Random Political comments...

[Beasty]

For those who are still considering who to support in the 2020 election, I strongly recommend you consider Pete Buttigieg. He has really impressed me. He's extremely articulate and thoughtful. His policies are well considered and pragmatic but progressive. I don't mean you should abandon Sanders or Beto or whomever your preferred choice is, but look up Buttigieg because he's radiating Obama vibes to me.

Is he more moderate like Obama or more left like Bernie?

 

[Thump]

For those who are still considering who to support in the 2020 election, I strongly recommend you consider Pete Buttigieg. He has really impressed me. He's extremely articulate and thoughtful. His policies are well considered and pragmatic but progressive. I don't mean you should abandon Sanders or Beto or whomever your preferred choice is, but look up Buttigieg because he's radiating Obama vibes to me.

One of the ways the Democratic party is going to go after Trump in 2020 is focusing on how his lack of experience in politics has led him to make a lot of high profile mistakes, nominating a 37-year-old with no high national office experience will undercut that plan of attack.

Also, America still isn't ready for a gay president in my opinion. I run in liberal (friends and co-workers) and conservative circles (my extended family is very religious) And I can tell you America as a whole is nowhere near as accepting of gay people as the media would have us believe. Trump was able to use the fear and animosity of racists in 2016 to help him win. If the Democrats nominate Buttigieg, Trump is guaranteed to get every evangelical group in America to go to war for him. Buttigieg will be an enormously tough fight, and the Democrats don't need to be making things tougher for themselves.

 

[Beasty]

One of the ways the Democratic party is going to go after Trump in 2020 is focusing on how his lack of experience in politics has led him to make a lot of high profile mistakes, nominating a 37-year-old with no high national office experience will undercut that plan of attack.

Also, America still isn't ready for a gay president in my opinion. I run in liberal (friends and co-workers) and conservative circles (my extended family is very religious) And I can tell you America as a whole is nowhere near as accepting of gay people as the media would have us believe. Trump was able to use the fear and animosity of racists in 2016 to help him win. If the Democrats nominate Buttigieg, Trump is guaranteed to get every evangelical group in America to go to war for him. Buttigieg will be an enormously tough fight, and the Democrats don't need to be making things tougher for themselves.

Thanks Thump. Hard pass. Lol

 

[bodhesatva]

One of the ways the Democratic party is going to go after Trump in 2020 is focusing on how his lack of experience in politics has led him to make a lot of high profile mistakes, nominating a 37-year-old with no high national office experience will undercut that plan of attack.

Also, America still isn't ready for a gay president in my opinion. I run in liberal (friends and co-workers) and conservative circles (my extended family is very religious) And I can tell you America as a whole is nowhere near as accepting of gay people as the media would have us believe. Trump was able to use the fear and animosity of racists in 2016 to help him win. If the Democrats nominate Buttigieg, Trump is guaranteed to get every evangelical group in America to go to war for him. Buttigieg will be an enormously tough fight, and the Democrats don't need to be making things tougher for themselves.

So, Buttigieg's response is this: He has more government experience than Trump, more executive experience than Pence, and more military experience than anyone in the white house (President or VP) since George W. Bush. I find that pretty compelling and would very likely put a stop to criticisms of "but he's young!"

And I don't get how we'd be ready for a black female president (like Harris) or a Jewish president (like Sanders) but not a gay president. If we can't nominate any minority, then I'm basically stuck with Beto, who is fine but not a favorite for me (way too light on policy). My preferences are:

Buttigieg
Warren
Yang
Klobuchar
Harris

In that order. There is a significant drop off after that.

 

[bodhesatva]

Is he more moderate like Obama or more left like Bernie?

He's between the two ideologically but with Obama's pragmatism. And for the record, he got in to Harvard (on his own merits; not rich, not a legacy), then became a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford. He knows 8 languages, which is about 8 more than our current president. He became the mayor of his home town, South Bend Indiana, while being openly gay in the city that is the home of Notre Dame University, a city which is 85% Catholic, and holds an enormously high approval rating. He deployed to Afghanistan while serving as mayor for 2 years (2013-2015).

There is no one that doesn't have weak spots. Beto has an arrest under his belt, among several other issues; Sanders is very liberal and not well liked within his own party; Kamala Harris is a half black, half indian woman who was actually a pretty punitive prosecutor in California; Klobuchar is getting hit hard for her treatment of her staff, and so forth. If "he's young and gay" is the best people can do to criticize Buttigieg -- and so far, that's honestly the only things I've ever heard anyone criticize him for, because his public speaking is incredible -- then frankly he has fewer weak spots than most other candidates do.

In 2008, Obama was young and black, and people were highly skeptical of his chances just because of that. I'm making this comparison because Buttigieg has the same charisma and speaking ability Obama does. I mean it.

 

[Beasty]

He's between the two ideologically but with Obama's pragmatism. And for the record, he got in to Harvard (on his own merits; not rich, not a legacy), then became a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford. He knows 8 languages, which is about 8 more than our current president. He became the mayor of his home town, South Bend Indiana, while being openly gay in the city that is the home of Notre Dame University, a city which is 85% Catholic, and holds an enormously high approval rating. He deployed to Afghanistan while serving as mayor for 2 years (2013-2015).

There is no one that doesn't have weak spots. Beto has an arrest under his belt, among several other issues; Sanders is very liberal and not well liked within his own party; Kamala Harris is a half black, half indian woman who was actually a pretty punitive prosecutor in California; Klobuchar is getting hit hard for her treatment of her staff, and so forth. If "he's young and gay" is the best people can do to criticize Buttigieg -- and so far, that's honestly the only things I've ever heard anyone criticize him for, because his public speaking is incredible -- then frankly he has fewer weak spots than most other candidates do.

In 2008, Obama was young and black, and people were highly skeptical of his chances just because of that. I'm making this comparison because Buttigieg has the same charisma and speaking ability Obama does. I mean it.

Big picture. Is there or has there ever been a gay president on Earth? Serious question. We actually have to exist among other countries.

I'm behind Beto. A misdemeanor is nothing. Literally nothing. As long as his license isn't still suspended it's a non factor.

 

[Thump]

So, Buttigieg's response is this: He has more government experience than Trump, more executive experience than Pence, and more military experience than anyone in the white house (President or VP) since George W. Bush. I find that pretty compelling and would very likely put a stop to criticisms of "but he's young!"

And I don't get how we'd be ready for a black female president (like Harris) or a Jewish president (like Sanders) but not a gay president. If we can't nominate any minority, then I'm basically stuck with Beto, who is fine but not a favorite for me (way too light on policy). My preferences are:

Buttigieg
Warren
Yang
Klobuchar
Harris

In that order. There is a significant drop off after that.

I get what you are saying, but the thing is, no matter how we like to categorize minority status in this country, sexual orientation in the minds of a lot of people is on a different ideological island. You have to also remember that the LGBT community makes up less than 5% of the population, so Buttigieg doesn't have the same built-in base as a woman or a racial minority candidate would have.

One of his biggest hurdles to the presidency is that people vote for presidents for more reasons than just their policies. For a lot of people the presidency is a symbolic office as well as a literal one, and I just don't think enough people in this country are mentally able to picture a gay man as our nation's symbol, and I'm afraid if we try too hard to push through a candidate that America isn't ready for, we will have a repeat of 2016.

And as for the executive experience argument:

A mayor of a town with barely over 100,000 people in no way has as much executive experience as a governor of a state of 6.6 million people. That's like saying "I've directed plays in community theater for seven years so I'm more qualified than a Broadway director because he has only been doing it for four years."

Here is the deal, I've listened to a few of his speeches, I think he is whip-smart and charismatic, and I think he has a bright future in politics. However, as I've said before his victory in 2020 would be an incredibly arduous task for the Democrats to achieve, and the Democrats cannot afford to make this election hard to win.

 

[bodhesatva]

Big picture. Is there or has there ever been a gay president on Earth? Serious question. We actually have to exist among other countries.

I'm behind Beto. A misdemeanor is nothing. Literally nothing. As long as his license isn't still suspended it's a non factor.

As to your first point: yes there are! The presidents/prime ministers of Iceland, Belgium, Ireland, and Serbia are all gay.

Second point: I agree it's nothing, but other people don't agree. Just like being gay is fine to me, but isn't for other people. It should be a non-factor, but I do not agree that everyone will see it that way.

 

[bodhesatva]

I get what you are saying, but the thing is, no matter how we like to categorize minority status in this country, sexual orientation in the minds of a lot of people is on a different ideological island. You have to also remember that the LGBT community makes up less than 5% of the population, so Buttigieg doesn't have the same built-in base as a woman or a racial minority candidate would have.

One of his biggest hurdles to the presidency is that people vote for presidents for more reasons than just their policies. For a lot of people the presidency is a symbolic office as well as a literal one, and I just don't think enough people in this country are mentally able to picture a gay man as our nation's symbol, and I'm afraid if we try too hard to push through a candidate that America isn't ready for, we will have a repeat of 2016.

And as for the executive experience argument:

A mayor of a town with barely over 100,000 people in no way has as much executive experience as a governor of a state of 6.6 million people. That's like saying "I've directed plays in community theater for seven years so I'm more qualified than a Broadway director because he has only been doing it for four years."

Here is the deal, I've listened to a few of his speeches, I think he is whip-smart and charismatic, and I think he has a bright future in politics. However, as I've said before his victory in 2020 would be an incredibly arduous task for the Democrats to achieve, and the Democrats cannot afford to make this election hard to win.

First, I do not agree at all that gay rights are on a different island. Or to be more specific, I think a gay person might have an easier time getting elected than a black woman, for example. I think gay rights have evolved extremely quickly whereas racism and misogyny have moved a lot more slowly, and are still things we're fighting centuries after those battles began. Gay rights isn't "complete," but it's moving way faster than those other two and while there is still a lot of racism in the 35 and under crowd, there is very little homophobia, even amongst conservatives our age. If you look at polls, a 20 year old conservative doesn't support black lives matter, is likely to believe that women are outnumbered in math/science because women just aren't as good as that stuff, but they are very likely to support gay marriage.

But most importantly, let me follow your argument and see if we can agree. Who do you think would have an easy time beating Trump? Who has no downsides/weaknesses that could be exploited?

 

[Thump]

First, I do not agree at all that gay rights are on a different island. Or to be more specific, I think a gay person might have an easier time getting elected than a black woman, for example. I think gay rights have evolved extremely quickly whereas racism and misogyny have moved a lot more slowly, and are still things we're fighting centuries after those battles began. Gay rights isn't "complete," but it's moving way faster than those other two and while there is still a lot of racism in the 35 and under crowd, there is very little homophobia, even amongst conservatives our age. If you look at polls, a 20 year old conservative doesn't support black lives matter, is likely to believe that women are outnumbered in math/science because women just aren't as good as that stuff, but they are very likely to support gay marriage.

But most importantly, let me follow your argument and see if we can agree. Who do you think would have an easy time beating Trump? Who has no downsides/weaknesses that could be exploited?

I'll get to the second half of your post in a second, first let me clarify something, What I said has zero to do with gay rights or gay marriage.

The island I'm talking about is all about mental and social perception. Even the people who have issues with minorities and women don't have the same kind of issues that they have with gay people. The issues people have with minorities and women are social issues, the backbone of the prejudice against gay people is religious issues, that is why it's different. Religious conviction is a stronger tie to break then social convictions, so ethnic minorities and women have more of an opportunity to sway voters to their side. For millions of voters who hold religious convictions homosexuality is a sin, and those people cannot imagine voting for a gay president.

You speak of the speed that gay rights have achieved, well the speed is actually part of the problem. The people who used to call gay people F**gs on a regular basis haven't gone anywhere, they are still among us and they still vote, those people are smart enough to know they can't be outwardly bigoted but there isn't anybody watching them in the ballot booth. Black people have had decades of white teenagers listening to black music, little white kids wearing the jersey of their favorite NBA player, and middle-aged white women getting life advice from Oprah, these things along with dozens of other things have made it acceptable to see black people as well.......people. Women have had a similar (but still kind of diffrent) road to mainstream recognition as contributors to society. Despite all of that, the extreme racism black people still face, and the rise of the #MeToo movement shows that there is still a long road ahead of us. That long road exists for gay people as well, but they haven't had the same time period of mainstream acceptance. So all I'm saying is don't be fooled into thinking we are more progressive than we actually are.

If all else fails just remember we have had 50 years of the feminist movement yet Donald Trump, a man caught on tape saying he sexually assaults women still got 41% of the female vote (52% of white women), so we still got a lot of work ahead as a society.

Now as for who is the strongest candidate to beat Trump I have to go with the polls, Biden seems like the best bet (even if he isn't my choice), and if he picked Stacy Abrams as his running mate (as rumors are reporting) he would have a solid chance in 2020. Personally, I'm leaning more towards either a Bernie Sanders/ Nina Turner ticket followed by an Elizabeth Warren/Andrew Yang and then an O'Rourke/[woman to be named later} ticket.

 

[Beasty]

As to your first point: yes there are! The presidents/prime ministers of Iceland, Belgium, Ireland, and Serbia are all gay.

Second point: I agree it's nothing, but other people don't agree. Just like being gay is fine to me, but isn't for other people. It should be a non-factor, but I do not agree that everyone will see it that way.

Thump is right. Why do you think these "prolife" folk keep pushing their agenda instead of worrying about their own bodies? Religion. They dont differentiate between beliefs and facts. Having the freedom to practice their religion isn't quite enough for most of them they apparently want laws to force others to follow suit, so if they want to make abortion illegal why on Earth would they vote for a gay president?

Secondly you are really out of touch if you think a 20 year old misdemeanor will affect the opportunities of a white man. That's a joke. People will talk about it only to try to shame him, but that's only an emotional play. If he was ashamed he wouldn't be running. Beto has no weakness in this election. It's either you like him or you don't.

George W Bush has an arrest record. Look how far that held him back.

 

[Beasty]

Actually it's just pure desperation to bring up a 20 year misdemeanor against a white man.

 

[Bliss]

Mueller just handed off the rest of the investigation to Congress, since the potential remaining indictments involve members of Trump's own family. Pundits have stated Mueller couldn't continue with any further indictments without having his investigation shut down by Trump and the DOJ.

Anyone who thinks this Russia investigation is over hasn't been paying attention. Mueller had the weight of the DOJ behind him, but Congress has subpoena power and can probe deeper on some issues than Mueller can.

Also, there are concurrent criminal investigations of Trump taking place in D.C. and NY. Trump will be lucky if he's only impeached by the House, because the minute he leaves office he could be found guilty of racketeering and money laundering charges.

U.S. intelligence has already concluded that Russia illegally interfered with the 2016 election, the only question unanswered is was Trump complicit and did he knowingly aid the Russians in that interference??

BTW, Jared Kushner and Don Jr. better watch their backs. They're going to be forced to testify before Congress and the entire country will be allowed to watch them lie.
If the majority of Americans believe Jared and Don Jr. conspired with the Russians after open testimony, Trump is going to be removed from office by the House AND Senate.

Obviously, LOSING AGAIN, sans dignity, is par for the course for liberal Democrats, however, no amount of tantrums or screaming at the sky will change the fact that;

• President Donald Trump's campaign did NOT collude with Russia in the 2016 election, Robert Mueller found in his long-awaited report .

 

[ColiBreh1]

Mueller just handed off the rest of the investigation to Congress, since the potential remaining indictments involve members of Trump's own family. Pundits have stated Mueller couldn't continue with any further indictments without having his investigation shut down by Trump and the DOJ.

Anyone who thinks this Russia investigation is over hasn't been paying attention. Mueller had the weight of the DOJ behind him, but Congress has subpoena power and can probe deeper on some issues than Mueller can.

Also, there are concurrent criminal investigations of Trump taking place in D.C. and NY. Trump will be lucky if he's only impeached by the House, because the minute he leaves office he could be found guilty of racketeering and money laundering charges.

U.S. intelligence has already concluded that Russia illegally interfered with the 2016 election, the only question unanswered is was Trump complicit and did he knowingly aid the Russians in that interference??

BTW, Jared Kushner and Don Jr. better watch their backs. They're going to be forced to testify before Congress and the entire country will be allowed to watch them lie.
If the majority of Americans believe Jared and Don Jr. conspired with the Russians after open testimony, Trump is going to be removed from office by the House AND Senate.

Obviously, LOSING AGAIN, sans dignity, is par for the course for liberal Democrats, however, no amount of tantrums or screaming at the sky will change the fact that;

• President Donald Trump's campaign did NOT collude with Russia in the 2016 election, Robert Mueller found in his long-awaited report .

Here's a politico article:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1109905982501670914

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-to-release-summary-of-mueller-report-1233771

Wikileaks literally exposed the Dems for making up the Russia conspiracy, but the media rallied around this conspiracy for 2+ years. This is such an L.

 

[The Dark King]

So, Buttigieg's response is this: He has more government experience than Trump, more executive experience than Pence, and more military experience than anyone in the white house (President or VP) since George W. Bush. I find that pretty compelling and would very likely put a stop to criticisms of "but he's young!"

And I don't get how we'd be ready for a black female president (like Harris) or a Jewish president (like Sanders) but not a gay president. If we can't nominate any minority, then I'm basically stuck with Beto, who is fine but not a favorite for me (way too light on policy). My preferences are:

Buttigieg
Warren
Yang
Klobuchar
Harris

In that order. There is a significant drop off after that.

Yang has great ideas but no one is gonna accept UBI all they'll hear is free stuff for minorities no matter how well argued
Warren can't beat Trump she'd be great as a running mate but she won't rally the base same for Beto. Harris has a really bad record and again she's gonna lose a lot of progressives. Personally I think either Biden or Bernie with Abrams or Warren as a running mate. You have to rally people to vote plain and simple.

 

[The Dark King]

I'll get to the second half of your post in a second, first let me clarify something, What I said has zero to do with gay rights or gay marriage.

The island I'm talking about is all about mental and social perception. Even the people who have issues with minorities and women don't have the same kind of issues that they have with gay people. The issues people have with minorities and women are social issues, the backbone of the prejudice against gay people is religious issues, that is why it's different. Religious conviction is a stronger tie to break then social convictions, so ethnic minorities and women have more of an opportunity to sway voters to their side. For millions of voters who hold religious convictions homosexuality is a sin, and those people cannot imagine voting for a gay president.

You speak of the speed that gay rights have achieved, well the speed is actually part of the problem. The people who used to call gay people F**gs on a regular basis haven't gone anywhere, they are still among us and they still vote, those people are smart enough to know they can't be outwardly bigoted but there isn't anybody watching them in the ballot booth. Black people have had decades of white teenagers listening to black music, little white kids wearing the jersey of their favorite NBA player, and middle-aged white women getting life advice from Oprah, these things along with dozens of other things have made it acceptable to see black people as well.......people. Women have had a similar (but still kind of diffrent) road to mainstream recognition as contributors to society. Despite all of that, the extreme racism black people still face, and the rise of the #MeToo movement shows that there is still a long road ahead of us. That long road exists for gay people as well, but they haven't had the same time period of mainstream acceptance. So all I'm saying is don't be fooled into thinking we are more progressive than we actually are.

If all else fails just remember we have had 50 years of the feminist movement yet Donald Trump, a man caught on tape saying he sexually assaults women still got 41% of the female vote (52% of white women), so we still got a lot of work ahead as a society.

Now as for who is the strongest candidate to beat Trump I have to go with the polls, Biden seems like the best bet (even if he isn't my choice), and if he picked Stacy Abrams as his running mate (as rumors are reporting) he would have a solid chance in 2020. Personally, I'm leaning more towards either a Bernie Sanders/ Nina Turner ticket followed by an Elizabeth Warren/Andrew Yang and then an O'Rourke/[woman to be named later} ticket.

Damn its like we share a brain

 

[Bliss]

Here's a politico article:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1109905982501670914

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-to-release-summary-of-mueller-report-1233771

Wikileaks literally exposed the Dems for making up the Russia conspiracy, but the media rallied around this conspiracy for 2+ years. This is such an L.

A waste of $28 milion of taxpayers money. The President and sane Americans always knew it was a farce created by Hillary and pushed by McCain and Obama with his fake DOJ/FBI subpoenas.

Instead of being relieved, deranged Dems WANTED TO and still want to overthrow a sitting President. Even knowing he won fair and square. That's how sick they've become.

As Senator Graham said:
"How was a counterintelligence investigation opened up against the Trump campaign? How did they get a warrant on an American citizen on four separate occasions based on a document paid for by the Democratic Party that was a bunch of garbage? We're going to find out about that too."

 

[andreboba]

Here's a politico article:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1109905982501670914

https://www.politico.com/story/2019...-to-release-summary-of-mueller-report-1233771

Wikileaks literally exposed the Dems for making up the Russia conspiracy, but the media rallied around this conspiracy for 2+ years. This is such an L.

And yet Mueller said his report did NOT exonerate Trump.

Wikileaks didn't expose anything, except to show that Russia used them as a conduit to leak the hacked DNC emails.

The threshold for issuing a criminal indictment is much higher than it is for impeachment. There were nearly 100 contacts between Russian operatives and members of Trump's campaign and WH staff.

The question is why???

Remember, Barr is Trump's 4th Attorney General in 2 years. AG Barr is the architect of the Iran-Contra coverup, that ultimately resulted in the CIA selling cocaine in South Central LA to fund the war in Central America.

Let's see if Barr decides to release the entire Mueller report with minimal redactions, or are we going to see a drip, drip of 2 page AG summaries from the DOJ.

Also, why weren't Jared Kushner and Don Jr. interviewed by Mueller?? Anyone who thinks this is over doesn't have the attention span to follow what's really going on.

IMO Mueller handed off the second phase of his investigation to the House Dems, because he didn't have enough evidence to issue anymore lock solid indictments, but there is IMO enough evidence in the Mueller report to get Trump impeached.

You save those Russell Westbrook imojies for Act 2.

 

[andreboba]

A waste of $28 milion of taxpayers money. The President and sane Americans always knew it was a farce created by Hillary and pushed by McCain and Obama with his fake DOJ/FBI subpoenas.

Instead of being relieved, deranged Dems WANTED TO and still want to overthrow a sitting President. Even knowing he won fair and square. That's how sick they've become.

As Senator Graham said:
"How was a counterintelligence investigation opened up against the Trump campaign? How did they get a warrant on an American citizen on four separate occasions based on a document paid for by the Democratic Party that was a bunch of garbage? We're going to find out about that too."

The Mueller investigation was NOT prompted by the Steele dossier. Their investigation of Trump aide George Papadopoulos is what triggered the FBI's Russia investigation.

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18277089/fox-news-steele-dossier-lie-trump-witch-hunt

Again, Faux News is lying to you because they think their audience is either too old or too stupid to know the difference.

 

[Beasty]

And yet Mueller said his report did NOT exonerate Trump.

Wikileaks didn't expose anything, except to show that Russia used them as a conduit to leak the hacked DNC emails.

The threshold for issuing a criminal indictment is much lower than it is for impeachment. There were nearly 100 contacts between Russian operatives and members of Trump's campaign and WH staff.

The question is why???

Remember, Barr is Trump's 4th Attorney General in 2 years. AG Barr is the architect of the Iran-Contra coverup, that ultimately resulted in the CIA selling cocaine in South Central LA to fund the war in Central America.

Let's see if Barr decides to release the entire Mueller report with minimal redactions, or are we going to see a drip, drip of 2 page AG summaries from the DOJ.

Also, why weren't Jared Kushner and Don Jr. interviewed by Mueller?? Anyone who thinks this is over doesn't have the attention span to follow what's really going on.

IMO Mueller handed off the second phase of his investigation to the House Dems, because he didn't have enough evidence to issue anymore lock solid indictments, but there is IMO enough evidence in the Mueller report to get Trump impeached.

You save those Russell Westbrook imojies for Act 2.

You keep saying he handed off the investigation to the house, but congress doesn't have the report so.....how does this work?