majority of the general public, including Democrats are opposed to it. And no, they're aren't "afraid" or "freaked out" by it. Like myself, they just want women, and especially girls, to be able to have a fighting chance of competing in a fair match.

NYT poll finds majority of Democrats oppose transgender athletes in women's sports

A recent New York Times/Ipsos survey found the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don't think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women's sports.

"Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female — do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?" the survey asked.

Of the 2,128 people who participated, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women's sports.

A recent example:

Trans High School Track Star Wins Triple Jump by 8 Feet

In late February, AB Hernandez, a transgender junior at Jurupa Valley High School in California, competed in the girls track and field meet securing first place in the high jump (4 feet, 10 inches), long jump (17 feet, 6 inches) and triple jump (40 feet, 0.5 inches) at the Ontario Relays. That triple jump performance was eight feet further than the runner-up.

In addition, more recently, Hernandez competed in the Roosevelt Invitational on Saturday, also securing first place in the long jump and the triple jump.

This is not the first time Hernandez has positioned herself to possibly win a title as she previously finished third in the triple jump behind two seniors at last year's outdoor track state championship meet.

Eight feet? How in the holy fuck is this even close to a fair competition?

If you believe that the law should discriminate on the basis of sex or gender, you're not a liberal - you may support freedom when it applies to you, but "liberal" means supporting freedom in general concept, not just for certain privileged classes or identities over others.

Don't feel bad, most people aren't. Right wing governments are advancing all over the world right now. Discrimination is very popular, it wins a lot of elections.

 

[Politesse]

That said, if you genuinely believe that after the "trans sports" issue has been resolved, the Republicans will not ask for anything else, having been satisifed with that wedge issue alone, I think you're a moron who doesn't know how to read. Not sorry. No, equality in sports is not the only reform these yahoos are asking for, and it won't be. Texas is mulling over a law to outright criminalize being trans, as we type. A felony, not a misdemeanor, for using any pronoun Big Brother doesn't approve of. That's not "equality in sports", that's just arresting anyone who doesn't agree with Puritan definitions of sex.

 

[thebeave]

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

The germane question is “among those gor whom trans rights is a determinative factor, are there more voters who are trans rights supporters, or are there more voters who are afraid/ freaked out by trans rights?
That’s what matters at the end of the day.

I don't know what you mean, or intended to mean, by "gor" but IMHO the main thorny issue with trans rights is the right for transwomen to compete against biological women (or if you prefer, non-transwomen) in sporting events. The majority of the general public, including Democrats are opposed to it. And no, they're aren't "afraid" or "freaked out" by it. Like myself, they just want women, and especially girls, to be able to have a fighting chance of competing in a fair match.

NYT poll finds majority of Democrats oppose transgender athletes in women's sports

A recent New York Times/Ipsos survey found the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of Democrats, don't think transgender athletes should be permitted to compete in women's sports.

"Thinking about transgender female athletes — meaning athletes who were male at birth but who currently identify as female — do you think they should or should not be allowed to compete in women’s sports?" the survey asked.

Of the 2,128 people who participated, 79% said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women's sports.

A recent example:

Trans High School Track Star Wins Triple Jump by 8 Feet

In late February, AB Hernandez, a transgender junior at Jurupa Valley High School in California, competed in the girls track and field meet securing first place in the high jump (4 feet, 10 inches), long jump (17 feet, 6 inches) and triple jump (40 feet, 0.5 inches) at the Ontario Relays. That triple jump performance was eight feet further than the runner-up.

In addition, more recently, Hernandez competed in the Roosevelt Invitational on Saturday, also securing first place in the long jump and the triple jump.

This is not the first time Hernandez has positioned herself to possibly win a title as she previously finished third in the triple jump behind two seniors at last year's outdoor track state championship meet.

Eight feet? How in the holy fuck is this even close to a fair competition?

If you believe that the law should discriminate on the basis of sex or gender, you're not a liberal - you may support freedom when it applies to you, but "liberal" means supporting freedom in general concept, not just for certain privileged classes or identities over others.

Don't feel bad, most people aren't. Right wing governments are advancing all over the world right now. Discrimination is very popular, it wins a lot of elections.

It would be nice if the world could be all things to all people, but occasionally we confront situations where we have two groups whose freedoms and rights are, more or less, mutually exclusive...at least in a practical sense. Like in the case with transwomen competing in sports with biological women. In this case, I think the concept of "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" is how best to deal with it. There are a lot of other real world situations where people are denied participation due to physical issues. Short people can't ride the roller coasters, and the tallest 1% of people can't fit into the cockpit of a fighter jet, no matter how badly they want to pilot it. Not to mention rights and priveleges denied to obese people, deaf people, blind people, Downs syndrome people, etc, etc. Life isn't guaranteed to be fair.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know what you mean, or intended to mean, by "gor"

“for” - mea culpa!

but IMHO the main thorny issue with trans rights is the right for transwomen to compete against biological women (or if you prefer, non-transwomen) in sporting events. The majority of the general public, including Democrats are opposed to it.

I agree. You have identified what is probably the greatest subset of those opposing trans rights. Add the rest of those who oppose trans rights, and will base their vote thereupon. Do they outnumber those who favor trans rights and will base their vote on it? Probably do IMO. Not a great reflection on the electorate but I’m simply saying that as a single issue, it’s likely not a net “winner” for those in favor.

 

[Elixir]

If you believe that the law should discriminate on the basis of sex or gender, you're not a liberal

If you make trans rights the centerpiece of an American political campaign, you’re a single-issue loser, not a liberal. Nobody can help advance trans rights without first getting elected.

 

[Elixir]

Elixir keeps insisting that we shouldn't consider principles or morals here, we should only be thinking about numbers here.

Do you want to ADVANCE those principles and morals?
Or do you simply want to display your ever-so-valiant adherence to them, to the exclusion of practical reality?

If you really CONSIDER those principles and morals, you will CONSIDER what it takes to actually advance them, rather than just to loudly proclaim them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

“How are democrats “openly rejecting the help of the trans people”?

What, in specific terms, do you feel feel Democrats should "back off on" in terms of trans rights?

"We still want your votes, we just won't lift a finger to stop it when people propose legislation explicitly designed to harm you, anymore" is not support, it's exploitation.

Elixir keeps insisting that we shouldn't consider principles or morals here, we should only be thinking about numbers here. Win the next election, and we can worry about ethics later. In that light, it doesn't matter whether you agree with me that the DNC is discriminating against trans people or not. What matters is whether LGBTQ people - like me - feel that the Party has abandoned us, and start sitting out elections. All this "signalling" that the Demcrats are trying to do, all these "hints" and symbols of sympathy with the far right, aren't actually winning them any votes. But they might lose them some votes.

It's not that we don't care about principles, but that we are being practical. Better to get some things than to get nothing.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't give a shit about sports and I have no problem with trans folks playing sports as whatever gender they identify as, but I can at least understand how some people might not like a trans female who went through puberty as a male playing on a female team, since that trans female is likely to have a lot more muscle mass compared to biological females. Still, the number of trans folks that do play in sports is to tiny, I don't understand why this is such an issue. I heard one of the Senators, who's name I don't recall right now say that in her entire state, there are only two trans folks involved in sports. Why are some people on either side getting their panties in a ringer over something so minor?

It takes time for people to accept change. Think how long it took for women to get the right to vote! I love diversity of all kinds. I will never deny anyone their rights due to their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc, but I'm one person with no power, other than trying to influence my friends. I have no idea how to combat hatred and ignorance, but pushing social changes on those who aren't ready for it often backfires and makes things worse.

Still, I don't understand why one's vote is based on hating or for that matter loving people who are different from themselves, when there are so many important issues to support, like helping low income folks, seniors, children, improving education, protecting the environment, caring for veterans, providing adequate medical care for all citizens, etc. etc. Harris supported trans rights but it was used against her and made into a big issue by her opponents.

Of course the LBGTQ folks voted for her. Why would they vote for a hateful person who is trying to ruin their lives? Well, actually, the Log Cabin Republicans did endorse Trump in 2020, but I couldn't find out who they supported in 2024. If they voted for trump, they fucked themselves royally.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That said, if you genuinely believe that after the "trans sports" issue has been resolved, the Republicans will not ask for anything else, having been satisifed with that wedge issue alone, I think you're a moron who doesn't know how to read. Not sorry. No, equality in sports is not the only reform these yahoos are asking for, and it won't be. Texas is mulling over a law to outright criminalize being trans, as we type. A felony, not a misdemeanor, for using any pronoun Big Brother doesn't approve of. That's not "equality in sports", that's just arresting anyone who doesn't agree with Puritan definitions of sex.

Of course they're going to go much farther. That's what happens when you aim too high and fail.