Does it disqualify Pete Buttigieg?

Yakuda said:
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
Click to expand...
No you have that wrong.

My problem is i read what you actually say.

You did not just speak to what you 'give a shit about' and you WRONGLY stated OTHERS do not give a shit about that stuff. You openly questioned why others would think magats would care about that stuff.

Fine if you do not care. Just be less stupid and stop suggesting other magats do not when hate is the reason for most of them being in the magat voting block.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Your retorts are getting more and more immature, Hater.

Maybe you need a break. Try the tibia. Easy mark.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jarod said:
I dont think I suggested Republicans would vote for Buttagugig.
Click to expand...
In a rare moment of defense, I’ll point out that you actually framed the thread this way:

“If you otherwise agreed with him on other issues, would you still not support him?”

You weren’t claiming Republicans would vote for Buttigieg. You were asking whether homosexuality itself would be disqualifying for someone who otherwise supported the candidate.

That distinction is fair.
 
Cypress said:
There are currently 13 LGBTQ+ people serving in Congress, all Democrats or independents who caucus with Democrats, and zero openly LGBTQ+ Republicans.
Click to expand...
Twice now you’ve offered that same factoid, and it still doesn’t answer the question being discussed.

Are you claiming Pete is therefore a shoo-in to win the election? If not, what exactly is the point?
 
Cypress said:
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
Click to expand...
Thanks for that fact, and I'm not quite sure on the exact number, but I'm willing to guess
or even bet that there are at least 13 or more democrat congress members who are
outright socialists, thus making them outright anti Americans. Gay and crazy blue haired
lib women like that dem congresswoman from Connecticut is par for the course in populating
the dem party.
 
Cypress said:
The Democratic base is going to be highly dubious of the electability of a gay man to the presidency.
Click to expand...
Interesting how you play the fence here.

If Democrats reject Pete, it’s apparently just because they’re thoughtfully concerned about his “electability.”

But if Republicans reject a gay candidate, that becomes evidence that openly gay people essentially can’t succeed in the party.

So Democratic voters get the charitable explanation — they’re just worried about what other people think — while Republican voters get diagnosed as the actual problem.

That’s a pretty convenient distinction.
 
Jarod said:
I dont think I suggested Republicans would vote for Buttagugig.
Click to expand...
"...but in both, he loses votes for being Gay" - that's what you wrote and both is referring to both parties. How can he lose Republican votes he never would have had?
 
zymurgy said:
Interesting how you play the fence here.

If Democrats reject Pete, it’s apparently just because they’re thoughtfully concerned about his “electability.”

But if Republicans reject a gay candidate, that becomes evidence that openly gay people essentially can’t succeed in the party.

So Democratic voters get the charitable explanation — they’re just worried about what other people think — while Republican voters get diagnosed as the actual problem.

That’s a pretty convenient distinction.
Click to expand...
So the argument is I personally think Buttigieg is the best candidate and would vote for him but I don't think others will (because they're homophobic or whatever), and therefore I won't vote for him.

The irony there is if a bunch of people think that it becomes self fulfilling. It can certainly be a cop out.
 
Jarod said:
Maga would never elect him to anything, I am shocked The PP took the risk of appointing him.
Click to expand...

"Make America Great Again" doesn't vote, Comrade. Not does "Yield to Oncoming Traffic."

You Communists aren't the brightest black holes in the universe...
 
zymurgy said:
In a rare moment of defense, I’ll point out that you actually framed the thread this way:

“If you otherwise agreed with him on other issues, would you still not support him?”

You weren’t claiming Republicans would vote for Buttigieg. You were asking whether homosexuality itself would be disqualifying for someone who otherwise supported the candidate.

That distinction is fair.
Click to expand...
My response to him was not about his OP. Look at the post I responded to and what he was saying there.
 
zymurgy said:
Twice now you’ve offered that same factoid, and it still doesn’t answer the question being discussed.
Click to expand...
Go ahead and give me a list of Republicans who ran and won federal or state office while openly campaigning as LBQTQ+.

Gays in the closet or gays who got outed don't count.
 
zymurgy said:
Are you claiming Pete is therefore a shoo-in to win the election? If not, what exactly is the point?
Click to expand...
So you not only play word games and indulge in overly fanatical word-parsing, you also pretend to be an expert mind reader who puts words in other people's mouths
 
Cypress said:
Go ahead and give me a list of Republicans who ran and won federal or state office while openly campaigning as LBQTQ+.

Gays in the closet or gays who got outed don't count.
Click to expand...
“Brand new to politics, eh?”

Funny how Democrats can support Pete but worry other voters won’t elect a gay man — yet Republicans get no such nuance.

And yes, openly gay Republicans have won office: Chuck Carpenter, Tom Hannegan, Don Guardian, David Carr.

So your absolute claim was false. “Much harder for gay Republicans” is defensible. “Only one party where they can win” is not.

I propose you retreat a little further.
 
Cypress said:
So you not only play word games and indulge in overly fanatical word-parsing, you also pretend to be an expert mind reader who puts words in other people's mouths
Click to expand...
again the word games were all on you - and you lost the debate over them
 
zymurgy said:
“Brand new to politics, eh?”
Click to expand...
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.
 
R.a1ce3ca85376a37a689730b759b7740a
 
cawacko said:
"...but in both, he loses votes for being Gay" - that's what you wrote and both is referring to both parties. How can he lose Republican votes he never would have had?
Click to expand...
Ok, you got me, Ill amend, in both an openly gay man loses votes in both parties, but more from Republicans.

I might be wrong, I remember a time when voters complained about a divorced or Catholic candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top