Buttigieg Presidential Campaign

[ZiprHead]

When was the last time that someone in this thread actually said something about Pete's campaign?
I'm not a yank so I will claim ignorance about Pete's camapign

What Politesse said.
I will also defend the digression over Kamala's campaign. No way can we meaningfully discuss possible future campaigns without being honest about past ones. And some on here won't even acknowledge that KH was to the left of the Democratic Party median.

As to Mayor Pete, he is still very young. But he ideally needs more seasoning. Senate or governor. Apparently, he mulled running for Michigan Senate in 2026 since Gary Peters won't seek reelection, but decided against it. Isn't he from Indiana though?

I understand he has moved to the Traverse City area, but don't take my word for it.

Yup, his husband is a Michigander.

Pete Buttigieg on his move to Michigan: ‘We’re here because of family’

Pete's Buttigieg's move to Traverse City puts his family, including two children, closer to his husband's parents.

www.mlive.com

 

[Politesse]

Yup, his husband is a Michigander

It's a good place to recruit husbands from.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hey, you should be thankful I scrapped my original plan of referring to biological women as individuals with a cervix.

I have seven cervical vertebrae. Does that count?

Yeah, language can be stupid. Cervical cancer does not involve the cervical vertebrae. Huh??

 

[Elixir]

you think they're all by virtue of the color of their skin, or the poor by virtue of the contents of their wallet, "low-information voters", AKA ignorant? Some "alliance"!

Don't tell me what I think.
Instead of getting your panties in a wad you need to take a nice cold look at the terrain and realize what needs to be navigated to get where you're going. Or where you want to go.
It's not poor people's fault that they're poor, on average. It's not black people's fault that they're discriminated against. Or gay people or trans people or nationality X people. It OUR fault, the public, we who used to patronize the media before it fell under the full control of moneyed and foreign interests.
The zone these people live in IS LOW INFORMATION, Poli. It is FLOODED with disinformation, and skillfully manipulative propaganda.
They are ignorant of what's actually going on. If they have a heart they are giving that nice man who the government tried to get, the break they sincerely believe he deserves. He's right about Ukraine too. Russia didn't do anything to us, so why are we attacking it for Ukraine?
They say smokes might go up, but so what, if he's taking care of us unlike crooked Hillary?

If you try to tackle this situation case by case you might get some visceral satisfaction but what is needed is a sea change in the information/propaganda landscape. An effort is underway, but the fascists have about two decades' head start.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Her problem was that she is black and female.

I disagree.

Kamala Harris had a lot of flaws as a candidate that were unrelated to her sex and skin color. Reducing her loss to those two attributes makes it too easy on her.
Also, she had a tough hand because Biden took so long to go into that good night.

ALL candidates have a lot of flaws. Without the concerted disinformation campaign put forth by enemy nations, Trump is absolutely nothing but fatal flaws.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Harris was flawed. She probably turned off a lot of voters who regarded her as too far left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There must be tens of trans women trying to compete in women's sports competition.

That being said, I'm one liberal who is against testosterone exposed trans women competing in women's sports. There are trans women that actually agree with this.

For a small number of tens.

And you're about where I am. I consider the evidence in either direction to be seriously flawed and thus the answer unknown. And, in the absence of evidence I think the answer should be disallowed. High level athletics is like that, anything chemical that is potentially relevant is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some sports already do this sort of thing, though they tend to first divide participants by gender, for no particularly obvious reason (other than tradition, if you want to call tradition a "reason").

My daughter was a college volleyball player. She and the other girls were very good and very strong. The net for women is 7'4" and the net for men is 7'11". My kid played in some coed competitive matches with other college players and girls held their own against the guys. So the net is higher for men because men can jump higher. I used to shag balls during practice when she was in club ball and I can tell you that these girls know how to hit. But when an opponent and easily clear a 7'4 net, they are in a position to add more power to hit the ball down at the other players. Aside from on the court - for the first two years of college, she attended on a Title IX scholarship. To have a woman who has played all their life to lose a scholarship to a trans player because the physical advantage inherent in males isn't fair to them. Even if that player is on hormones and has had reassignment surgery, they will still tend to be stronger than biological women. And call me a hater if you must, but if they have NOT had reassignment surgery, they do not belong on women's teams.

I don't think the surgery is relevant. If they've never been exposed to testosterone they get no competitive advantage over those born female except possibly height--I've never seen it mentioned in these discussions before and I don't know if it's genetic or testosterone. If it is genetic then such people should be banned from height sports, period.

(But, I would like to see divisions in height sports, like we have weight classes in boxing. Luck of the genetic lottery should be minimized.)

 

[Elixir]

There must be tens of trans women trying to compete in women's sports competition.

That being said, I'm one liberal who is against testosterone exposed trans women competing in women's sports. There are trans women that actually agree with this.

For a small number of tens.

And you're about where I am. I consider the evidence in either direction to be seriously flawed and thus the answer unknown. And, in the absence of evidence I think the answer should be disallowed. High level athletics is like that, anything chemical that is potentially relevant is guilty until proven innocent.

I tend to agree but am pretty ambivalent about it. If there's enough of them, let them play against each other. If not, let them play where they're welcome to play. I don't think it's like, a "right". I'd like to compete against dwarves but they won't let me. They even have an association that doesn't allow non-dwarves to compete.

"The Dwarf Athletic Association of America is an American athletic organization that sponsors and organizes athletic events for people with dwarfism."

Not that I'm TOTALLY against that. A paralympic swimmer lives across the river from me. She's about half my size, and swims about twice my speed, so ... about 4x as many body lengths per minute. It's not like if they let me in I'd kick any ass, so I'm not too resentful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So what you are saying is that you are a Rockefeller Republican.

Why insult an extinct breed?

Rockerfeller Republican is a reasonably good description of where I stand. Not extinct, just currently with the Democrats since the Republicans went off into loonie land.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to be anti-‘big government’ and vehemently opposed to what you consider identity politics, at least in so far as they give equal weight to women and persons of color. I, myself wish that it were not relevant what a person’s gender or race or religion or orientation or country of origin were but we are definitely not there. YOU are very far from there as afaik, no female or POC candidate or officeholder can be mentioned without you fixating on the sex/gender and/or race.

You rail about how far left Harris is which is quite laughable. But then you think I’m far left radical. My kids tend to see me as at best, middle of the road.

My POV is that race, gender, religion, country of origin should have no role in determining fitness for any job or office. You are among those who demonstrate that those things do matter to people like you and in your mind, the only reason that individual is selected for anything good.

The problem comes with the repeated refusal to recognize that disparate results does not prove discrimination. I don't believe that gender/race/orientation have any bearing, but I see repeated efforts to claim expected disparities are the result of discrimination. Hey, blacks are more likely to take themselves out of the running by going to crime. Of course they are underrepresented in any group where a criminal past will matter! And attempts to correct for past discrimination will inherently discriminate against new entrants of the group that used to have an advantage. I do not believe that perpetuating the problem is solving it.

Any study that looks at race without looking at how much of the effect is socioeconomic is worthless. And that's most of them.

But I would like to see such decisions made as identity-blind as is practical. And when they are being made en mass (ie, college admissions) near perfect blinding should be easy. Yet the response to allegations of discrimination is not to show it's fair, but to hide the data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In addition, the outsized internet voices who harass and demonize people like JK Rowling and Dave Chapelle further aggravates the problem.

Those individuals went out of their way to harass other people. People who, being millionaires and public figures, had quite a platform for their views. But their so-called "cancellation", which mostly consisted of people typing responses to their messages, is the only thing you consider harassment. Double standard, much?

I do agree it was self-inflicted but they got a lot of hate slung at them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I found this interesting survey regarding the public's view on transgender issues.

Where Americans stand on 20 transgender policy issues

There is no broad consensus in the U.S. when it comes to policies that affect transgender people. No more than six in 10 Americans line up on the same side of any of 40 policies that either expand or restrict rights and protection for transgender people. Majorities agree with existing protections in the U.S. for transgender people against hate crimes and discriminatory firings, but transgender inclusion in athletics, prisons, and public bathrooms all receive more opposition than support.

In a nutshell, the majority of people are supportive of transgenders when it comes to hate crime laws, employment discrimation and even military service. The least favored transgender issue of all? Allowing transgender athletes to play on sports teams that match their gender identity. This seems to fly in the face of those who claim its all about the bigotry and hatred. If that was case, then why is there such disparity between the different issues? For example, between employment and athletics. If you want to ban transwomen from playing in female sports because you're a bigot, wouldn't you also be in favor of trans discrimination in employment? Yet, these two issues are at opposite ends of the surveys. Could it be that instead of blind hatred, most people are recognizing the pros/cons and nuances of each individual issue and have developed opinions that consider the impacts on the non-trans population?

Exactly.

Athletics is a very different matter than the rest of those things. (But note that bathrooms is only a big flap because the reich wing made it so. People were using the bathroom that matched their presentation without a problem. There have been repeated discussions on here about the threat posed by penises in women's rooms. What little data there has been suggesting harm has looked downright shoddy to me, but I had zero luck on finding numbers. Recently I ran into a post elsewhere that explains why: the sum total of trans rapes in women's rooms is one--and the person with the penis was the victim, not the perpetrator. Of course there's no study of the frequency of something that doesn't exist!)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am a Dem-leaning independent. Fiscally and foreign policy moderate, largely libertarian on personal behavior issues.

The italicized bold-faced is a description of the Rockefeller Republican. The term was no meant as an insult back then, and I am pretty sure Toni did not mean it as one now.

Yeah, I have a hard time understanding how it's supposed to be an insult. It's pretty much the good points of the Republicans without the insanity that has infested them for quite some time now.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, language can be stupid. Cervical cancer does not involve the cervical vertebrae. Huh??

Cervix means "neck", in this case neck of the uterus. "Cervix uteri" would be the full name, but the second word usually gets dropped.

 

[Politesse]

In addition, the outsized internet voices who harass and demonize people like JK Rowling and Dave Chapelle further aggravates the problem.

Those individuals went out of their way to harass other people. People who, being millionaires and public figures, had quite a platform for their views. But their so-called "cancellation", which mostly consisted of people typing responses to their messages, is the only thing you consider harassment. Double standard, much?

I do agree it was self-inflicted but they got a lot of hate slung at them.

Hate out, hate in. Rowling is not meaningfully, materially hurt by a few angry tweets from her victims. Calling that a "cancellation" is absurd melodrama.

 

[Toni]

You seem to be anti-‘big government’ and vehemently opposed to what you consider identity politics, at least in so far as they give equal weight to women and persons of color. I, myself wish that it were not relevant what a person’s gender or race or religion or orientation or country of origin were but we are definitely not there. YOU are very far from there as afaik, no female or POC candidate or officeholder can be mentioned without you fixating on the sex/gender and/or race.

You rail about how far left Harris is which is quite laughable. But then you think I’m far left radical. My kids tend to see me as at best, middle of the road.

My POV is that race, gender, religion, country of origin should have no role in determining fitness for any job or office. You are among those who demonstrate that those things do matter to people like you and in your mind, the only reason that individual is selected for anything good.

The problem comes with the repeated refusal to recognize that disparate results does not prove discrimination. I don't believe that gender/race/orientation have any bearing, but I see repeated efforts to claim expected disparities are the result of discrimination. Hey, blacks are more likely to take themselves out of the running by going to crime. Of course they are underrepresented in any group where a criminal past will matter! And attempts to correct for past discrimination will inherently discriminate against new entrants of the group that used to have an advantage. I do not believe that perpetuating the problem is solving it.

Any study that looks at race without looking at how much of the effect is socioeconomic is worthless. And that's most of them.

But I would like to see such decisions made as identity-blind as is practical. And when they are being made en mass (ie, college admissions) near perfect blinding should be easy. Yet the response to allegations of discrimination is not to show it's fair, but to hide the data.

Here’s the thing: no one believes that they are in any way bigoted or racist. That’s part of the issue.

The other issue is that, in the margins—and the margins were tight! There are people for whom race, gender and orientation DO matter and affect their vote.

I understand your particular views about college admissions and they would be perfectly valid IF universities offered only one training course and they were seeking students best suited to that single course. And also assuming that people like living with and learn best only if surrounded by people exactly like themselves.

But that’s not at all how learning works or how universities work. Or how 18-23 year olds work, for that matter! I’ve known very mediocre high school students with decent but not stellar test scores to do extremely well at university and in grad school! I’ve known stellar high school students with extremely good test scores to not do well at university.

Frankly, going to university for me was like heaven because I finally got to know and learn from people who did not look like me or speak with the same accent but who had vastly different points of view and backgrounds and interests and talents. THAT is the real value of going to a university! NOT having it be a repeat of the previous 12 years where you were the best in everything you attempted and where there is a tremendous diversity of ability, background, perspective that challenge and broaden and deepen your knowledge and understanding. There is a reason—actually multiple reasons that almost no one learns best sitting in front of a computer screen with AI ‘teaching.’

BTW, the real value, such as it is, in going to an Ivy, is not that the classroom education you receive is better or better because everyone is ‘elite’ but because, just like fraternities and sororities and country clubs and golf clubs, that is where you form relationships with other ‘elite’ people, who are ‘elite’ because otherwise they would not be allowed into the university/sorority/fraternity/country club. It’s like deciding that a Fendi bag is worth thousands of dollars. It is because certain people say it is and because it’s priced to ensure only a select few are able to own one.

 

[Toni]

Her problem was that she is black and female.

I disagree.

Kamala Harris had a lot of flaws as a candidate that were unrelated to her sex and skin color. Reducing her loss to those two attributes makes it too easy on her.
Also, she had a tough hand because Biden took so long to go into that good night.

ALL candidates have a lot of flaws. Without the concerted disinformation campaign put forth by enemy nations, Trump is absolutely nothing but fatal flaws.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Harris was flawed. She probably turned off a lot of voters who regarded her as too far left.

Every single candidate that has ever or will ever exist is flawed.

Harris certainly is not more ‘flawed’ than Trump by several orders of magnitude.

So why did some people vote for Trump rather than Harris?

Skin color and gender.

Some people are just more comfortable with the old white gut because they are used to old white guts being in charge. And because it allows them to leave their own prejudices unexamined, and in fact, to feel they are vindicated.

People like to feel good about themselves. Having their leader share the worst of their faults seems to appeal to certain people. I don’t get it. Frankly I want the people in charge to know more and to be better than I am.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In addition, the outsized internet voices who harass and demonize people like JK Rowling and Dave Chapelle further aggravates the problem.

Those individuals went out of their way to harass other people. People who, being millionaires and public figures, had quite a platform for their views. But their so-called "cancellation", which mostly consisted of people typing responses to their messages, is the only thing you consider harassment. Double standard, much?

I do agree it was self-inflicted but they got a lot of hate slung at them.

Hate out, hate in. Rowling is not meaningfully, materially hurt by a few angry tweets from her victims. Calling that a "cancellation" is absurd melodrama.

I didn't say they were cancelled. I said they got a lot of hate slung at them, not just reasoned criticism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You seem to be anti-‘big government’ and vehemently opposed to what you consider identity politics, at least in so far as they give equal weight to women and persons of color. I, myself wish that it were not relevant what a person’s gender or race or religion or orientation or country of origin were but we are definitely not there. YOU are very far from there as afaik, no female or POC candidate or officeholder can be mentioned without you fixating on the sex/gender and/or race.

You rail about how far left Harris is which is quite laughable. But then you think I’m far left radical. My kids tend to see me as at best, middle of the road.

My POV is that race, gender, religion, country of origin should have no role in determining fitness for any job or office. You are among those who demonstrate that those things do matter to people like you and in your mind, the only reason that individual is selected for anything good.

The problem comes with the repeated refusal to recognize that disparate results does not prove discrimination. I don't believe that gender/race/orientation have any bearing, but I see repeated efforts to claim expected disparities are the result of discrimination. Hey, blacks are more likely to take themselves out of the running by going to crime. Of course they are underrepresented in any group where a criminal past will matter! And attempts to correct for past discrimination will inherently discriminate against new entrants of the group that used to have an advantage. I do not believe that perpetuating the problem is solving it.

Any study that looks at race without looking at how much of the effect is socioeconomic is worthless. And that's most of them.

But I would like to see such decisions made as identity-blind as is practical. And when they are being made en mass (ie, college admissions) near perfect blinding should be easy. Yet the response to allegations of discrimination is not to show it's fair, but to hide the data.

Here’s the thing: no one believes that they are in any way bigoted or racist. That’s part of the issue.

The other issue is that, in the margins—and the margins were tight! There are people for whom race, gender and orientation DO matter and affect their vote.

I understand your particular views about college admissions and they would be perfectly valid IF universities offered only one training course and they were seeking students best suited to that single course. And also assuming that people like living with and learn best only if surrounded by people exactly like themselves.

I don't see how you are making this jump.

I have no problem with different requirements for different degrees. I just want all thumbs off the scale. White thumbs, male thumbs, DEI thumbs. I want to see a financial analysis before I'll say no legacy thumbs because that comes down to an indirect benefit in the form of donations. If the donations exceed the cost per student the legacy admissions increase the pie rather than take pie.

And if you think it would result in being surrounded by people that are exactly the same that means you do not believe others can compete in a fair competition. I do believe they can and thus the result would not be the uniformity you think. But it would not match the distribution of the population at large.

But that’s not at all how learning works or how universities work. Or how 18-23 year olds work, for that matter! I’ve known very mediocre high school students with decent but not stellar test scores to do extremely well at university and in grad school! I’ve known stellar high school students with extremely good test scores to not do well at university.

Just because outliers exist doesn't mean you don't try to find the best.

Frankly, going to university for me was like heaven because I finally got to know and learn from people who did not look like me or speak with the same accent but who had vastly different points of view and backgrounds and interests and talents. THAT is the real value of going to a university! NOT having it be a repeat of the previous 12 years where you were the best in everything you attempted and where there is a tremendous diversity of ability, background, perspective that challenge and broaden and deepen your knowledge and understanding. There is a reason—actually multiple reasons that almost no one learns best sitting in front of a computer screen with AI ‘teaching.’

BTW, the real value, such as it is, in going to an Ivy, is not that the classroom education you receive is better or better because everyone is ‘elite’ but because, just like fraternities and sororities and country clubs and golf clubs, that is where you form relationships with other ‘elite’ people, who are ‘elite’ because otherwise they would not be allowed into the university/sorority/fraternity/country club. It’s like deciding that a Fendi bag is worth thousands of dollars. It is because certain people say it is and because it’s priced to ensure only a select few are able to own one.

I do not see how this is a refutation at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Her problem was that she is black and female.

I disagree.

Kamala Harris had a lot of flaws as a candidate that were unrelated to her sex and skin color. Reducing her loss to those two attributes makes it too easy on her.
Also, she had a tough hand because Biden took so long to go into that good night.

ALL candidates have a lot of flaws. Without the concerted disinformation campaign put forth by enemy nations, Trump is absolutely nothing but fatal flaws.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Harris was flawed. She probably turned off a lot of voters who regarded her as too far left.

Every single candidate that has ever or will ever exist is flawed.

Harris certainly is not more ‘flawed’ than Trump by several orders of magnitude.

So why did some people vote for Trump rather than Harris?

Skin color and gender.

Some people are just more comfortable with the old white gut because they are used to old white guts being in charge. And because it allows them to leave their own prejudices unexamined, and in fact, to feel they are vindicated.

People like to feel good about themselves. Having their leader share the worst of their faults seems to appeal to certain people. I don’t get it. Frankly I want the people in charge to know more and to be better than I am.

I don't think Harris' flaws made anyone switch to The Felon. Rather, they kept people away from the polls. Too many people choose inaction when faced with a bad vs worse choice.