Pete Buttigieg was fantastic on the debates

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
And she's an Assad apologist/enabler as well.

As long as we remember the president doesn't rule like a king, and there's many people around him/her to discuss strategy with.

It's always been evident Trump doesn't understand this. Having someone who's reasonable and doesn't speak in word salads will not only be refreshing, but a reminder that this country is run by teams of people
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
As long as we remember the president doesn't rule like a king, and there's many people around him/her to discuss strategy with.

It's always been evident Trump doesn't understand this. Having someone who's reasonable and doesn't speak in word salads will not only be refreshing, but a reminder that this country is run by teams of people

I don't trust her in the least. Anyone who can cosy up the butchers like Assad is not someone I could ever support. You have a whole bunch of better candidates than her. <shrug>
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
I don't trust her in the least. Anyone who can cosy up the butchers like Assad is not someone I could ever support. You have a whole bunch of better candidates than her. <shrug>

Oh, I agree. I doubt she'll get the primary win. I won't be tossing in for her. Yet, if fellow Americans do, I'll vote for her over Trump, no contest.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,509
136
Really like Pete. My other top candidates are Warren and Yang.

Although any one of them are better than the current shitpile.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Oh, I agree. I doubt she'll get the primary win. I won't be tossing in for her. Yet, if fellow Americans do, I'll vote for her over Trump, no contest.

Damn, if it ever ended with a choice like that I think I'd consider leaving the country. :p I get your point but , damn. I really don't trust her any more than Trump.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
Damn, if it ever ended with a choice like that I think I'd consider leaving the country. :p I get your point but , damn. I really don't trust her any more than Trump.

Haha, well...I dont know about her upbringing, bit what I do know about her sets her apart from Trump already.

Besides, Canada wont take me, so here I stay :p
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Haha, well...I dont know about her upbringing, bit what I do know about her sets her apart from Trump already.

Besides, Canada wont take me, so here I stay :p

If Canada won't send all traitors to our glorious leader back home to meet their just end, we'll have to establish a 30 mile buffer zone on their territory. Behind a 40 foot wall, of course. Minefields, gun towers & sharks with lasers on their frikken heads. The works.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
If the Dems truly want to defeat Trump I think Buttigieg is by far the best bet. He may not be the most progressive of the lot which will turn off the far left, but he may not be the most progressive which will attract the more centrist of either party.
  • Well spoken
  • Argued with conviction
  • Didn’t take crap from the others attacking him, but responded intelligently and thoughtfully rather than merely mudslinging
  • He gets why Trump appealed to many (and it’s not bc of racism or Russians), and that alone sets him far apart from many of the others in winning over people to his party. There’s plenty of R's that are disgruntled with Trump, but that doesn’t mean they’ll pull the lever for someone who talks as if they are worthless pieces of crap either
  • He doesn’t have to be the most progressive on everything and seems willing to make compromises to actual accomplish something than to not compromise and be left with nothing
  • Check box for the military career
  • Imo being gay is not an issue with anyone other than the ones who would never vote for a Dem anyways. I know many of you disagree but I think the country is much, much less homophobic than it was even 10 years ago
  • He’s young, handsome, and a good orator. Sound familiar....?
  • He doesn’t play the victim card. He’s gay, has certainly had challenges because of it like he mentioned, but doesn’t come across as being a victim or blaming society for anything. This is the sign of an actual leader
  • It was mentioned earlier that he didn’t have the national credentials yet to be president. I mean he’s up on the stage with the rest of them and is coming away from the debates a known figure. Even if he didn’t start this as national recognized he certainly is now. I’d say he’s surpassed Kamala, Tulsi, and Castro in that regard and is light years beyond a few of the others on that stage that im not even sure what their names are

Unfortunately I think the Dems are willing to pass up a great thing in favor of someone in retirement age or that gives them empty promises so that they can pass the purity test etc.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
You know, it's funny, it never even occurred to me to give a shit about whether or not he's a homosexual (I actually didn't even know until this thread, call me out of touch). You should stop caring too, as should everyone else.

If he's a good president, he's a good president.
It's the damn Bible-Thumpers.

Maybe a decade ago, some housewife in a nearby town tried to get the school board to remove the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary from a middle-school bookshelf. She discovered from her kid that it contained a definition for the two-word expression "oral sex". Apparently, it never occurred to her that there are definitions for two word expressions in the dictionary.

Then, some more of the same types wanted an impressionist painting removed from the local art gallery because it depicted a nude woman from the side -- a profile -- showing her left breast. I wrote to the local paper -- one of my wittier letters -- suggesting they take a look at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Personally, I think they're all obsessed with sex and sexuality. That's why they remain so homophobic. You imagine them going around thinking "Oooouuu! Yuck! Fudge-packers! Carpet-lickers!" Just for knowing someone is gay, that's all they have on their mind -- images of various things gays do with each other sexually.

Right-wing Bible-Thumpers generally have their minds in the gutter, as they say . . .

But if Buttigieg wins the primary and the nomination, I'll be glad to vote for him. I'll worry whether or not he'll win, but I'll vote for him. And I'll be happier than a pig in shit if he wins, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
You are conflating two very different positions here. One, that someone shouldn't be POTUS because they are gay. Two, that in this political environment someone might not be electable because they're gay. We are talking about the latter here, not the former. I'd be thrilled to have our first LGBT POTUS, and I think Pete is amazing and I might still vote for him anyway in spite of electability concerns, sadly I can't fault other dems for being concerned about electability, not this time, not with Trump threatening to literally destroy democracy if allowed to continue on.
Oh, no, I do understand what's being talked about here. I just maintain that it's just as ridiculous. Electability is only in question for those that thing it's a hindrance, either to themselves or others. If it doesn't occur to you that it could be a hindrance, it's not something to question.

Since clearly the bar for presidency has been lowered to basically underground at this point, if you feel that the electability of a gay president is in question, there must be a ton of other things a gay person is also 'unhirable' for.

Now what's actually in question regarding his electability is the fact he's a Democrat, which is shared amongst all candidates. I honestly think we're at a minimum right now when it comes to swing voters so it likely doesn't matter who ends up against Trump, they're going to get all the non-trump votes. That's just my opinion though.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
Oh, no, I do understand what's being talked about here. I just maintain that it's just as ridiculous. Electability is only in question for those that thing it's a hindrance, either to themselves or others. If it doesn't occur to you that it could be a hindrance, it's not something to question.

Since clearly the bar for presidency has been lowered to basically underground at this point, if you feel that the electability of a gay president is in question, there must be a ton of other things a gay person is also 'unhirable' for.

Now what's actually in question regarding his electability is the fact he's a Democrat, which is shared amongst all candidates. I honestly think we're at a minimum right now when it comes to swing voters so it likely doesn't matter who ends up against Trump, they're going to get all the non-trump votes. That's just my opinion though.

while this makes sense, we know that americans aren't necessarily sensible.

maybe i'm wrong, but my concerns about Pete are basically due to religions inherent influence in our country. that can be applied to both main parties, and obviously to varying degrees. There are still quite a few Democrat voters who are conservatives socially, specifically in terms of the LGBTQ community. I don't think those voters will vote Trump, I just think they won't go to the polls at all.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
while this makes sense, we know that americans aren't necessarily sensible.

maybe i'm wrong, but my concerns about Pete are basically due to religions inherent influence in our country. that can be applied to both main parties, and obviously to varying degrees. There are still quite a few Democrat voters who are conservatives socially, specifically in terms of the LGBTQ community. I don't think those voters will vote Trump, I just think they won't go to the polls at all.
Maybe I'm just ornery because I haven't had my coffee yet, but if voters are willing to not vote just because the candidate is gay, we probably deserve to have Trump for another 4y. Especially if the vote is close enough that those few voters swing the vote.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,671
146
Maybe I'm just ornery because I haven't had my coffee yet, but if voters are willing to not vote just because the candidate is gay, we probably deserve to have Trump for another 4y. Especially if the vote is close enough that those few voters swing the vote.

I don't disagree. You get what you vote for. If Buttigieg is the candidate, I'll be there voting for him.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
So we had a black president....
A lot of people here think a woman president will be very soon....
Then down the line we will hopefully have a gay president.....


My question is: How long until we have an outspoken atheist as our president?
 

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
176
268
136
So we had a black president....
A lot of people here think a woman president will be very soon....
Then down the line we will hopefully have a gay president.....


My question is: How long until we have an outspoken atheist as our president?

I'm looking forward to the reaction from the first President who gets asked "How does God factor into your policies?". "He doesn't". Heads explode.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
I'm looking forward to the reaction from the first President who gets asked "How does God factor into your policies?". "He doesn't". Heads explode.
The heads explode due to citizen ignorance about the secular nature of constitutional government. However, even an atheist executive must connect with believers on the matter of secular morality.

What we choose to declare as wrong -- illegal or forbidden -- in a secular society are actions in an intersection of all religious moral beliefs or even civilized common sense of unbelievers, together with actions or situations which are certain to cause deterioration in our civilization. Our civilization and our laws have the purpose of allowing people to pursue their individual ends without detriment to other citizens. "Who is being victimized" is always a part of the ongoing tug-of-war as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't.

This is where the pro-life people and the anti-LGBTQ folks collide with what the Founders probably intended.

Perhaps an atheist executive would prudently declare that his church is our government and civil order, and his bible is the Constitution. What would Jefferson or Franklin say about that? Would they not agree?