Yeah, we should skip those and go straight to the 6-ish swing states. Those are the only states that matter.
“Oh stop it.” OK, you get your wish. Open, unapologetic bigotry, and that’s what you have on full display here, is what has gotten the overwhelming majority of the members who are on my ignore list parked there. You just joined them, bigot. @mick fry, open, unapologetic bigot. Welcome to my ignore list.
Call me what you like and since I’m on your ignore list you won’t see this but I’m going to post it anyway. What you do in your private life is your business, if you want to be gay then be gay but what I have a problem with is the normalization and almost encouragement of it in todays society beyond reproach like this... You may find that adorable, I’m sorry I can’t.
People you’re friends with are gay. Some of your family members are gay. Republican politicians are gay. Hell, maybe you’re even gay. The argument from your side is so weak, you can’t tell the difference anymore between self-loathing closet cases and people that just straight up can’t present a coherent argument.
Aren't Iowa and New Hampshire also swing states? Not that I think the current system is good but they generally represent two states that have histories voting for both parties while having very different electorates.
You are welcome to not like it. But why is it okay for heterosexual political couples to hug and kiss?
@mick fry The normalization must be difficult for some. It was for a lot of people and remains a work in progress. I suppose the normalization of black people in public places was difficult, like the normalization of mixed race marriages and images of white and black people hugging were difficult too. I say this with 100 percent sincerity — it is understandable for people to be uncomfortable with new or different things. It is not understandable for people to fail to see the mistakes of the past. It is your absolute legal right to do so. You’re just going to end up on the wrong side of history. If your discomfort with different people comes from religious teachings, parental teachings, societal surroundings, etc, it is understandable that it takes effort and time to overcome those things. In the meantime, I would suggest being more thoughtful regarding your public expressions about these issues. On the other hand, if you just really hate gay people, carry on. I guess it’s better for folks to know where you stand.
Wow, what a derail. But I guess Pete B is going to have to deal with this sort of thing if his campaign keeps ascending. I mean, he's already had anti-gay hecklers and whatever. It's weird that anyone would care that someone is in a loyal, gay, seemingly even boring relationship, but not care about infidelity and a sham marriage from a man who admits to assaulting women when he feels like it. LOL. But that's where we are!
I tend to agree, except for one big issue. Pete and Biden's strategies collide with each other in Iowa/NH. In those states, they are fighting for the same voters - the middle-of-the-road types. If Pete does well (which I expect he will), it likely comes at the expense of Biden. And if Biden finishes in 3rd/4th in Iowa and NH, the core of his argument - electability and uniter of different factions of the party - starts falling apart. In that scenario, I could see him faltering in the next set of states. The problem is that Pete is not a natural fit for NV/SC, so where would those votes go? But all around, it seems like a Pete surge most hurts Biden's chances, and vice-versa. I'd love Pete as VP - especially in a faith debate against Pence - but i don't see it as likely. He's alienated himself from the Warren wing, and it's pretty unlikely the Dems go with a 2-white-guy ticket in a year where minorities and women have been catalysts for the party.
A Mayor Pete vs Trump race would be interesting for evangelicals. You have the first Dem in a generation that can speak openly and clearly about faith and various Dem issues from a faith perspective (this is what Obama, Biden, etc didn't really do) and is truly, deeply, openly Christian - but gay. Against a guy who embodies the 7 deadly sins but puts conservative justices on the bench.
Older, traditional southern ones, I agree. But younger ones or people that grow up other parts of the country in more moderate evangelical churches? I'm not as sure. They often lean more to the middle but can't get behind Dems who often come across as hostile to Christianity.
I don't know if these more moderate younger Christians you refer to would still identify themselves as "evangelicals" to pollsters. But for the ones that do get bucketed as white evangelicals, the choice is easy. Their favorability for Obama (whose religious views are a very non-evangelical, but at least he was a real Christian) was 24% by the end of 2016. And Trump's approval with them is 69% this year (down from 78% soon after the p***y-grabbing revelation). They'll say Pete isn't really a Christian, or that his version of Christianity is heretical, or that he's a closet Muslim just like Obama. He can't hope to do any better than Obama did.
I look at these numbers differently than you do. Obama wasn't competing against Trump - he was up against two religious and fairly morally-solid people. And Trump wasn't up against Obama - he was up against Hillary who no one really associates with religion. The 69% tells me there are 30% of evangelicals that don't like Trump - and probably don't like generic Dems for the most part - but may be persuadable by someone who can "speak their language". I have no idea if it's true or not, but if we're going to argue that certain demographics will be turned off by Pete (minorities), I don't see why we can't say the same for Trump. The key is having a candidate on the other side that can take advantage of that.
Now, Deckard, to be completely fair: once he denies or deflects it ("call me what you want") to retain inclusion and acceptance by tolerant straight people he'll be a cowardly bigot.
As a black man i don't claim to have any inside knowledge to bow black voters will vote. That black vote is about turnout. Blacks aren't voting for Republicans. Buttigieg isn't running on being gay. Being gay won't be a negative, but can he excite blacks which is the issue with an candidate
I can say that I hate Biden more than Pete... annnd that's about as close as I can get to "loving" him.
I won't call you what I like, but I will call you what you are, a homophobic bigot. What you do in your private life doesn't concern me. You may be Gay yourself. Indeed, it is your business, and what you do in public doesn't concern me, unless you are saying and/or doing things that are harmful to some of the members here, and to millions of Americans and others around the world. Publicly proclaiming to the BBS that you are a bigot and homophobic concerns me. While I spend the majority of my time in the GARM and elsewhere at ClutchFans, I do spend a significant amount of time down here, discussing and debating various issues. So I prefer not to read posts from members that have made it plain that they hold bigoted views about race, a person's religion, or their sexual orientation. I usually put those members on ignore. Not that that is any of your business, but you seemed confused about my sexual orientation in the post that I quoted. Just so you won't be more confused than you are, and you are clearly very confused about a great many things, I can tell you that I am in a decades long heterosexual relationship, and my significant other and I have two children, now successful adults. However, we personally know, very well, several wonderful people who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. Your bigotry towards them, towards presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, as well as the bigotry of others, is a stain on American society. You are a stain on the civil conversations we have in D&D, but that is your right. We have freedom of speech under our constitution. I am also free to not sully my experience in D&D, or anywhere else at @ClutchFans, by having to see your posts. Enjoy your bigotry, if you must. Thankfully, I don't have to.
