Page 6 of 36 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 351

Thread: Pete Buttigieg

  1. Top | #51
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    13,934
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    16,968
    Rep Power
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    "People only want him because he is gay."

    "No one will want him because he is gay."
    Yes.
    ITMFA

    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    You submit to tyranny when you renounce truth. - Timothy Snyder

  2. Top | #52
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    "People only want him because he is gay."
    Among, primarily, younger, "Millennial" Democrats who, as a group, do not actually turnout to vote in very large numbers, but are very vocal about idealistic crusades.

    "No one will want him because he is gay."
    Among, primarily, the 40% "conservative" Democrats from the Baby Boom (and Gen X) generation and the 39% opposed to "gay marriage" among Dems from the black community that do turnout to vote in large numbers.

    Did you miss these details, because they were clearly laid out to demonstrate precisely why it's a serious and significant risk in regard to 2020? All Trump needs to do to win is suppress enough Dems from casting their ballots. Millennials can talk a good game, but as of the last two very important election cycles they haven't exactly punched above their weight class.

    So we have the very real potential of a lot of talk--a lot of social media noise--about idealism and what we should be doing as a country and how great it would be if we lived in a perfect world, coming from the younger generation that then won't actually vote their convictions, while the older generation who normally would vote--and still outnumber the Millennials by almost twice as many--just stay quietly out of the conversation and the voting booths.

    So the conservative Dem boomers and Gen Xers and blacks and hispanics don't tell anyone about how they aren't going to vote for a gay President (including pollsters), while the millennials get a big ego-boost on Instagram and tell the pollsters for sure about how important this election is for them and the country and their support of the LGBT community, but then they won't actually bother to vote and we get Trump for another 4 years all because Dems don't know how to pick their battles.

  3. Top | #53
    Contributor barbos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Mlky Way galaxy
    Posts
    9,523
    Archived
    8,047
    Total Posts
    17,570
    Rep Power
    61
    I checked google street and can confirm that the house I once rented in South Bend was demolished, In fact whole side of the street with old houses is gone, newer houses are standing. Damn you Pete Buttigieg!

  4. Top | #54
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    70
    Koy,

    I believe one primary point of disagreement we have is whether Pete Buttigieg would be among the riskier candidates to nominate against Trump or one of the safer candidates. Where you seem to view him as the former, I see him as the latter. From just watching him, you get a vibe of maturity from him that many of the other Dem candidates, and especially Trump, do not exude. I do not at all think that voters, in general, would come away from seeing Pete versus Donald and think that Donald was the one with a better head on his shoulders. Pete has previous/current experience as serving in a government executive branch, and more of it as well, than Donald or the other Dems (at least off the top of my head) do.

    As I make my responses---please bear in mind this key point. I am not seeing Pete as a riskier choice to beat Trump. I view him as the safest choice among all the declared (or likely) Dem candidates, when all factors are considered in total. A same-old, same-old stereotypical politician like Biden would actually be the riskier choice to put up against Trump than Pete would be.

    If somehow there was a Pete who was straight and not gay over the existing version, I would think the straight Pete would have a better chance and would support him for the reason of wanting to beat Trump in the election. If there was a version of Pete who was mayor of a large metropolitan city over the Pete who is mayor of South Bend, Indiana (which is still 100,000 people), I would favor the mayor of the large city, ceteris paribus.

    I agree that those are, unfortunately, drawbacks for him. Where I disagree is how significant they are, and when packaged with all the other assets this guy brings to the table that the other Dem candidates do not have, then Pete is among the safer, perhaps the safest, candidate Dems can have to beat Trump. I do not think Biden or Bernie or Beto would be a safer nominee, for instance, because they are old(er) straight white guys. Pete would be safer because he is among the most mature adults in the room, despite being younger than everyone else.

    Referring to people being hungry for change---

    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    In policy, absolutely, but that's his weakest point.
    Not just policy, but also personality as a whole. People largely disapprove of Trump and his immature tweets and lying to them, being involved in scandals, etc. Someone like Pete is the complete and utter opposite of Trump in this regard, and he is genuine and trustworthy and mature and compassionate. He has not been poisoned by Washington politics, and has a life history of altruism and charity and volunteering. Pete would represent change more than any of the other Dem candidates represent change. Demographics aside (a female president would indeed be significant), Pete represents the outsider change, where most everyone else is more of an insider.

    Indeed, it seems to be his anti-point as that interview readily showed. He seemed to not only be prepared with a stock answer as to why he had no policy positions, he actually attempted to spin it into his policy position.
    Which interview are you referring to? There have been a few interviews mentioned in this thread as far as I recall, and I am not sure which one you are referencing. Even if it was the case that he has “had no policy positions” (which is a very large overstatement and exaggeration), it is also not “spinning” either way. There is also a massive difference between---having no policy positions---to---having policy positions that are amenable to change and refinement based upon changing times, insight, circumstances. I do not want a politician to commit to one particular very detailed policy now if at a later point a superior policy arose. What is more important is that a politician be able to discern with their insight and reasoning skills what the better and worse policies are at a given time, and that it may change over time.

    On the lack of Washington experience being portrayed as an asset rather than a liability, Koy mentioned:

    “…there actually is no such thing as the "establishment"--but, again, that didn't work for Sanders so why do you think it would work for Buttigieg? It may have worked on the Republican side, but, again, I don't see that as a powerful swing argument when you factor in the homosexuality.”

    Those are 2 different types of races though. Sanders was running on the outsider theme in the primary election and lost against an insider, in a primary. There was never an opportunity for Sanders’s outsider message to go against Trump’s campaign message. In a potential 2020 general election, Pete would be considered the outsider and Trump would be the insider, which is a whole different ball game than what happened in 2016.

    …from a Republican POV, he's got a skeleton out of the closet already and their party is littered with self-hating closeted gay men in particular who go to horrifying lengths to keep that closet door sealed shut; like to the point of allowing other gay men to die an masse lest it be known that they are gay or even sympathetic to gays.
    Then let’s not bother trying to appeal to those particular Republicans. They are lost causes for the Dems. Instead, let’s try to appeal to the Dem base and the swingers and the moderate GOP’s. As mentioned before, even if Reps do have a discomfort with voting for a gay man, there is also a discomfort they have in voting for a piece of shit who is conning them, and when the entire person of Pete is evaluated in total he will come off as the more appealing candidate to moderate Reps (not all, but a lot) and he would rally the Dem base in large numbers if he campaigns on issues that matter to Dems. He will not shy away from his homosexuality, but will not make it the focus of his campaign either. He is not running because he is gay, people are not supporting him simply because he is gay. People are supporting him because he has great character and intellect, and oh by the way he also happens to be gay. Big deal.





    He has no experience
    He does have experience as a government executive since 2012. He has experience as a volunteer in the army (in contrast to the draft dodger currently in the WH). He is fluent in 7 languages. He is knowledgeable and smart. He has a history of performing acts of charity and volunteering, all without seeking publicity or highlight reels for them. All those add up to be very significant positive attributes.

    …and openly dismisses forming any kind of policy position as his policy position, ludicrously arguing that no one should have a policy position "on Day 1."
    Can you provide the link to where he said exactly that? I would like to read the fuller context.

    An openly gay man has almost no chance of swinging any Republicans…
    How do you know that? You cited a poll suggesting many would have a discomfort or a hesitation in voting for a gay man, but that is far different from saying there is “almost no chance” of swinging any of them. He is not running on his gayness, he just happens to be gay, like any of the rest of us happen to have a certain sexuality. He is running on issues that people care more about like healthcare, taxes, economy, removing Trump from the WH, establishing a reform of how Washington works, climate change, national security and international politics, etc.

    Also, a lot of people have come to regret their vote for Donald, or would vote differently if we could go back in time, knowing then what we know now. His approval/disapproval numbers are more negative now than his election date. People are uncomfortable with him.

    And we haven't even begun to get into the prejudices among the "minority" Dem voting bloc (i.e., blacks and latinos).
    That I believe would be a legit concern, but as stated above, I do not think it would be such a hit against Pete in a general election as you seem to believe. In a primary, it would. I do think you vastly overestimate how much people in general are willing to make the candidate's sexuality a defining issue on who they will vote in a general election---especially when polling suggests all the other defining issues are hugely more defining. There are plenty of religious right voters who would make it an issue, but they are lost causes anyhow. At the same time, this 2nd or 3rd tier issue of his homosexuality is being used to dismiss a quality candidate on the 1st tier and most relevant issues to voters. On those issues, he has already exhibited an extremely strong appeal to people, demonstrated by his phenomenal poll numbers, fundraising, ratings, feedback, etc.

    I had mentioned: “It is not as important that they commit to certain specific policies right now, but that they are smart enough to make good judgments about what the good and bad policies are, as new information comes in and circumstances change, and who will have good advisers and experts around him/her.”

    Koy responded: “I'm sorry, but that's just flat out wrong.”

    Well no, it is not wrong. Not even a matter of right or wrong. They are different values and desires, not something that fits the bill of right or wrong. I do not want a candidate who commits now to holding a certain position on an issue, when a year from now a better position may be introduced. What I want is that the person have the ability to discern the better or worse policy choices at any given time, not to commit to one policy choice and to never mend it due to changing circumstances. You may value more than I do for positions to be committed and set in stone. Neither of us is right or wrong. A case could be made that one view is more popular or unpopular among voters, and also whether it is something that will impact them strongly or be relatively indifferent about. Saying it is wrong though, is wrong.

    Why is it so necessary that someone who has no experience and boasts that he has no set policy platform and alienates almost half of our largest voting demographic without even opening his mouth need to run in this election, when the stakes are so fucking high?
    Because he actually has a great chance to win, likely even greater chance to win than any of the other candidates who are currently running. In an extremely short amount of time, he has gone from being on nobody’s radar to now running in 3rd place in early polling, and not far behind Bernie (currently running 2nd).

    It is not that I think we are taking an added risk by nominating Pete. I think he is the safest candidate, especially relative to all the other candidates who are likely to run. That is a key point. If we could design a perfect candidate to win in a general election, there would be some adjustments I would favor to making to Pete. We do not have the option of running our dream candidate though, we just have to work with who is available.

    So we can pick apart these various flaws or liabilities that Pete may have, and while that is interesting it is also not disqualifying, if all the other candidates have even greater degrees of flaws or liabilities.

    Gay for gay's sake is not an acceptable answer to that question any more than black for black's sake was or woman for women's sake was, etc. Again, it's a job interview, not a social stand for the advancement of a pet issue.
    I am not aware of any polling to suggest that Pete has such high favorability ratings simply because he is gay. He has incredible popularity because he is smart, trustworthy, articulate, a fresh face. He happens to be gay as well.

    …it's not about personal favorites; it's about who can beat Trump.
    Agreed, he just happens to fit both parts of that bill. He appears to have a strong chance of beating Trump based on his intelligence, maturity, knowledge, and compassion, where Trump is the polar opposite of all those. The Dems, in large (which includes moderates), who know Pete already either like him or love him. They are not turned off by him because they are uncomfortable with his gayness. He has a very low disapproval rating among Dems. He is different from the other Dem candidates in a more appealing and enthusiastic and inspiring way. He by coincidence also would be gay, which would be a milestone achievement as well.
    Last edited by Brian63; 04-16-2019 at 02:46 PM.

  5. Top | #55
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    8,128
    Rep Power
    56

  6. Top | #56
    Veteran Member Brian63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    Archived
    8,911
    Total Posts
    9,967
    Rep Power
    70
    Also, many Republicans in 2016 voted for Trump not because they liked him, but rather that he was "at least not as bad as Hillary." That was a popular and common refrain. Voters just disapproved of and disliked Hillary, more than they did Trump (based on what they knew at the time). People are willing to vote for a candidate that they have doubts and hesitations about, if at least that person (they perceive) is not as bad as the alternative. Given how unpopular Trump is, in a general election we would not have to convince people to vote for Pete because he would be the perfect president, but just that he at least would be better than this current unliked guy.

  7. Top | #57
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    7,871
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    11,526
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by barbos View Post
    I checked google street and can confirm that the house I once rented in South Bend was demolished, In fact whole side of the street with old houses is gone, newer houses are standing. Damn you Pete Buttigieg!
    Did you have to leave your home and your neighborhood in order for that progress to happen?

    Doesn't sound like it.

  8. Top | #58
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,041
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian63 View Post
    Also, many Republicans in 2016 voted for Trump not because they liked him, but rather that he was "at least not as bad as Hillary."
    That is a popular narrative among the Sanders crowd in particular, but grossly inaccurate for several reasons, not the least of which was thirty years of GOP bashing and the Russian influencing and the Trump attacks and the fact that the Sanders camp used that tactic to demonize her as well, resulting in a bitterly divisive civil war among the Dems for a good six months at least, leading straight up to (and into) our convention.

    Seeing a bully beat on someone is bad, but seeing that person's own friends beat on them is exponentially worse. In the first instance, you want to protect them. In the second instance, you think, "Well, if their own side is beating them up, then they must be bad."

    But the Russian-fuelled Sanders bots, at least, were not beating on Hillary because they thought she was bad (at least not initially, when everyone was like "Oh, we deeply respect each other" and our platforms are 93% identical and the like); they were beating on her because they wanted their guy to win.

    Literally every argument ever lobbed against Hillary from the Sanders camp is either a false equivalence or directly contradicted by the actual record. Every single one.

    The worst, of which, being the idiotic "corporate whore" accusation because she did what everyone does; got paid to give speeches while she was no longer in office. The insinuation was that she had been bought, but the proof of that insinuation was never found or provided. It was and always will be an argument from incredulity, but that fact never stopped any Sanders supporter from repeating it thousands of times per minute.

    But this is an important point, because we are Dems and therefore fallacies SHOULD be anathema to us. But of course, when idealism takes over from critical thinking, fallacies suddenly become ubiquitous and a true believer's best friend and so the left beating her up was taken by the right as confirmation of everything they had been fed about her.

    That was a popular and common refrain.
    Exactly. That's known as propaganda.

    Voters just disapproved of and disliked Hillary, more than they did Trump (based on what they knew at the time).
    And "what they knew at the time" was only what they were told by Fox news and the GOP and the Trump camp and the Russians and the Sanders camp, etc.

    Iow, lies and political attacks. Because the GOP, in particular, knew she was their biggest threat for decades and have been bashing her relentlessly ever since the nineties, precisely because they knew she would one day be the first female President and they were right; she won the popular vote. It was only due to a complicated series of unique events that conspired together to nevertheless take the WH away from her and then only that by the tiniest of margins.

    Margins that, once again, could be HUGE in regard to a gay candidate. On the order of some ten to fifteen million votes (or more), not merely 40,000.

    Now think what that same propaganda evisceration machine (absent only the Sanders camp) will do to a gay man. And, yes, once again, I am fully aware of the similarities to "what they will do to a black man," but, again, in regard to homosexuality, there are huge percentages of Democrats who will not be ok with a gay President.

    That was not the case with a black President and partially the case with a female President (as misogyny did play a roll in 2016 as well, however small).

    So, again, with a gay candidate we risk removing any Republican swing (and this time around that could be upwards of 40%) as well as risk causing a huge percentage of Democrats to just not bother voting.

    Both of those conditions could easily result in Trump actually winning the popular vote for a change, let alone another narrow EC victory. When you've got 40% of seniors and 39% of blacks not ok with something as benign as getting married, then you've got a HUGE Democrat voter suppression potential that simply does not exist with any other candidate.

    if at least that person (they perceive) is not as bad as the alternative.
    What you don't seem to understand is that to swing Republicans and suppress a large percentage of "conservative" Democrats, a gay President is worse than the alternative.

    Which is the point.

    So why risk it this round? What is so urgent about this election that it be a gay man's turn, let alone a gay man who has zero experience and openly boasts that he has no policy platform, nor will have one on "day one"?

    It seems to be just boiling down to "he's gay, so that's better." That's not a reason nor even logical.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 04-16-2019 at 05:30 PM.

  9. Top | #59
    Veteran Member blastula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The greatesst state
    Posts
    4,745
    Archived
    6,070
    Total Posts
    10,815
    Rep Power
    55
    Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.


    (View video on YouTube)

  10. Top | #60
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,241
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by blastula View Post
    Buttigieg comments about the Notre Dame fire and says they should have used flying water tankers in french.


    (View video on YouTube)
    No, he doesn't say anything like that in French. He comments on how we share their grief and calls Notre Dame a "gift to humanity" . It is Donald Trump who suggested that they use flying water tankers.

Similar Threads

  1. Indiana politician Don Boys is obsessed with Pete Buttigieg’s kinks
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-28-2019, 02:20 AM
  2. Pence says Buttigieg bringing 'attacks on my Christian faith'
    By AirPoh in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-15-2019, 12:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •