Pete Buttigieg has raised $7 million

[ctherainbow 3,162]

Bless him having enough money for a week of commercials in one state.    

In all seriousness, it’s nice to see a queer candidate doing this well.    

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

He’s a bit too center for me. He does seem to ignore the trans member of the community. He said he doesn’t watch RuPaul’s Drag Race and that was a red flag for me.

[Applause 650]

12 hours ago, FATCAT said:

 

Also, Hello Lieutenant:

  Hide contents

 

 Captain *

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

He's a bit too normative for my taste so I'll stick with Bernie

I'm oversimplifying and don't mean to be an asshole -- I just don't relate to his  identities as "Christian left",  married gay, militaristic, etc.  I'd rather vote for the heterosexual Jewish dude who got arrested for civil rights activism and has a consistent voting record than a guy who will continue to bolster the norms around the military, religiosity in the US and marriage.

I appreciate his work and do not mean to isolate -- Democrats need to have these in-group discussions because we are getting nowhere flooding the primary field and reinforcing neoliberalism. 

[Ziggy 14,249]

9 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Girl, I love you, but... what?!

Literally what the hell does a spineless, awkward, rich dweeb that was always deeply unpopular and only has a political career as a result of nepotism facilitated by his war criminal family dynasty have in common with an ideologically consistent outsider democratic socialist and most popular active politician in America?

And you're dismissing the importance of fundraising totals to discredit a candidate with much more impressing fundraising totals... in a thread devoted to praising another  candidate's significantly lower fundraising totals? 

But it's also prudent not to discredit the platforms that they're starting from. As you said, Bernie is the most popular active politician in America. It's not really even valuable to compare his fundraising levels to that of someone with absolutely zero name recognition who entered this race (not even that yet lol) at 1%.

[Ziggy 14,249]

34 minutes ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

He's a bit too normative for my taste so I'll stick with Bernie

I'm oversimplifying and don't mean to be an asshole -- I just don't relate to his  identities as "Christian left",  married gay, militaristic, etc.  I'd rather vote for the heterosexual Jewish dude who got arrested for civil rights activism and has a consistent voting record than a guy who will continue to bolster the norms around the military, religiosity in the US and marriage.

I appreciate his work and do not mean to isolate -- Democrats need to have these in-group discussions because we are getting nowhere flooding the primary field and reinforcing neoliberalism. 

...you have a problem with him for being a married gay? Bernie is also married so...

Also when has Buttigieg bolstered the norms around the military? By being in it? I think that gives him a fairly good level-mindedness to speak to veterans tbh He's by absolutely no means a war hawk or looking for war. Hell, his role in the military wasn't even that "hawk"ish.

I would love to hear you break this down, really, but most of your points against him sound a bit prejudiced towards Midwesterners or just somewhat ill-informed to what he's about. I mean, look, I'm hardly faithful, but I've met scores of very good people who have faith, and even the lady we laude on this site is actively Catholic and proudly so. His religiosity does not seem to be even remotely a problem as he's open to what else there is outside his experience (this interview does a great job illuminating that, I think).

I very much like Bernie, supported him in 2016, but I don't think we need to nitpick our candidates down to the wire. We can be not 100% like them and still be able to say, 'yeah, I think you'd lead this country well'. In this case, I have no intention to marry (I, like you, don't like the idea that "acceptable gayness" is heteronormative gayness) or be very religious and I'm quite anti-military, but at the same time do I think having a very liberal and open-minded vet as candidate would be useful? Absolutely, because the fact of the matter is that there *are* veterans in America and we need someone who can speak to them. We need a president for all not some. Bernie could be that, but I also think Pete could. I think Pete is so far doing what Bernie did last time around by bringing in new ideas and perspectives of his own rather than being someone like Booker or Harris parroting ideas others ushered in and that should be praised!

If I'm asked why I support Buttigieg over Sanders, it seldom comes down to policy, and is more that I don't think Sanders is a unifier at all even within democrats. Look how poorly he did that in 2016; what if he doesn't win the nom this time but comes close? We have another splintering. I think it's important to find, not a neoliberal as they're the #worst, but someone who can at least build bridges a bit better. That, and I don't think Sanders is so good on the finer points of policy, but is a better idea man. That was my lone reservation in 2016. When pressed on details he fumbled which in terms of honesty I appreciate instead of dodging the question like most other candidates have, but I think if you're going to have a policy and promote it you also need an idea for how to get it through and funded. I digress lol

[JustAnother 5,113]

It’s so tiring y’all care so much about identity politics. You either agree with his politics or don’t. The fact anyone is young, gay, Jewish, female, etc. shouldn’t matter when it comes to voting. If it does you’re no better than people who opt to not vote for others based on those. 

[Othon 34,299]

14 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

If I'm asked why I support Buttigieg over Sanders, it seldom comes down to policy, and is more that I don't think Sanders is a unifier at all even within democrats. Look how poorly he did that in 2016; what if he doesn't win the nom this time but comes close?

Only 8% of Democrats disapprove of Sanders. He's extremely popular among Democrats and he's the most popular active politician in America. The rhetoric about him being "divisive" is exactly that: rhetoric, coming directly from that lone 8%.

Voting for a politician on anything other than policy, especially when the more progressive candidate is the most popular active politician in America, makes absolutely no sense.

 

16 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

...and I don't think Sanders is so good on the finer points of policy, but is a better idea man. That was my lone reservation in 2016. When pressed on details he fumbled which in terms of honesty I appreciate instead of dodging the question like most other candidates have, but I think if you're going to have a policy and promote it you also need an idea for how to get it through and funded.

Again, that was a narrative pushed by centrist liberals in 2016. He had specific, detailed plans for his universal college program, medicare for all plan, etc. etc. 

 

18 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I think Pete is so far doing what Bernie did last time around by bringing in new ideas and perspectives of his own rather than being someone like Booker or Harris parroting ideas others ushered in and that should be praised!

What major policy proposals has Buttigieg put forward? So far, every interview of his I've read has included a lot of vague rhetoric. And he hasn't endorsed M4A and is pushing for a less progressive alternative, which is a major issue.

[Whispering 18,865]

3 hours ago, Born To Slay said:

They didn’t in the last election 

They did, just not enough to make him the nominee. 

Who knows what will happen this time around with so many candidates to divide the votes? 

[WildAmerican 13,672]

3 hours ago, ltlmnstr said:

He’s a bit too center for me. He does seem to ignore the trans member of the community. He said he doesn’t watch RuPaul’s Drag Race and that was a red flag for me.

 

the stupidity and ignorance JUMPED out.

[RAMROD 117,899]

 he can run this country and also use my face as trampoline.

[shane_c 480]

There's who you like and agree with, and who you think is electable. Those can be two different things.

I have to wonder how electable someone gay is, with a husband. I really doubt that he is, at least not at this time in the nations history.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

I quite like him and he's a great speaker, but I honestly don't care about him being married, gay, former military, and religious. Those are great selling points, but policy wise I expect Bernie or Warren (though her chances are slim to none of getting the nom at this point) would be more effective.

I think its time for radical change, and I don't know if he is necessarily on board with that. He'd make a great VP, though these days VP picks tend to be so much about helping to secure a certain location in the nation electorally or in approval ratings.

Regardless, he is easily better than Beto, Mr. running because he's born to be in it  Like what an out of touch thing to say, Jesus.

 

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

2 hours ago, WildAmerican said:

the stupidity and ignorance JUMPED out.

Or maybe I saw that everything about Pete Buttigieg screams heteronormative gay

and I disagree with that.

[LateToCult 42,092]

18 hours ago, FATCAT said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Maybe I’m hole?

nvm. It was his slightly sweaty appearance that made me think I was hole for him.