Does it disqualify Pete Buttigieg?

[zymurgy]

Why would a thinking person not vote for them for that reason? What you shit eating retards cant comprehend is people refuse to vote for him not because he is married to a man and has children but because his policies suck more dick than he does. Its a problem of political ideology not who hes married to.

plenty of religious people would use it as a red line

 

[QP!]

pass.

As i would expect you to do.,

You are incapable of seeing how you made the case for trans people and their existence and path being the same as gays, and you mistakenly thought you were making the opposite case as to why gays got accepted and trans have not

As always you see only half the argument and that leads you to predictable errors, which i then have to correct.

 

[Librtlover]

You are a moron...and about as anti-American as anyone around.

I did mention that you are a moron...right?

Go back to your extended nap time.

 

[Cypress]

That’s your entire debate style: make an absolute claim because it sounds powerful, get shown that the absolute is false, then quietly retreat to a much weaker claim and accuse everyone else of “word games!

It's absolutely word games and fanatical word parsing. If you are a openly gay person and you want a reasonable chance of success running for state municipal office, there is only one party that provides that option.

The tiny, miniscule amount of openly gay Republicans who get elected to office does not point to a record of success for gay people in that party.

If I said there is only one religion (Islam) in Iran that breeds success in running for public office in the Iranian parliament, that would be a true statement, even though one or two Jewish Iranians get elected to parliament.

You know who would leap out of their chair and howl that I'm wrong about Islam being the only viable option to elected office because one Iranian Jew got elected?!

That's right. That would be somebody playing word games and fanatically word parsing.

On the other hand, there is only one major political party in the United States where people who openly identify as gay can and do successfully run for public office in state and municipal elections.

 

[Yakuda]

plenty of religious people would use it as a red line

And? thats their choice.

 

[zymurgy]

It's absolutely word games and fanatical word parsing. If you are a openly gay person and you want a reasonable chance of success running for state municipal office, there is only one party that provides that option.

The tiny, miniscule amount of openly gay Republicans who get elected to office does not point to a record of success for gay people in that party.

yawn. yes we already read your retreat into safe waters

no need to repeat after the debate was lost

 

[Librtlover]

Don't know. I personally would like to see Sen. Tammy Duckworth run.
She is a disabled WAR vet who had her Helicopter shot down by an RPG where she lost her legs,
She went on to be a Congressmen and now a Senator , she has a real good voting record on Veterans affairs , and women's and children's affairs.
I have written her and asked her to think about it she said she would but haven't head anything more on the subject.
IMO she would be a very good President, but then again who ever is the next President will have to spend most of their first term just fixing the mess Trump has made and won't get to do much of what they want to.

Tammy Duckworth. Too many ducks frolicking in the pond.

 

[QP!]

Why would a thinking person not vote for them for that reason? What you shit eating retards cant comprehend is people refuse to vote for him not because he is married to a man and has children but because his policies suck more dick than he does. Its a problem of political ideology not who hes married to.

Obviously you have not seen the percent of magats who claim JD Vance is not electable as POTUS and should not be VP due simply to his wife being Indian and his kids of mixed ethnicity.

So when you ask why a 'thinking person would not vote for them for that reason', it seems you skip over THINKING yourself. Magats, primarily are run by a host of varied hates and prejudices and while they do not all share them all, you can almost certainly bet at the base of near 100% and their voting decisions is a 'ate or bias first', then policy stuff a distant second.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Go back to your extended nap time.

Your retorts are getting more and more immature, Hater.

Maybe you need a break. Try the tibia. Easy mark.

 

[Cypress]

Current Status: There are zero openly gay or LGBTQ+ Republicans in the 119th U.S. Congress. All 13 current LGBTQ+ members of Congress are Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats

 

[zymurgy]

As i would expect you to do.,

yawn

your authoritarian nature is a turn off. If you stop demanding I do stuff you might get somewhere

go read this. do that . bla bla bla

 

[Jarod]

Why would a thinking person not vote for them for that reason? What you shit eating retards cant comprehend is people refuse to vote for him not because he is married to a man and has children but because his policies suck more dick than he does. Its a problem of political ideology not who hes married to.

Some people would claim he is mentally ill.

 

[Librtlover]

I vote for the policy positions, not the person. That's why I don't split tickets and I vote straight blue.
As for boats, I don't understand the qurestion.

You vote straight blue, or what is better known these days as straight Marxism. You
sure you're voting straight blue, or in this case with Pete, wouldn't it be gay blue?

 

[Cypress]

yawn.

As of 2026, there are zero openly gay or LGBTQ+ Republicans in the 119th U.S. Congress. All 13 current LGBTQ+ members of Congress are Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats. [1]

 

[Jarod]

The chances of an openly gay man wining an election in a Republican primary is so miniscule we can basically say it just virtually never happens.

I agree, the chances are also small with the Democrats, but not miniscule.

 

[zymurgy]

As of 2026, there are zero openly gay or LGBTQ+ Republicans in the 119th U.S. Congress. All 13 current LGBTQ+ members of Congress are Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats. [1]

more retreat to safe waters

Your first absolute included state or municipal officials.

 

[Yakuda]

Obviously you have not seen the percent of magats who claim JD Vance is not electable as POTUS and should not be VP due simply to his wife being Indian and his kids of mixed ethnicity.

So when you ask why a 'thinking person would not vote for them for that reason', it seems you skip over THINKING yourself. Magats, primarily are run by a host of varied hates and prejudices and while they do not all share them all, you can almost certainly bet at the base of near 100% and their voting decisions is a 'ate or bias first', then policy stuff a distant second.

Your problem is you think I give a shit what other people say. Unlike you and your brain damaged friends I can vote for someone based on their political beliefs apart from their personal lives. so go back to sucking your mommys dick

 

[zymurgy]

And? thats their choice.

and it is what my point was purely about - in a national election it would likely harm their chances

 

[Cypress]

I agree, the chances are also small with the Democrats, but not miniscule.

There are currently 13 LGBTQ+ people serving in Congress, all Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats, and zero openly LGBTQ+ Republicans.

 

[Jarod]

I feel like I'm living in an alternate universe. Republicans aren't going to vote for a Democrat. Is this some new revelation?

Pete didn't win your own primary but you're worried about Republicans not voting for a Democrat?

I dont think I suggested Republicans would vote for Buttagugig.