369
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 99 points 1 month ago

Who the fuck cares if they're black white gay straight trans, just so the fucking job well. That's all anyone wants.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 160 points 1 month ago

Who the fuck cares

Aww, you’ve never met a republican, huh?

[-] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

I have. And I'm telling them to get over it and not care. Even though I know they're too mentally unstable to accept the feedback.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

We should stop selecting our candidates based on what Republicans think.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] finley@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago

Oooohhhh, a lot of people reeeaaaally care. They shouldn’t, but they really do.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

So... No Republicans. Got it.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Which is why the do-nothing Secretary of Transportation and McKinsey grad who got the job to repay a favor is the wrong choice.

If anything, it could be awful for LGBTQ+ people if the first representation in the White House is a corporatist small town mayor who keeps failing upwards.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] caboose2006@lemmy.ca 80 points 1 month ago

I actually really like buttigieg, but he's wrong. A woman of color AND a gay man? I wish we lived in that country but we don't live in that country.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Yep, maybe after boomers and gen x have died off sure, but this country is still battling itself on lgbtq rights.

[-] carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

I think this is a common misconception about how electability works in a first-past-the-post voting system. There is no benefit to going with a compromise position or reaching out to moderates. The number of people who can be persuaded to vote one way or another is miniscule. The number of people who can be persuaded to vote or not to vote is massive.

If people are excited or scared, they come out to vote. With disenfranchisement primarily focused on progressive and minority voters, there's not much left to gain in scaring regressive conservatives more, they already vote at high numbers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] takeda@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I love Buttigieg, would definitely vote for him, but this would make me anxious. We already have black woman running and there are a lot of people in swing states that have a problem with just that.

I just want to be sure that the fascist criminal will lose.

[-] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 18 points 1 month ago

But he's a veteran. Would they vote for the cop + veteran ticket or the felon + coach fucker one?

Time to show their true colors.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It didn't work for John Kerry when he ran against a draft dodger. I guess being a combat vet wasn't enough? Having been a cop would tip the balance?

[-] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago

Well, we all know that the salute-the-troops, thank-you-for-your-service crowd are just playing pretend.

We all saw what happened when their nominee insulted a purple heart recipient and past POW, and everyone just cheered.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

My take as well. We need to win this one. I love Pete, and would happily vote for him for president of he were the nominee, but a black woman and a gay man on the same ticket is just going to be too much for a lot of voters. Plus, I think they need to select someone from a purple state who can help bring in important votes.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago

They really are not. A gay candidate will guarantee a loss through the midwest and south. Generally all the religious votes.

You think PizzaGate was bad? Wait until you have a gay candidate.

[-] bibliotectress@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Honestly, I thought the same thing about Obama. I didn't think there was any way a black guy who'd been living in Chicago would win. But he did! You never know!

Though I agree that the risk would be crazy high to run a black/Indian female president with a gay vice president. Maybe not this psycho election.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 22 points 1 month ago

Obama is literally the most professional and well spoken president since Clinton or JFK, possibly FDR. Like people he knew when he was younger were impressed with his ability.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

As a Massachusan I applaud your description of JFK as being well spoken. Too often does our nonrhotic profanity laiden dialect end up being maligned. It's a wicked fucking tragedy.

[-] finley@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Never underestimate how much people really fucking hate Trump

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Never overestimate either.

People had a rare situation where they could compare trump and Biden presidency side by side and still were saying that they are not sure who they will vote for.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

I'm a member of the queer community and absolutely do not think this is a wise idea for this cycle. Maybe next time around Pete.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

I'd be fine with a gay VP. We shouldn't be choosing our candidates based on what bigots want.

Though I'm not sure Pete is it. He has documented animosity from Black voters because of his time as mayor of South Bend during a period of disparate enforcement of cannabis prohibition. Since Harris is trying to distance herself from her time enforcing cannabis prohibition when she was DA, I think appointing Buttigieg runs the risk of reinforcing the "she's a cop" narrative and increasing the likelihood that it will become an effective attack against her.

[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I mean this sincerely. Who the fuck cares if he's gay...but.. he's doing an amazing job where he is. He's going after shitty airlines and shitty corporations that are screwing people over. Give him 4 more years dunking on delta please !

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pastabatman@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I've read this article twice and nowhere does he say the words "America is ready for a gay vice president." He says being gay has not been the detriment to his political career people assumed it would be. He's not going around telling reporters he thinks he should be VP. In the one quote that he is asked directly whether he would do it, he dodged the question.

[-] pastabatman@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

I vote for policies not people. I don’t care if the candidate is a green-skinned genetically-enhanced three-year-old clone of a dead woman from Ohio, with a biotech computer in her brain. As long as she supports equal rights for all humans, I’m on board.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 month ago

Yeah, we are... but it ain't you.

[-] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 25 points 1 month ago

As someone who was unfortunate enough to have grown up in Indiana, I'd rather Buttigeg stay there and keep trying to drag that state into the 20th* century.

*Not a typo, that state is just that far behind.

[-] rigatti@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

He's not there though. He's in DC as Secretary of Transportation.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago

I'd caution against Pete specifically. Given the meme-state of modern politics and sheer stupidity of the average voter, it'd be a terrible idea to run a gay man whose name looks like 'buttplug'.

...and I'm not making a joke right now - collectively we're 100% dumb enough to throw an election over that.

[-] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Lest we forget this exists

I know posting ben garrison is cheating, but this was years ago. They'd definitely latch on to the name as a tool to degrade him.

Hell, they've been trying to make the word "kamala" derogatory. Sorry Pete, even though you'd be as good a candidate as any, you've got butt in your name

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

Pete doesn't actually get things done, and he's a PMC McKinsey dud... Nothing wrong with who he loves, he's just a real bummer as a politician.

Also there's a reason the VP shortlist are milquetoast white males... Grandma in Ohio might be able to vote for a woman of color, but these frightened bigots need a "safe" feeling backup plan in VP. Win the battle, take the win if Kamala can break that barrier. She wouldn't be my first choice generally, but she has the momentum and now seems like the time. I'm supporting her full speed

[-] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 11 points 1 month ago

What I love about him though is how he talks to Republicans. He just has a way of making their hypocrisy obvious to them and you can literally see their brain short circuit and do a hard reboot before they respond. He's given some great interviews on fox news. But besides that I could take him or leave him.

[-] Tom_Hanx_Hail_Satan@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

1000% agree. I'm not stoked about, most likely, not voting in a dem primary for 8 years. Harris wouldn't be my first choice but I don't wanna deflate the hype train at all. Hoping for a super majority in congress, that would be the big win. Really hope true progressives can accomplish as much as possible with that. Last time it happened for dems we got the ACA, that should be the minimum benchmark.

HARRIS/ANONYMOUS GENERIC WHITE GUY 2024!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

But, are they ready for a VP that has only been mayor of a small town and a cabinet member four years?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Redfugee@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Such a disingenuous title. He never said voters were ready for a gay VP, his quotes were in response to a question if he thought voters were ready for a black woman. But I guess nobody reads the article and just throws in their 2 cents on what they think of Pete as a VP.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 14 points 1 month ago

Until ~##,### voters don't decide an entire presidential election, no. No, they aren't...

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 month ago

The question is how many of those voters would vote on a Democratic ticket led by a black woman in the first place. One of the most common errors in politics is trying to go after the core voters of the other side - usually framed as going after the moderates - instead of mobilising their own base. One of things that makes Trump dangerous is that he makes no such mistake.

[-] thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

Pete is way too easy to hate. I don't personally hate him, but he's just not very likable.

Mark Kelly is still my top pick. He's a great fucking dude, he's a fucking astronaut, and I just can't see anything Republicans throw at him actually sticking.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hark@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Maybe, but hopefully we'd get someone better than Pete.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But not him. He can't even do the job he currently has

[-] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

As long as he does not fuck couches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Drusas@kbin.run 8 points 1 month ago

We absolutely are, but not as the VP to a non-white woman. The US has a long way to go.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

Sorry drunk me after my best friend's wedding

I love Pete. He actually is amazing at his job. Fuckin avoiding a logistics disaster AND getting the union what they want? Putting the screws on Boeing? Fuck that guy can WORK IT. FUCK BEN GARRISON. I think we gotta say fuck the optics- that's what makes us vote for centrists. And before Tankie's get in and call him a fascist, y'all can go fuck a couch.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep. Who the fuck cares about the right. They want the most morally represhisble person to be their king. Could give two shit what they think about it.

Edit: for all the nay sayer in this thread you are obviously oblivious to the type of pull Pete has. We need to double down on progress. Yes an aging astronaut might look good on paper but the most progressive ticket America has ever seen is also good.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
369 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18789 readers
2415 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS