Does it disqualify Pete Buttigieg?

[zymurgy]

You seem like it. A total newbie. At this point America is probably not ready to elect for president an openly atheist person, a 400 pound man as bald as a cue ball, an openly gay man with a husband, a Sunni Muslim, or a quadriplegic.

I don't see why you're complaining. You choose to be in a party whose base has never even elected a black or a female presidential candidate in their primary elections.

That’s quite a retreat.

My first reply was already pretty clear about how national elections work. Pete may not even be electable within your own party — and you basically explained why yourself.

Some Democrats may reject him because he’s gay. Others may personally support him but reject him because they think other voters won’t elect a gay man.

That was the point.

Instead of addressing it, you wandered off into atheists, Muslims, quadriplegics, obesity, and whether Republicans have nominated a woman or Black presidential candidate.

That’s not a rebuttal. It’s a straw man built after abandoning your original claim.

 

[zymurgy]

Still waiting for that extensive list of Republicans who won federal or state office while openly campaigning as LGBTQ

When you make an absolute claim, I don’t need an “extensive list” to disprove it. I need one valid counterexample.

I already gave you several.

If you now want to argue that openly gay Republicans win less often, fine. That’s another retreat from the claim you actually made.

 

[AMERICA FIRST]

So if you agreed with him on important things, you would vote for a man married to a man? That would be okay with you to have a POTUS who is married to a man?

100%

 

[Cypress]

Others may personally support him but reject him because they think other voters won’t elect a gay man.

So what? That's politics 101. I already said that

Democrats also won't nominate an atheist for president, a Sunni Muslim, or a 400 pound fat man bald as an egg.

Is there any conceivable reason this is surprising or controversial to you?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Being gay is hardly Buttigieg's biggest failing as a presidential candidate.

 

[Cypress]

M, I don’t need an “extensive list” to disprove it. I need one valid counterexample.

I already gave you several.

Miniscule exceptions to the rule do not undermine my thesis.

What's the rule?

That if you want a reasonable chance of success in running for public office in America as an openly gay person, there is only one major party that offers that opportunity

If you want a reasonable chance to run for Iranian parliament you have to be Muslim.

That statement is not disproven by some fanatical word-parser howling that there are one or two Jewish Iranians in the parliament.

I'm not required to list all the exceedingly rare exceptions to the rule for the Iranian parliament.
For all I know one or two Zoroastrians are in the Iranian parliament.

 

[Moosakofsky]

So if you agreed with him on important things, you would vote for a man married to a man? That would be okay with you to have a POTUS who is married to a man?

If he were a moderate, pragmatic democrat or republican, yes. I’d vote for him.
Simply because those types just don’t exist anymore.
That said, a moderate is more unelectable than a fag.

 

[zymurgy]

Miniscule exceptions to the rule do not undermine my thesis.

What's the rule?

That if you want a reasonable chance of success in running for public office in America as an openly gay person, there is only one major party that offers that opportunity

If you want a reasonable chance to run for Iranian parliament you have to be Muslim.

That statement is not disproven by some fanatical word-parser howling that there are one or two Jewish Iranians in the parliament.

I'm not required to list all the exceedingly rare exceptions to the rule for the Iranian parliament.
For all I know one or two Zoroastrians are in the Iranian parliament.

You’ve now retreated from “only one party” to “reasonable chance.”

I’m done chasing the goalposts. We’re done here.

 

[Ross Dolan]

My retorts are immature? You haven't brought anything rising to mature debate
at this forum, and in fact you're just another radical leftist that brings nothing of
substance, and nothing of intelligent political discourse to this forum.

Yes, your retorts are immature.

 

[Cypress]

Chuck Carpenter, Tom Hannegan, Don Guardian, David Carr!

Jesus Christ, you only found four in the United States, and you mostly had to rely on blue liberal states to boost your numbers?

There are around 8 or 9 thousand state and federal elected officers in this nation. And since you went all the way down to City Council with David Carr lets include those positions too, estimates suggest there may be as many as 130,000 to 150,000 city council members in the US.

Do you know what percentage out of 140,000 four people are? 0.002%.

Yeah, you are a fanatical word-parser.

 

[zymurgy]

Jesus Christ, you only found four in the United States, and you mostly had to rely on blue liberal states to boost your numbers?

There are around 8 or 9 thousand state and federal elected officers in this nation. And since you went all the way down to City Council with David Carr lets include those positions too, estimates suggest there may be as many as 130,000 to 150,000 city council members in the US.

Do you know what percentage out of 140,000 four people are? 0.002%.

^derp derp

I only needed one because you are a retard playing word games

 

[CasualLurker]

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

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

He's clearly not a moron. That's a level of function well beyond his capability. Perhaps he's an imbecile, although full-blown idiot would be my assessment.

 

[LurchAddams]

I'd love to break these stereotypical barriers, but they exist for women and gays. We managed to break the barrier with a black president, but I truthfully don't think that's as big of a leap as the one before women and gays in leadership roles. At this point, we need to not push it and just pick someone who's electable based on performance alone.

So, "we broke the barrier with the black president" should read, "we broke the Republicans since Obama was elected".

 

[LurchAddams]

Here's my issue with identity.

I wish I could find the article but it was a column in the SF Chronicle by a black writer and he was saying they're not enough elected minorities in California. This was at the time of the attempted recall of Gavin Newsom and the leading Republican was Larry Elder (a black man).

In this column the guy was complaining that Elder had a chance to win. I literally had to do a double take, but what he meant in the column of course (without saying it) was he wanted more liberal minorities, not just minorities period.

People in California complain we've never had a woman Governor. In 2010 Meg Whitman ran against Jerry Brown. Yes Whitman was a Republican but not of the #MAGA type. Jerry Brown won.

I've seen liberal women on this board say I'm not going to vote for a woman just because she's a woman. My response is I totally understand. You want a person to share your values, policy positions etc.

But what many people mean when they say they want a woman or gay person to win, is they want one that is politically aligned with them.

If Joe Biden ran against Nikki Haley in 2024, how many Democrats who say they want a woman President do you think would have voted for Haley?

So this is the fallacy I see from conservatives on this board. trump and republicans have fucked America and the world so badly - Republicans can't defend that so they look for obscure stories about "a black writer said something weird once" then you try to paint the entire Democratic party like that one guy.

It's not working.

 

[LurchAddams]

This is more anecdotal but I'm reminded of a conversation I had with Nordberg on here. He's obviously a Democrat but more of the DSA variety. I asked if he supported Bernie in 2016 because it was obviously a big opportunity if you share those beliefs.

He said he voted for Hillary in the primary because he wanted a woman to win.

1) That is absolutely his right and 2) identity can certainly work against you but also for you at times

Ah, look! Another anecdote! I guess our research is done here, we can all go home

 

[LurchAddams]

Pete is very intelligent, well-spoken, and an adult. He goes to Fox Gnus and talks to them regularly.
His sexuality is none of my business. He is acting as god made him.

It amazes me how trump voters sneer at people who use proper English and love trump's sluring hate speech.

 

[Cypress]

^derp derp

I only needed one because you are a retard playing word games

Four (most in liberal blue states) out of 140,000 = 0.002% LOL

Yeah, there used to be a Jewish-Iranian member of the Iranian parliament, but it is still correct to say you have to be Muslim to successfully run for Iran's parliament...unless you wanted to play massive word-parsing games

​

 

[zymurgy]

Four (most in liberal blue states) out of 140,000 = 0.002% LOL

Yeah, there used to be a Jewish-Iranian member of the Iranian parliament, but it is still correct to say you have to be Muslim to successfully run for Iran's parliament...unless you wanted to play massive word-parsing games

​

again, I only needed 1 - so I stopped with 4

you lost

 

[WinterBorn]

So if you agreed with him on important things, you would vote for a man married to a man? That would be okay with you to have a POTUS who is married to a man?

Why not? I don't care who sleeps with whom. In fact, I would be more likely to not vote for a straight man who cheated on his spouse.

 

[Jarod]

Why not? I don't care who sleeps with whom. In fact, I would be more likely to not vote for a straight man who cheated on his spouse.

Like Trump did?