Pete Buttigieg has raised $7 million

[SKANK 14,288]

The military genius of a gay man named Major General von Steuben was in part why America was able to win The Revolutionary War. When our new nation needed a capital city, George Washington commissioned Pierre Charles L’Enfant, another gay man, to design it. Over two hundred years later, an openly gay man is finally a serious contender to run the country von Steuben and L'Enfant helped birth from the shadows.

Putting it in more recent historical perspective, our current President was born in the 1940's - a time when Allied troops decided against liberating homosexuals from Nazi concentration camps, because they were considered to be criminals.

From Buchanan to Buttigieg, we have come a very long way.

The fact that an openly gay man is a popular candidate in a Presidential primary is extraordinary. It's not trivial. So before nit picking his policy positions, take a beat, and celebrate this milestone.

[imnotyourbabe10 6,120]

8 hours ago, JustAnother said:

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. 

Totally understand where you are coming from with this. I feel like I sometimes (and unfortunately reinforce) the points you made.  Thank you for calling it out!  I will say, too, that I am currently a counselor in training and we often talk about multiculturalism as it relates to therapy so perhaps I am pulling in those themes inappropriately when it comes to politics where identities matter to an extent but not as it relates to healing.   

9 hours ago, Ziggy said:

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

Hey there -- thank you for your thoughtful and well-written response.  Overall, I suppose I have this Marxist, Anarchist and Utopian vision in my mind that by moving towards more democratic socialism (like Bernie) that the revolution would jump-start a bit.

I'm actually from Pete's hometown; have lived in the Midwest my entire life and, while I don't particularly care of it, I'm aware we can't hate on a certain group of people because of their geography and how they were raised/socialized into certain beliefs (unless they are White supremacists or something).   About religion -- yeah, I need to lighten up and let it go.  Just can't stand dogmatic faith or those that say **** like "love the sinner, hate the sin."  (I know that isn't in Gaga or Buttigeig's beliefs).

My issue around gay marriage or gays in the military is that the LGBTQ community has had a unique opportunity to revolutionize our marginalized status and, instead, we sought assimilation via military acceptance and mimicking the heterosexual (often times oppressive) cultural norm of marriage.   For Buttigieg, I feel like he will reinforce these goals.  To your points, though, his military knowledge is useful and realistic (I know war isn't disappearing overnight and our veterans deserve quality care and a relatable leader).

[By the way,  has Pete kind of publicly "checked" his privilege yet?  White, gay, male, Christian, etc.  I'm curious how he relates to people of color and other marginalized ethnic or religious groups without using over-identification via  his marginalized status].     

Sidebar about the LGBTQ community.  You're often stuck in a double-bind of binaries.  Let's say you're "queer" -- sometimes you're not "queer enough" or you're "too queer" to get anywhere.  And I feel badly because I see myself applying this logic to Pete.  He's kind of radical but not radical enough.

The issue around unifying is not a big deal to me.  I'm not going to continue to have the dominant democrats try to persuade me to "vote for the lesser evil" or jump on their bandwagon.  If this continues to be the case, I'll probably write in Bernie or vote Green. 

Sorry for the long post.  I hope I respectfully responded.  Wish we could chat over coffee, fellow monsters! 

A link to a topic that might more eloquently articulate my points about LGBTQ issues: Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion

[FATCAT 60,909]

Of course the gays are dragging another gay man down because he's either not gay enough, or he's too gay to win. 

Yikes.

[Thotiana 872]

26 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Of course the gays are dragging another gay man down because he's either not gay enough, or he's too gay to win. 

Yikes.

Or maybe because he’s a centrist and some of us aren’t? 

[FATCAT 60,909]

7 minutes ago, Thotiana said:

Or maybe because he’s a centrist and some of us aren’t? 

Or maybe I'm not talking about those people?

[ctherainbow 3,162]

50 minutes ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

If this continues to be the case, I'll probably write in Bernie or vote Green. 

Dear God, this Republican is begging you to not hand the Orange in Chief a second term.  Please.  We’ve suffered enough since 2016 almost exclusively because of third-party or non-voters in the election; please don’t do it again.  Because trust me, Republicans who have minor reservations about Trump will still ram their heads in the sand and vote for him, and if the Dems fracture in 2020, we’re going to endure even more damage to society under 4 more years of Trump.

 

On topic:  If ya’ll are concerned that an assimilationist gay is the one running, then get your booty out from behind your keyboard and go recruit a more radqueer to run!  Then put in the effort to get them national exposure and win the nomination.  But until then, Pete’s not doing a terrible job representing our community, and he’s very obviously moderating on and deflecting some issues to gain support, likely so that once he’s in office, he can then turn around and implement solid policy.  To be queer in a state like Indiana is to know how to play the game, and if you’re mad at him for playing it to win, I don’t know what to tell you.

[Thotiana 872]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

Or maybe I'm not talking about those people?

Or maybe you should tag the people you’re talking about?

[FATCAT 60,909]

23 minutes ago, Thotiana said:

Or maybe you should tag the people you’re talking about?

Or maybe you feel a little guilty about something?

 

[WildAmerican 13,672]

8 hours ago, ltlmnstr said:

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

and I disagree with that.

So I don't watch RuPaul, am I transphobic and then? You're argument's just really strange....

[Ziggy 14,247]

12 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

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.

 

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. 

 

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.

Like I said, I followed Sanders in 2016. When he was asked about funding free tuition or healthcare or this or that it always came down to “tax the rich!!!” Ok but that assumes that he’s able to get a tax code through which Trump only did because of the Dems lack of down ticket support in 2016. It just felt like a very easy solution, ya know? That would be great in an ideal world but what if ideal doesn’t come? Where else can we allocate those funds if the tax pipe dream doesn’t get achieved. Especially as a congressman who would have been exposed to budgetary allocations, I’d expect to hear something a bit *more* than the tax the rich narrative (which I am very in support of btw).

I feel the need to clarify that the reason it doesn’t come down to policy for me is because in understanding what will be realistically achievable given the belligerence of Republicans, I think both Sanders and Buttigieg could accomplish about the same (also B did endorse M4A idk what interview you saw but maybe it was a fluke? Because I’ve seen a few with him and he’s endorsed it in most and waffled the answer in rhetoric but sort of endorsed it in others).

and Yes, Sanders has a lead now but it’s also *so* early in the race and he has enormous name recognition so no amount of polling can be really useful for determining the nomination at this point. But I do think you have plenty of folk who said “oh well, Green Party is better than Hillary!” after the primaries because Hillary did a poor job bringing them in and Sanders also did a poor job with it.

With that, I think responding to you saying that voting for other than policy makes no sense is short-sighted. Sanders functions, in my opinion, mind you, better as an influential outsider. We don’t need every even basically competent and capable person going to the White House. That’s been Democrats’ downfall historically. We need good, powerful legislators with clout, we need good local politicians as well. I personally like Sanders in the legislature better than I do in the executive particularly because I think his policies and opinions are more received better there. Look at all these freshmen congressmen who have followed in his image like AOC. He, as an elder congress member, can give them guidance as they grow their careers (hopefully) since he understands them. Dems need better Congress members because, as you point out, there’s a lot of neoliberals running things rn.

I think for president, we need a less powerful executive (in recent decades it’s become ridiculous as this administration has shown) and then someone who can touch and lead everyone while being liberal. I’d rather have radical legislators than presidents tbh because I see presidents as mediators in that they have to lead *everyone*. I think Pete does that better than Bernie so that’s what I mean by “not policy”. It’s more where I think their skills are best utilized.

[Othon 34,299]

17 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

 I’d rather have radical legislators than presidents tbh because I see presidents as mediators in that they have to lead *everyone*.

The office of the president is the biggest bully pulpit on earth. We need someone advocating for genuinely leftist policy from the White House, dragging the overton window to the left, changing what people think of as "reasonable" and "pragmatic." Sanders was largely ignored in Congress until he ran for president and since then, the conversation on the left has changed drastically. The vast majority of the party dismissed his policy proposals in 2016 and now large swaths of liberals have gotten on board. That only happened because of his proximity to the office of the presidency. If he goes back to the senate, he'll continue to try to affect change with a much smaller platform while the rest of the party reverts to the same 90s, third-way neoliberalism they've been adhering to for decades while we hurtle towards environmental eradication.

The president doesn't act as a mediator in Congress; Obama tried that and got nothing from the other side of the isle for 8 years. Attempting to "bring the country together" doesn't work. Politics is a war, not a friendly debate, and capitulating to the right accomplishes nothing but legitimize their platform. We need a president a la FDR willing to push for radical change now. Even if he doesn't actually wrangle Congress into passing everything he wants, he'd still drag an entire generation of voters to the left, and maybe convert some older people in the process. The conversation has to change. The neoliberal consensus has to be upended. Sanders is the only one who can do that.

[Thotiana 872]

3 hours ago, FATCAT said:

Or maybe you feel a little guilty about something?

 

Never guilty for not supporting a centrist.

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

5 hours ago, WildAmerican said:

So I don't watch RuPaul, am I transphobic and then? You're argument's just really strange....

Um I posted two different sentences. You combined them and made them about yourself. I don’t care what you watch and have no opinion about you. The topic at hand is my personal view of Pete not of you. You are gaslighting me to talk about you, an anonymous stranger.

 

As I said, Pete seems centrist and his support for Trans people seems to be, to me, just words and no action. His answer at a Town Hall about RuPaul’s Drag Race was a personal red flag for me and the next day he says positive things about Chick-fil-a. Another red flag. He’s barely center-left. He’s the moderate candidate.

[Ziggy 14,247]

16 hours ago, imnotyourbabe10 said:

Totally understand where you are coming from with this. I feel like I sometimes (and unfortunately reinforce) the points you made.  Thank you for calling it out!  I will say, too, that I am currently a counselor in training and we often talk about multiculturalism as it relates to therapy so perhaps I am pulling in those themes inappropriately when it comes to politics where identities matter to an extent but not as it relates to healing.   

Hey there -- thank you for your thoughtful and well-written response.  Overall, I suppose I have this Marxist, Anarchist and Utopian vision in my mind that by moving towards more democratic socialism (like Bernie) that the revolution would jump-start a bit.

I'm actually from Pete's hometown; have lived in the Midwest my entire life and, while I don't particularly care of it, I'm aware we can't hate on a certain group of people because of their geography and how they were raised/socialized into certain beliefs (unless they are White supremacists or something).   About religion -- yeah, I need to lighten up and let it go.  Just can't stand dogmatic faith or those that say **** like "love the sinner, hate the sin."  (I know that isn't in Gaga or Buttigeig's beliefs).

My issue around gay marriage or gays in the military is that the LGBTQ community has had a unique opportunity to revolutionize our marginalized status and, instead, we sought assimilation via military acceptance and mimicking the heterosexual (often times oppressive) cultural norm of marriage.   For Buttigieg, I feel like he will reinforce these goals.  To your points, though, his military knowledge is useful and realistic (I know war isn't disappearing overnight and our veterans deserve quality care and a relatable leader).

[By the way,  has Pete kind of publicly "checked" his privilege yet?  White, gay, male, Christian, etc.  I'm curious how he relates to people of color and other marginalized ethnic or religious groups without using over-identification via  his marginalized status].     

Sidebar about the LGBTQ community.  You're often stuck in a double-bind of binaries.  Let's say you're "queer" -- sometimes you're not "queer enough" or you're "too queer" to get anywhere.  And I feel badly because I see myself applying this logic to Pete.  He's kind of radical but not radical enough.

The issue around unifying is not a big deal to me.  I'm not going to continue to have the dominant democrats try to persuade me to "vote for the lesser evil" or jump on their bandwagon.  If this continues to be the case, I'll probably write in Bernie or vote Green. 

Sorry for the long post.  I hope I respectfully responded.  Wish we could chat over coffee, fellow monsters! 

A link to a topic that might more eloquently articulate my points about LGBTQ issues: Against Equality: Queer Revolution, Not Mere Inclusion

I’m with you on queer revolution over inclusion (and Marxism). On a personal level I am totally with you, but just because we don’t agree with something ourselves shouldn’t mean that no one else gets to decide for themselves what they want. That’s the core argument in favor of abortion (not to go too far off the track, but reproductive health messaging is my job so bear with me lol). I think I’m any governance, but most especially with the diversity in the U.S., we need to recognize and reconcile differences we might have and move on so long as they aren’t massively detrimental. An argument can certainly be made that “normalizing” queerness through gay marriage, DOMA repeal, etc. *is* detrimental, but I think that there are other better ways of fighting that heteronormative bait than saying we shouldn’t fight those fights. Being recognized as full and equal people is also worthwhile and I think both of those have made strides in that regard to where now we can mount the battlements for trans and non-binary folk and say “hey, you might not get their experience, but that doesn’t make it wrong.”

To your earlier point, Pete has spoken about it if you follow that link I included (hope it works?). He’s talking to urban radio and they ask point blank about Black issues and he responded well imo, but that’s up to you to decide!

I also want to encourage you not to view any candidate besides your #1 as a “lesser evil”. The U.S.’s lack of ranked choice voting has polarized our elections so much, it’s staggering. Think of candidates like friends of yours (they’re not but bear with the analogy lol): you don’t agree 100% with your friends and you have best friends but that doesn’t mean you absolutely hate those who aren’t your best friend (I hope lol). I think it’s worthwhile to campaign and vote with your heart in the primaries because that’s where our vote will make the most impact, truly. But then when whoever is chosen as nominee we have to ask, “I don’t agree with everything they say, but are my disagreements really truly fundamentally irreconcilable?” It’s convenient to say “lesser of two evils”, but think of how polarizing that image is in your head now? It taints the process. Sorry for the semantics rant; again, my job is messaging on a very sensitive subject where presentation of information and words *matters* hahaha

I want to also mention that I’ve done a lot of consideration since becoming friends with a former evangelical person where my position on faith, while I am not faith based whatsoever, is that it shouldn’t be dogma or rigid. It should be a vibrant and intellectual exploration and relationship. Ask questions, develop questions, ponder questions, seek answers but also say ‘maybe there’s not an answer!’ And seek clarity in further consideration of your question. In my mind, though, God as a concept is supernatural so no human can say whether they exist or not by the very definition of them superceding our natural comprehension. I’ll tell that to religious people to say, “look, we won’t agree on faith, but we can both agree on that point, right? Cool! Moving on!”

and yes, you were very respectful! I’m happy to say we can disagree so long as we can also say we have agreements on some certain points. That’s a good, healthy debate!

and I implore you to only vote green if they actually have a good candidate because they don’t always lolol 

[LordEnigma 11,313]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:46 AM, Born To Slay said:

Bernie raised just under that in a day. Thank U, next. 

It’s not like Bernie had a highly publicized run last time or anything. Let’s not compare apples and oranges.

Thank YOU, next