2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
So, retract your statement. You would deny a gay man something because he is gay.
Click to expand...

No,acbytesla is right. There's a lot of people (too many) who are what Tragic Monkey is referring to: "Hale fellow, well met" in public but in the privacy of the voting booth, not so much. And, again, acbytesla is right. Nothing matters more than defeating Dump.
 
The first poll of the year by Emerson College has Sanders clearly leading.

1. Sanders
2. Biden
3. then Buttigieg trailing behind significantly with single digits

I predict these three will go furthest.
 
Venom said:
The first poll of the year by Emerson College has Sanders clearly leading.

1. Sanders
2. Biden
3. then Buttigieg trailing behind significantly with single digits

I predict these three will go furthest.
Click to expand...

I think it's too damn early.
 
SezMe said:
No,acbytesla is right. There's a lot of people (too many) who are what Tragic Monkey is referring to: "Hale fellow, well met" in public but in the privacy of the voting booth, not so much. And, again, acbytesla is right. Nothing matters more than defeating Dump.
Click to expand...

I'm not challenging acby on if it matters or not.

Which means acby would deny a gay person something (his vote in the primary) because of sexual orientation. Saying you wouldn't discriminate but you have to discriminate because of other people is still discrimination. Every person who does it is making a proactive decision to deny a homosexual an opportunity because of their sexual orientation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I'm not challenging acby on if it matters or not.

Which means acby would deny a gay person something (his vote in the primary) because of sexual orientation. Saying you wouldn't discriminate but you have to discriminate because of other people is still discrimination. Every person who does it is making a proactive decision to deny a homosexual an opportunity because of their sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

You're deliberately ignoring the point. I wouldn't be discriminating against him because he's gay, but because I think he'd lose based on the fact that he's gay. It's totally wrong. I admit it.

BTW, I'd also maybe discriminate against a candidate in the primary that was 80 years old because I'd be concerned that the electorate wouldn't vote for that person either. I'd also probably vote and expect others to vote against me because I'm an open atheist. Even other atheists.

I've been thinking about Pete being the Democratic nominee and how that would play out and I think it would get very ugly.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I don't want to prevent anyone from having a fulfilled life just because they engage in sexual activities that I don't want to think about or imagine. And aye, there's the rub that would be hard to ignore if that person was running for President. Mayor Pete's Democratic opposition is unlikely to bring this out but the Republicans will not hesitate to highlight his gayness.

Two men kissing gives me the heebie jeebies. Pictures of Pete kissing his partner are out there and they will be used. I'm sure we will see cartoons of Pete engaged in various homosexual acts. Trump will come up with a crude nickname and his minions will make it 100 times cruder.

I have many gay friends and a gay nephew. His partner is a good guy. But I still don't like seeing them kiss. But the problem isn't with them. It's with me. I also know this is a generational thing and the younger generations has less of a problem then mine. But the difference is my generation votes. Theirs? Not so much.

I don't hesitate to say that the most important consideration for me in choosing a Demcratic nominee is their ability to win.

Second is their ability to win, as well as prioritize the need to solve the energy problem and global warming. We need a new Manhattan project with the goal to provide cheap abundant clean energy for the planet. Something that wipes out the need to burn carbon.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You're deliberately ignoring the point. I wouldn't be discriminating against him because he's gay, but because I think he'd lose based on the fact that he's gay. It's totally wrong. I admit it.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring your point. I'm saying this distinction is still regarded as discrimination based on sexual orientation. It was way before my time that they figured out discrimination against minorities because of what others would think was still racial discrimination.

I'm just not commenting on if it is a good strategy or not because I have lost interest in that side of it.
 
Sounds to me like the people who explain they aren't prejudiced themselves, but because other people are the neighborhood property values would drop so maybe it's best if certain people didn't move there. No offense, some of my best friends, it's not how I personally feel, etc.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Sounds to me like the people who explain they aren't prejudiced themselves, but because other people are the neighborhood property values would drop so maybe it's best if certain people didn't move there. No offense, some of my best friends, it's not how I personally feel, etc.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that I have some irrational prejudices. But I also believe a hell of a lot of people have them as well but wouldn't own up to it.

But if Pete is the Democratic nominee I'm donating money to Pete, I'm campaigning for Pete and I'm voting for Pete. So apparently my prejudice goes only so far.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not denying that I have some irrational prejudices. But I also believe a hell of a lot of people have them as well but wouldn't own up to it.

But if Pete is the Democratic nominee I'm donating money to Pete, I'm campaigning for Pete and I'm voting for Pete. So apparently my prejudice goes only so far.
Click to expand...

Irrational isn't the word monkey would apply.
 
acbytesla said:
You're deliberately ignoring the point. I wouldn't be discriminating against him because he's gay, but because I think he'd lose based on the fact that he's gay. It's totally wrong. I admit it.

BTW, I'd also maybe discriminate against a candidate in the primary that was 80 years old because I'd be concerned that the electorate wouldn't vote for that person either. I'd also probably vote and expect others to vote against me because I'm an open atheist. Even other atheists.
Click to expand...

Don't blame other people for your own bigotry. To figure out if a particular candidate is electable, look at the polls. Don't impose your own prejudices on other people, let the other people make their decisions.

Yeah, it's totally wrong.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Don't blame other people for your own bigotry. To figure out if a particular candidate is electable, look at the polls. Don't impose your own prejudices on other people, let the other people make their decisions.

Yeah, it's totally wrong.
Click to expand...

If the polls show that ACBY's position is correct, is it no longer wrong then?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Don't blame other people for your own bigotry. To figure out if a particular candidate is electable, look at the polls. Don't impose your own prejudices on other people, let the other people make their decisions.

Yeah, it's totally wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming any one else. And I'm not saying it's right.

But if you think people responding to a poll are honest in their responses, you're sadly mistaken. There's a huge difference between answering out loud to a pollster and filling out something in secrecy.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not denying that I have some irrational prejudices. But I also believe a hell of a lot of people have them as well but wouldn't own up to it.

But if Pete is the Democratic nominee I'm donating money to Pete, I'm campaigning for Pete and I'm voting for Pete. So apparently my prejudice goes only so far.
Click to expand...

Part of the penalty of being an "outsider", in the view of much of the US.

Would it be possible for Buttegeig (sp?) to change your mind on this - say if he were to crush his competition in an early state like Wisconsin or South Carolina?

I ask this because I was skeptical of Obama's run right up until he beat the brakes off of Hillary in the Wisconsin primary, based on similar reasoning to yours - namely, that he would inevitably lose due to bigotry (of course, after this I worried about assassination attempts and a racist backlash, the latter of which came to pass with Dolt 45), but I decided that, just maybe, he could actually pull it off, and I was all in.

Now, I'm definitely leaning against Mayor Pete based on other matters, but I do think that him being elected president would be important symbolically, so I'm asking the above sincerely.
 
Trebuchet said:
As do I. I need to just stop visiting this thread until at least November, when it'll at least be less than a year to the election.
Click to expand...

I get that. I have no problem with the thread to speak about the various candidates. But at this point where each stands in the polls means little to me.

My 3 favorite candidates at thus moment are Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete and finally Corey Booker. But that could change as I learn more about them and the others. 3 weeks ago it was Beto, Biden and Harris.

I want to see some debates and see how each candidates performs and read more about where everyone stands on issues.
 
Mumbles said:
Part of the penalty of being an "outsider", in the view of much of the US.

Would it be possible for Buttegeig (sp?) to change your mind on this - say if he were to crush his competition in an early state like Wisconsin or South Carolina?

I ask this because I was skeptical of Obama's run right up until he beat the brakes off of Hillary in the Wisconsin primary, based on similar reasoning to yours - namely, that he would inevitably lose due to bigotry (of course, after this I worried about assassination attempts and a racist backlash, the latter of which came to pass with Dolt 45), but I decided that, just maybe, he could actually pull it off, and I was all in.

Now, I'm definitely leaning against Mayor Pete based on other matters, but I do think that him being elected president would be important symbolically, so I'm asking the above sincerely.
Click to expand...

It's a very very good question. I also thought this way about Obama and I voted for him in the primary. In many many ways I want to vote for Pete BECAUSE he's gay and that would be wrong too. I want people (myself included) not to give a damn about a politician's sex life, just like I don't want people to consider their sex or their skin color. FYI: It's spelled Buttigieg, but I don't bother because I tend to screw it up writing and saying it.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
It's a very very good question. I also thought this way about Obama and I voted for him in the primary. In many many ways I want to vote for Pete BECAUSE he's gay and that would be wrong too. I want people (me included) not to give a damn about a politician's sex life, just like I dont want people to consider their sex or their skin color.
Click to expand...


That's obviously a lie. I don't think anyone is repeating the idea that he shouldn't be voted for because he's gay more than you are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom