Buttigieg and homophobia

[Vic]

What are you basing your assessment of Obama vs Buttigieg on?

The fact that if Pete wins the nom, you'll be concern posting during the general about how the Dems abandoned the black vote by running a white gay candidate.

 

[woolfe9998]

As a gay person I'm starting to resent the implication I'm getting from some people that he deserves my support simply because he's gay. I don't particularly love his approach and the general condescension I feel when I hear him talk or especially get challenged by reporters. His problematic relationship with minorities is emblematic of the privilege white, well educated, and financially successful gay men possess that they aren't able to genuinely empathize with other people's experiences and it shows with all this fumbling about.

No one is obligated to support him because he's gay.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What are you basing your assessment of Obama vs Buttigieg on?

Hes gay. He's unqualified because he is gay is what he is saying.

And his political party is too homophobic to accept a gay man.


Also qualifications aren't something about "chance of being elected" as if that is some kind of measurable metric that you can pull out of your ass.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

No one is obligated to support him because he's gay.

No one has suggested such either.

The fact that if Pete wins the nom, you'll be concern posting during the general about how the Dems abandoned the black vote by running a white gay candidate.

Fine, run the same thing except a black gay man with his qualifications.

Christ, you people that are all about equality sure aren't about equality.

The whole hierarchy of oppression temple you have erected where you make metric qualifications of what is or is not more oppressed than another is getting fucking comical.

 

[Vic]

Hes gay. He's unqualified because he is gay is what he is saying.

And his political party is too homophobic to accept a gay man.


Also qualifications aren't something about "chance of being elected" as if that is some kind of measurable metric that you can pull out of your ass.

"The Dems are too homophobic to accept a gay man," say the Republicans who have never once elected an openly gay man to national political office, while Dems have elected many.

 

[Vic]

No one has suggested such either.



Fine, run the same thing except a black gay man with his qualifications.

Christ, you people that are all about equality sure aren't about equality.

The whole hierarchy of oppression temple you have erected where you make metric qualifications of what is or is not more oppressed than another is getting fucking comical.

Contrary to what some people want to believe, equality does not mean that minorities should get the job just because they're a minority. Your straw men are what's comical. Seriously.

 

[Vic]

No one is obligated to support him because he's gay.

You sure about that? Because that's exactly what a couple concerned posters here are saying.

 

[K1052]

Hes gay. He's unqualified because he is gay is what he is saying.

This isn't what I'm trying to get across. I've felt pressure from non-gay people who express shock that I don't love Mayor Pete. They like it less when I explain why and sometimes that explanation doesn't reflect favorably on the people doing the asking.

And his political party is too homophobic to accept a gay man.

We've got gay senators, gay mayors, gay city council members, and a gay governor. All Dems AFAIK.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The fact that if Pete wins the nom, you'll be concern posting during the general about how the Dems abandoned the black vote by running a white gay candidate.

No, I will be applauding their decision to nominate a veteran who is close in age to me, and will he happy to support him. I expect the Democrat purity test crowd will do Trump’s work for him, as evident by some in this thread.

 

[woolfe9998]

You sure about that? Because that's exactly what a couple concerned posters are saying.

I haven't seen any words to that effect in this thread. There's a difference between it being wrong to not support someone because they're gay and being obligated to vote for someone because they're gay. I don't care if someone doesn't support Buttigieg because they want someone farther left or prefer someone with more experience, or even the ridiculous "white privilege" argument.

This thread is about the fact that black voters and some working class whites aren't supporting him because of his orientation. If being gay is a barrier to entry in our nation's progressive party in 2019, that is troubling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What are you basing your assessment of Obama vs Buttigieg on?

I'm not sure people want a straight answer.

 

[Vic]

No, I will be applauding their decision to nominate a veteran who is close in age to me, and will he happy to support him. I expect the Democrat purity test crowd will do Trump’s work for him, as evident by some in this thread.

Would you care to explain what this 'purity test' is that you keep referring to?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"The Dems are too homophobic to accept a gay man," say the Republicans who have never once elected an openly gay man to national political office, while Dems have elected many.

Forget Republicans for the moment because we're talking about Pete and how those "on his side" will throw him under the bus and I don't like that. As I've said I'm not yet decided on who I will choose, but if I pick Pete and someone accuses me of doing so to sink Democrats I will call them homophobic because they would be just that.

Precisely how long is Pete supposed to sit at the political back of the bus or drink from the "fags only" fountain? Does someone find that term offensive? Well it's not nearly as bad as saying "ain't it a shame" and thinking how much better they are.

 

[Vic]

I haven't seen any words to that effect in this thread. There's a difference between it being wrong to not support someone because they're gay and being obligated to vote for someone because they're gay. I don't care if someone doesn't support Buttigieg because they want someone farther left or prefer someone with more experience, or even the ridiculous "white privilege" argument.

This thread is about the fact that black voters and some working class whites aren't supporting him because of his orientation. If being gay is a barrier to entry in our nation's progressive party in 2019, that is troubling.

How can you claim that's a barrier to entry when he is in the running for the Presidential nomination?

There is a crazy amount of bad faith in this thread. Can't say that I expect that to get any better as we move into the election year.

 

[Vic]

Forget Republicans for the moment because we're talking about Pete and how those "on his side" will throw him under the bus and I don't like that. As I've said I'm not yet decided on who I will choose, but if I pick Pete and someone accuses me of doing so to sink Democrats I will call them homophobic because they would be just that.

Precisely how long is Pete supposed to sit at the political back of the bus or drink from the "fags only" fountain? Does someone find that term offensive? Well it's not nearly as bad as saying "ain't it a shame" and thinking how much better they are.

Voting for a candidate just because they are gay is just as discriminatory as not voting for a candidate just because they are gay.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Voting for a candidate just because they are gay is just as discriminatory as not voting for a candidate just because they are gay.

Yeah it would be but that's not the point. The point is that Pete is IMO a good choice if he was purple and asexual. Not voting for someone because they are gay? Couch it as you like.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We've got gay senators, gay mayors, gay city council members, and a gay governor. All Dems AFAIK.

OMG so do we! So kewl!

LGBTQ conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[soundforbjt]

OMG so do we! So kewl!

LGBTQ conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes the most current was over a decade ago and most came out after being outed or after leaving Congress.

 

[K1052]

OMG so do we! So kewl!

LGBTQ conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That congressional list lol...inspiring stuff

 

[Vic]

Yeah it would be but that's not the point. The point is that Pete is IMO a good choice if he was purple and asexual. Not voting for someone because they are gay? Couch it as you like.

No, my opinion is that he is too young, too inexperienced, and lacks the political support. His polling numbers against Trump are the worst of all the Democratic candidates. Couch that as you like.

 

[ivwshane]

Come on guys! Reading is hard!

 

[JD50]

That congressional list lol...inspiring stuff

View attachment 14527

lol, amazing self ownage.

 

[hal2kilo]

How can you claim that's a barrier to entry when he is in the running for the Presidential nomination?

There is a crazy amount of bad faith in this thread. Can't say that I expect that to get any better as we move into the election year.

I wonder why.

 

[Vic]

OMG so do we! So kewl!

LGBTQ conservatism in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, intetesting trend there that gay Republican elected officials tend to get voted out after coming out. Just sayin.

 

[dainthomas]

Buttigieg is more than ready and qualified. He was a Navy officer and McKinsey consultant. That is the profile of someone who could easily steer the country, even at his age.

If he doesn’t make it out of the primaries, its due to the odd circular firing squad dynamic of the Democrat coalition. Black voters seem to prefer uninspired Boomer candidates with name recognition, and CNN ran a recent article about how the woke progressive left is pushing an odd #NeverPete movement because Buttigieg doesn’t pass all of their ridiculous purity tests.

You'd think people would have learned in 2016 to get on board with the team and bring it in for the win. Republicans excel at that. I'd prefer Yang or Warren, but the rest are also qualified.