world

Buttigieg leads Iowa, Sanders 2nd; woman asks to change her vote after learning he is gay

91 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2020 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

91 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

This demonstrates nicely how ignorant homophobes are.

-1 ( +21 / -22 )

"I would like you to just dig deep inside and think,

There are many ways to fight bigotry. This was a good, level headed response. Better than name calling or shaming. A distinct difference from the tactics used by Trump and the far right to further divide the long- fractured nation. The more people who do NOT stoop to the bigots level the better. However, because turning the other cheek just makes most bigots slap harder, resistance remains needed.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

You do realize this happened during Democratic Party voting, right? just like all the people who refused to vote for people of color. It’s your own party.

This demonstrates nicely how ignorant homophobes are.

-8 ( +13 / -21 )

In a note, Iowa just released their delegate counts... Buttigieg won, Sanders second, Warren third, Biden fourth.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

This demonstrates nicely how ignorant homophobes are.

That's why we need more understanding people like the caucus official who tried to sway her instead of just writing her off. Change has to start somewhere.

14 ( +17 / -3 )

This demonstrates nicely how ignorant homophobes are.

I don't know about the ignorance of homophobes part. But it does show the ignorance of the woman from Iowa. He's been openly gay for a really long time. There isn't a single article about him that doesn't mention him being gay. Majority of the articles have his status in the title.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Pretty brave calling your own party voters ignorant. But you are correct in this case. Now if there were just a way to blame Trump or Republicans for this voter actions.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

That's why we need more understanding people like the caucus official who tried to sway her instead of just writing her off. Change has to start somewhere.

Couldnt agree more.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Homophobes and bigots are appalling regardless of their political affiliation. The good thing about Democrats is they're not afraid to call out their own and chastise them when they act like this.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

I am a registered Democrat, this is true. a relic of the Bill Clinton days and being over hopeful about Obama.

But I am no more a Democrat any more than Comey and Mueller were “Republicans” just because they were registered as such.

I’m glad to see you calling out someone on your side for once, that’s progress.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

> I am a registered Democrat, this is true. a relic of the Bill Clinton days and being over hopeful about Obama. 

But I am no more a Democrat any more than Comey and Mueller were “Republicans” just because they were registered as such. 

It’s just so arduous to change your party affiliation, right? You’d rather vote in democratic primaries to try and hand the nomination to someone who is easy to best in the general instead of having integrity.

I’m glad to see you calling out someone on your side for once, that’s progress.

I call out anyone who is repugnant. Unlike you people, I care more about society than I do about a political party.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

You do realize this happened during Democratic Party voting, right? just like all the people who refused to vote for people of color. It’s your own party.

You're a registered Democrat, so it’s also your party. That aside, I don’t care what color or political persuasion homophobes are, they are ignorant.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

I care more about society than I do about a political party.

I can somewhat understand it being about a political party. After all, they usually have a base set of beliefs. What I can't understand is it being about an individual, especially a corrupt, bumbling, dishonest, unethical one.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sanders and Biden and Warren must be pissed.

woman asks to change her vote after learning he is gay

Oh good grief. That's no reason to change your vote.

If Buttigieg gets the nomination, when you compare his policies and accomplishments with Trump's, you'll vote for Trump.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

*You do realize this happened during Democratic Party voting, right?*

That's why it's noteworthy. If it happened during a GOP caucus it wouldn't make the news because being anti-gay is the party line.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I hope Buttigieg gets the nomination. He has the best chance of beating Mephistopheles in the general.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

even if the person is liberal/democrat, i think in this case (generally speaking (not talking about this woman) ), it doesn,t have to do with people,s ignorance or homophobia, etcetera. it,s more about breaking the tradition(s)...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I didn't think that they established candidates were likely to beat Trump, so Buttigieg may stand a better chance, coming from a different generation and without the baggage of the other candidates. Trump has been quiet so far, and not even found a way of insulting him.

His sexuality could prove to be a challenge - the USA is still one of the most religious societies on earth, despite being quite well educated, and many of the Democratic party's core support comes from from groups that would identify as being socially conservative and religious.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

when you compare his policies and accomplishments with Trump's, you'll vote for Trump.

No I won't.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

@Blacklabel

Ignorance knows no bounds. It crosses party lines, races, genders, sexes, borders, generations...

It is perhaps one of the few infinite things we can fathom. Instead of taking the time and effort to take a jab at the party you don't like, and which you claim to be a "relic" of, just acknowledge it and move on. Your comment brings nothing new or beneficial to the discussion. But alas, that is a troll.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

What a humiliating shambles.

Posing a pertinent question, if The Democratic Party are deemed incompetent in organising an electoral system of voting, plus a reliable means of announcing the result?

How will The Democratic Party nominee perform in office if ever elected?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Chip Star - This demonstrates nicely how ignorant homophobes are.

DEMOCRAT PARTY ignorant homophobes, to be more specific.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

What a humiliating shambles.

Posing a pertinent question, if The Democratic Party are deemed incompetent in organising an electoral system of voting, plus a reliable means of announcing the result?

How will The Democratic Party nominee perform in office if ever elected?

Did a pretty decent job from 2008-2016, and from 1992-2000. It was that period from 2000-2008 that things sort of ran off the cliff... remind me which party was in charge then?

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

For those bashing the homophobes, that too is racial and prejudicial. both have the same rights and up to the individual to make their voice heard. Be fair. You may not like either gay or straight but be fair by being impartial and adding fuel to where there is no fire. Personally for me get the job done is what counts the most. Right now the current elected Democrats/Republicans have wasted 3 yrs and not produced what is most important to the country, issues that affect us all, like pollution, energy, water, infrastructure, trade etc.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Honestly David Varnes, I am not attempting to be pedantic, or sarcastic, I am at a loss in understanding when the official result will be announced, and whether that result will be accepted by all the participating candidates?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

What is not being reported is that only 170,000 registered democrats (out of a total of more than 600,000 statewide) cast ballots in the Hawkeye Cauci. That is a significant tell in that even "progressive" voters there don't care about any of the candidates who collectively visited Iowa more than 1,600 times to curry favor of democrats in the run up to yesterday's socialist dumpster fire. It gives registered independent voters like myself who are undecided about who to cast my ballot for on Nov. 3rd something to consider during the next nine months.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Wow. All this fuss about one comment, from one woman voting among the many thousands who voted in Iowa. Since Buttigieg seems to have done pretty well in Iowa, whether he wins it or not, it's reasonable to assume hers is very much a minority opinion. The only reason it's noteworthy is because someone filmed it and put it on online.

There's a far more serious anti-gay problem mentioned in the article, which no-one so far has addressed directly in the rush to pile on to this lone (white) ignoramus. And that is:

Internal focus group data obtained by the McClatchy news organization last year showed that many black voters, an important Democratic constituency, could view Buttigieg's sexuality as a barrier.

Like to see someone take that one on.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Buttijudge had a huge caucus night. He ran an amazing come from behind campaign. Biden shows that he is the same weak candidate he was the three other times he failed to get the Dem nomination. Warren and Sanders together are the real victors - Socialism dominates the party now.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

It would be funny if Trump got himself impeached by cheating against the 4th place candidate.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

People have reasons to vote or not to vote for whoever they want. In the end, it's all personal.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Kudos to a US customer, what mailed me this morning.

Commentators might find this helpful, if a tad confusing

How the Iowa caucus results will actually work — and why 2020’s could be more confusing than ever.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/30/21083701/iowa-caucuses-results-delegates-math

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@ StevieJ: Homophobes and bigots are appalling regardless of their political affiliation. The good thing about Democrats is they're not afraid to call out their own and chastise them when they act like this.

What? Dems have been excusing racial discrimination since the days of their providing the political bulwark for slavery. Dems are nothing but about discrimination today. The form of discrimination changes over time but it’s discrimination all the same. It used to be Jim Crow, now it’s limiting the number of Asians in higher education and other forms of similar bigotry.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

There are many ways to fight bigotry. This was a good, level headed response. Better than name calling or shaming. A distinct difference from the tactics used by Trump and the far right to further divide the long- fractured nation.

Trump Never tried to divide the nation, the Democrats attacked him first and he responded, leave him alone and the rhetoric goes aways. But having said that, the entire process last night was a complete catastrophic disaster last night. It shows just how unprepared and unprofessional Democrats are with this process.

The more people who do NOT stoop to the bigots level the better.

Uhhh, that weak argument has really lost its luster, no one is really listening to that at this point and time.

However, because turning the other cheek just makes most bigots slap harder, resistance remains needed.

Well, then resistance to socialism should be deeply applied, duly noted.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

There is nothing particularly subtle about bigotry

Homophobic Iowa caucus-goer learns her candidate, Pete Buttigieg, is gay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=pTQlwARreXc&feature=emb_title

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the USA is still one of the most religious societies on earth

Hm, wouldn't religulous be a more accurate term emphasizing the messy cultural baggage and ignorance contained therein. Country folk Iowans long ago lost their radical roots and have forgotten the progressive tradition of their regionalism, but Bernie and Buttigieg have the passion and fire to light up the mid-west and prairie again. Biden, the tired old DNC darling du jour, should bin the malarkey and retire to make way for the future.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Trump Never tried to divide the nation, the Democrats attacked him first and he responded, leave him alone and the rhetoric goes aways.

what a load of hogwash. Even before he declared his candidacy, Donald Trump has cast dispersion and division. He did it throughout the Republican primary, and he did it the entire campaign. Since his win, he's consistently tried to divide the country, to cast everything as 'us or them' in nearly every issue that crosses his desk. If anyone disagrees with him, it's because they 'hate America' or are 'fake' or any of a thousand other immature, peurile names that he assigns to people.

So just stop.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Classy response to bigotry.

Trump never tried to divide the nation

His supporters certainly try to divide it. One poster here is always talking about casual elites and even talked about nuking California.

That’s about as divisive as it gets.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I don't know about the ignorance of homophobes part. But it does show the ignorance of the woman from Iowa.

It shows the ignorance of the Democrat voter. See how your filter on reality changes perception?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Trump Never tried to divide the nation, the Democrats attacked him first and he responded

Nonsense.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Bernie has more popular vote.

or does that not matter again?

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Trump Never tried to divide the nation,

Thank you for the morning laughs, Donny’s raison d‘etre Is division. Demeaning minorities, women, handicapped is the way he has come forward.

Well, then resistance to socialism should be deeply applied, duly noted.

Since you proved Donny is a socialist, let’s resist together!!!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

He wouldn't be the first gay president (James Buchanan was probably gay/bi), but to be openly gay is a major step forward.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

One poster here is always talking about casual elites and even talked about nuking California. 

Really?

Oh, yes. A poster here did that. It was a disgraceful comment. I’m sure you’d agree.

Buttigieg said his time in the military helped him realise that divisions such as race, class, political affiliation or sexuality are unimportant when you are fighting together. Trump may have become less into division if he hadn’t dodged the draft and the poster who talked about nuking California May not have posted this awful idea if he had served.

Buttigieg is a decent man.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Thank you for the morning laughs, Donny’s raison d‘etre Is division. Demeaning minorities, women, handicapped is the way he has come forward.

We had our laughs last night, more to come.

Since you proved Donny is a socialist, let’s resist together!!!

He’s a much better socialist than the communist socialism that wants to rob Paul to give to Peter, at least, he can create the jobs to help the public obtain wealth from their employers rather than the Democrat to mooch off others. Lol

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

What? Dems have been excusing racial discrimination since the days of their providing the political bulwark for slavery.

No, Republicans and Democrats have reversed. Proof is KKK, Bundies, Dylan Roof, David Duke, and White Supremacists go for Trump. Today Lincoln would be Democrat because he is smart and the north is overall smarter.

If Buttigieg gets the nomination, when you compare his policies and accomplishments with Trump's, you'll vote for Trump.

Trump won't mess with Buttigieg or call him names since Trump is intimidated by Buttigieg . There is proof about that. But if Trump made the economy what it was then Bloomberg would do a much better job because Bloomberg is 20 richer and would do the same for the US economy.

I don't want any candidate 70 or over. Especially Trump has mental decline and likes to repeat himself over and over with words he obsesses like "Hillary" or "Wall"

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

One woman's view on homosexuality is largely irrelevant. What is far more relevant is that there were "technical difficulties" which are not properly explained. Was Sanders holding the lead a technical difficulty? The US often considers the Right candidate not leading a technical difficulty in many other countries such as Venezuela. Surely, it must be even more of a technical difficulty in the US. I don't suppose the DNC would cheat a candidate, would they?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Meanwhile, an Iowa woman who supported Buttigieg asked to change her vote when she learned the candidate is gay.

Has this thing been living under a rock for the past two years or what?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I hope Buttigieg gets the nomination. He has the best chance of beating Mephistopheles in the general.

Me too! It would definitely be more interesting to see a Trump-Buttigieg debate, even though Trump will still wipe the floor with him and win the election in a landslide, and win the popular vote too, including California.

He wouldn't be the first gay president (James Buchanan was probably gay/bi), but to be openly gay is a major step forward.

So it's better to have a gay president than a straight president?

Demeaning minorities, women, handicapped is the way he has come forward.

Amazing how all those groups, along with everyone else, are doing better than 3 years ago.

It would be funny if Trump got himself impeached by cheating against the 4th place candidate.

It would be funny if you ever came up with a joke that was actually funny.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

I don't know about the ignorance of homophobes part. But it does show the ignorance of the woman from Iowa. He's been openly gay for a really long time. There isn't a single article about him that doesn't mention him being gay. Majority of the articles have his status in the title.

Goes to show many (most?) voters don't know who they are voting for.

He wouldn't be the first gay president (James Buchanan was probably gay/bi), but to be openly gay is a major step forward.

Yeah, there were several others...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

when you compare his policies and accomplishments with Trump's, you'll vote for Trump.

No I won't.

Only if you keep your head in the sand.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Me too! It would definitely be more interesting to see a Trump-Buttigieg debate, even though Trump will still wipe the floor with him and win the election in a landslide, and win the popular vote too, including California.

But Trump will keep demonstrating his mental decline. And what if there is a recession during the race (Bush vs. Clinton) The economy does not depend on the president so much. If that were the case they we would elect a real successful self made billionaire like Bill Gates or....Bloomberg who never went through bankruptcy or stiffed anyone - or didn't rely on Daddy's money. In the debates he will keep repeating the word "Hillary" even though she is no longer around. But he won't be insulting Buttigieg because Buttigieg intimidates Trump. But if people want to vote for the USA after that then they can have the country. The only thing saving Trump is the good economy (Clinton vs. Nixon) and they can go south - and often do under Republican leadership. If Trump has to manage a recession he can't blame Hillary like he does for all his other failures. But if Trump loses the election he will blame Hillary and refuse to leave the WH.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

But if people want to vote for the USA after that then they can have the country. 

But if people want to vote for Trump

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, Bill Clinton mentioned that if Hillary won, he thought people could call him the First Laddie.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If Buttigieg gets the nomination, when you compare his policies and accomplishments with Trump's, you'll vote for Trump.

To associate the arch-scamster Trump with the concept of "accomplishments" would be to debase, devalue and ultimately deprive the word of all meaning. In November the Dems will, it is to be hoped, restore some dignity to the debased coinage of the English language trashed by jibber-jabber Trump's cacoethes loquendi and mendacious, vicious Republican talking-points.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Trump is not running the economy. It's running itself. If there is a recession then Trump is toast and the people who supported him during THIS impeachment are also at risk. What will Trump do if there is a recession? Remember it happened under both Bushes. At least W. didn't blame Hillary and make excuses and he was quite humble about it. Maybe Trump can put the USA though bankruptcy court since he has experience with that. Trump's promised GDP is deteriorating. Is it Hillary's fault?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This article is about a Democrat election, not Trump

and

even though Trump will still wipe the floor with him

Since Trump was mentioned here not by me originally - Once Trump keeps demonstrating his mental decline and his strange behavior while Buttigieg demonstrates his great composure (especially during their debates if Buttigieg gets the nomination it might be game over for Trump, especially if there is a recession - the only thing saving Trump is the economy)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

"Well he'd better read the Bible," said the woman.

The Bible probably needs a reboot to adapt to this day and age.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

his behavior is good?

Yes....why? What's the problem?

The real obsession is your obsession with trump,

But I'm not the president. Trump has the most important job in the world and he is obsessed and likes to repeat himself over things that don't matter like the word "Hillary". Trump better hope for a recession not to come. Otherwise he is toast politically. What will happen if there is a recession? If it happens he will just start tweeting and complaining about Hillary. Right now the economy is running itself. That's the nature of the presidency on auto pilot. But if there is a recession Trump won't be able to handle it and the US will be in trouble. Especially with Trump's mental decline.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Me too! It would definitely be more interesting to see a Trump-Buttigieg debate

It would be interesting contrast of styles. An articulate, extremely intelligent, knowledgeable polyglot who served in the military versus a a draft-dodging, thundering ignoramus who tweets semi-literate trash in his first language and doesn’t know where his own dad was born.

What do you think? Hold the first debate in Kansas City? Make sure Trump isn’t driving.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

That story covers Iowans nicely. That's how people there are.

Actually, that's how people everywhere in the US are. Some are anti-gay, mainly because they've never met someone openly gay before. Some let their religion decide what's right or wrong and believe that should apply to everyone else. Some are willing to listen and some aren't.

Out of all the Democrats, Pete was who I initially liked the most, but he needs a little more seasoning in the House or Senate to win. Being a mayor of a town with just 100K people isn't sufficient background. Sorry.

Given a choice between Pete and Donald - I'd vote for Pete. I can get passed his religion problem. Pence scares me.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Buttigieg said: "This is really the first proof point for how we're building the campaign that is ultimately going to go on to defeat (Donald) Trump" in November's presidential election

right...cant see that happening with this dude. No experience and with his husband..hmm, interesting. a first man in the white house? wonder what the founders would of thought of that.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

but he needs a little more seasoning in the House or Senate to win. Being a mayor of a town with just 100K people isn't sufficient background. Sorry.

He will catch up. Trump could even with his mental decline. Trump is running the country while he is sleeping at the wheel, so Buttigieg will be an OK president. Trump has experience dodging drafts and running companies into the ground. Buttigieg bravely served and that's one thing that intimidates Trump.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

wonder what the founders would of thought of that.

The founders of the US were extremely intelligent, educated men. I’m not sure Buttigieg is in that league but he’s certainly closer than the current occupant.

Can you imagine someone like Jefferson, an accomplished scholar and writer, reading Trump’s Twitter account?

I think the founders would have more in common with someone who has actually read a book.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I read somewhere that the article is about a Democrat election, not Trump.

Tell the person who made the following comment since they mentioned Trump first.

Pretty brave calling your own party voters ignorant. But you are correct in this case. Now if there were just a way to blame Trump or Republicans for this voter actions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Jimizo: It would be interesting contrast of styles. An articulate, extremely intelligent, knowledgeable polyglot who served in the military versus a a draft-dodging, thundering ignoramus who tweets semi-literate trash in his first language and doesn’t know where his own dad was born. What do you think?

I think America has a lot of low class people that will side with the bigot Trump.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Pence scares me.

Oh, god! Truly scary! Pence could be closeted? People who deny the scientific reality of being gay often are really like Ted Haggard. When 2ANRATrumpEvangelicals say "Jesus over economy" they really mean it. Really scary. The evangelicals are trashing the US now.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think America has a lot of low class people that will side with the bigot Trump.

Bigot? Impossible. That kind of nonsense talk is losing its stem, deflated a long time ago. Liberals need to think of something that will help them win a future general election, because trying to pass off Democrats as good and honest people and failing and unwilling to acknowledge their own personal shortcomings, 2024 might elude them as well. But as we know from experience, liberals rarely listen to sound advice.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

nishikat - Trump is not running the economy. It's running itself. …..Is it Hillary's fault?

As I remember it, ol' Hillary never became POTUS. Twice.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

bass: Liberals need to think of something that will help them win a future general election

Overcoming low class bigots and their voting power is something that will help in future elections. Part of America doesn't want a President who insults little girls, gold star Moms, and POWs. Others are Trump fans.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The US and their diversity. First they celebrate a color president, then a business man became president and now this. Guess they want all the recent ones to be unique and show the world how different they are. Voters like that. But at least this one seems pretty competent.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

As I remember it, ol' Hillary never became POTUS. Twice.

Yes, and that is why it is so disturbing that Trump is obsessed with Hillary. Only paranoid old people have that kind of obsession of people who don't matter. Trump is obsessed over ghosts and that is what Hillary is now. That is why it is obvious he is not mentally fit to be president. Buttigieg young? Maybe too young? I agree, but he has endless room to develop, learn, and and go forward while Trump is on the decline (and Pence is a scary closeted evangelical)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Overcoming low class bigots and their voting power is something that will help in future elections. Part of America doesn't want a President who insults little girls, gold star Moms, and POWs. Others are Trump fans.

Trump just hit it out of the park with his State of the Union Address :D

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Overcoming low class bigots and their voting power is something that will help in future elections.

So we shouldn’t vote for Democrats is what you’re trying to tell us?

Part of America doesn't want a President who insults little girls, gold star Moms, and POWs. Others are Trump fans.

Part of America doesn’t like when liberals insult and take advantage of our veterans, attack people of faith, conservative children, angel moms and Trump haters.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Your argument is "change is scary so only men can be President". It's lame.

both you and your pal nishi have missed the mark.

The institution of a man and woman (as the late Sen. John McCain supported) has been throughout time, the model, the benchmark, that mainstream people looked too for a relationship. Homosexuality is an outlier. It should not be illegal and people who are bi or whatever, no judgement passed or discrimination. However, the institutions in place, based on what has been the example from recorded history, should not suddenly be disrupted over some hyper progressive whimsical feelings of how you think things should be. The problem with people like you is, you have an idea of how you think things should be, but could care less about the repercussions that occur after your sudden disruption becomes policy. Trump was the answer to Obama; his polices were too radical for a country like the US. I dont agree with all of Trump, at times its too rightist for me. But Trump is the result of people like you, and you dont even realize it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Meanwhile, an Iowa woman who supported Buttigieg asked to change her vote when she learned the candidate is gay. She cited her religious beliefs for doing so. "Are you saying that he has a same-sex partner? Are you kidding?" the woman, wearing a "Pete 2020" sticker, asked a caucus organizer, known as a precinct captain, in rural Iowa...

Yet another reason to remove the Iowa caucuses as the first primary...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The institution of a man and woman...

Ted Haggard agrees

how you think things should be

It's not up to be, it's up to the voter (even if they elected a closeted vice president and a president who likes golden showers). I - myself - didn't do any of this

his polices were too radical for a country like the US

Specifically?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4unk: So we shouldn’t vote for Democrats is what you’re trying to tell us?

C'mon, admit it. Not even a little part of you loved Trump attacking a 16-year old girl with aspergers?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The institution of a man and woman (as the late Sen. John McCain supported) has been throughout time, the model, the benchmark, that mainstream people looked too for a relationship.

This just isn't true. There have been many societies which have supported polygamy (including the bible) and homosexuality - indeed, in some ancient societies, homosexual love was considered purer than love between men and women, as women were considered "lesser" citizens. So you're wrong here.

Homosexuality is an outlier. 

Homosexuality is a fact of life, and has been since the beginning of time.

he institutions in place, based on what has been the example from recorded history, should not suddenly be disrupted over some hyper progressive whimsical feelings of how you think things should be. 

It's not about how things "should be": gay people exist. Many are qualified to be President. One is running. He's not my first choice, but he's qualified, and his husband becoming First Gentleman changes nothing.

he problem with people like you is, you have an idea of how you think things should be, but could care less about the repercussions that occur after your sudden disruption becomes policy.

A gay person being potentially elected to office isn't a matter of "policy". You seem very confused about the difference between ideology and sexuality.

Trump was the answer to Obama; his polices were too radical for a country like the US. 

Obama wasn't even close to radical. Trump won because he was up against one of the least inspiring Presidential candidates of all time.

But Trump is the result of people like you, and you dont even realize it.

By this logic, AOC and the squad are the result of Trump. So now Americans want genuine left wing change because of Trump, is that your contention?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The first wave of results, following a delay due to technical issues...

I wonder whether the results are legit. Perhaps the "technical issues" behind the delay were in fact the manipulation to move the desired candidate in front.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

We had our laughs last night, more to come.

Sure, Donny did some crazy stuff last night!!!

He’s a much better socialist than the communist socialism that wants to rob Paul to give to Peter, at least, he can create the jobs to help the public obtain wealth from their employers rather than the Democrat to mooch off others.

Thats a lot of words with little meaning in them.

Define communist socialism! ROFL

1 ( +4 / -3 )

With 62 percent of precincts reporting.

Have they ever finished the reporting?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The fact that Buttigieg is leading is a reflection on the maturity of the democratic voters, instead of voting for race and sexuality as the people on the other side do, they look beyond it.

The GOP bigots will be out in full force, afraid of the change that is happening, again.

Obama getting elected brought them and their bigoted views out for all to see.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

What?

What I said was very clear.

According to most Blacks that live in his city they don’t think he’s qualified.

He won the majority of votes from black people in his election to mayor of South Bend. Get your facts straight.

That’s good or great, but even if he’s the nominee, America is not yet there to elect a gay man President and especially this one, one day perhaps, but not now, not his time.

You guys said the same thing about Obama.

To most conservatives he was or I should say, his policies were, that’s the reason why he used his phone and pen, it’s because he couldn’t get most of his radical ideas passed through Congress.

Actually it was because the GOP refused to work with Obama, no matter how much he tried to compromise (and Obama compromised WAY too much).

You mean, California and NY want a radical change, but they don’t get to decide elections.

A Democratic senator took Alabama from your buddy Roy Moore. Another Trump electoral success.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What I said was very clear.

Really??

He won the majority of votes from black people in his election to mayor of South Bend. Get your facts straight.

I always do.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pete-buttigieg-struggling-black-voters-not-just-because-he-s-n1081641

You guys said the same thing about Obama.

You said that about Trump, but I meant what I said earlier and add to the fact that Pete would be going up against a President that has over 50% approval when it comes to the economy and on that alone he has an uphill battle.

Actually it was because the GOP refused to work with Obama,

they wanted to work with Obama, but Obama didn’t want to go down the middle, he always said it’s his way or no way and this was a major hurdle for him and why he wrote so many executive orders because he wouldn’t sit down with the Republicans and discuss legislation and Republicans weren’t going to just allow him to push through legislation’s that they thought were poison for the country.

no matter how much he tried to compromise (and Obama compromised WAY too much).

Obama never compromised, not on Obamacare, DACA, terrorism, etc.

A Democratic senator took Alabama from your buddy Roy Moore. Another Trump electoral success.

And the Democrats even after Mueller and the Impeachment won’t take the WH and now more evident than ever, he should be wounded from Mueller and impeachment and it not only made him stronger, but it made him even more formidable as a President.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Buttigieg may have won the Iowa caucus but it doesn't guarantee he'll get the Democrat Party nomination for President. He has, however, improved his chances of getting the VP nomination, an important cabinet position in a Democrat administration the very least.

But Buttigieg doesn't have a overwhelming support among the ethnic groups; there is still a deep homophobia among the Black and Latino community ---- something Buttigieg and the Democrat party will have to deal with if he is going to win their support.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

 Being a mayor of a town with just 100K people isn't sufficient background. Sorry.

The same applies in spades to ignoramus Trump who has zero qualifications for any job except to be the spoiled heir to his jailbird father's ill-gotten wealth as a slum-landlord. The pathetic pretender has long been exposed as a "king with no clothes", signally unfit to be president, and everybody with eyes and ears knows this. Any one complete sentence uttered by Buttigieg proves his superiority over the wretched Chump for the office of Potus. Sorry.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Buttigieg... interesting name.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The Democrat Party is still in chaotic disarray and will probably continue right up until the Democrat Convention where there will be no clear cut winner or strong nominee resulting in a brokered convention. Then "Saint" Hillary will make her announcement as "savior" who can unite the party and beat Trump, choose Buttigieg as her running mate.

It's going to be a messy and nasty 2020 election. year.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Really??

Yes.

I always do.

You don't: this is about the nation generally, not the voters of his city. Once again, your carelessness has gotten the better of you.

You said that about Trump, but I meant what I said earlier and add to the fact that Pete would be going up against a President that has over 50% approval when it comes to the economy and on that alone he has an uphill battle.

No, you said America wasn't ready because he's gay. Stop lying.

they wanted to work with Obama, but Obama didn’t want to go down the middle, he always said it’s his way or no way and this was a major hurdle for him and why he wrote so many executive orders because he wouldn’t sit down with the Republicans and discuss legislation and Republicans weren’t going to just allow him to push through legislation’s that they thought were poison for the country.

None of this is true. Obama abandoned the public option after extensive negotiations with the GOP. There are extensive videos of him negotiating with Paul Ryan and others. You're just wrong.

And the Democrats even after Mueller and the Impeachment won’t take the WH and now more evident than ever, he should be wounded from Mueller and impeachment and it not only made him stronger, but it made him even more formidable as a President.

The GOP got thrashed in the midterms - elections which few people care about and which favors the GOP. In the general, Democrats will be more motivated - possibly. If Biden is the nominee, many will stay home and Trump will win again.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Buttigieg... interesting name.

And no doubt the butt of a lot of jokes.

Jokes aside, it's a Maltese surname, derived from Sicilian Arabic أبو الدجاج Abu-l-dajāj(i), meaning chicken owner or poulterer.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buttigieg

4 ( +5 / -1 )

You don't: this is about the nation generally,

Yes, that’s why I said what I said. He won’t win, in fact having him as the nominee for the Dems would be the best gift to Trump.

No, you said America wasn't ready because he's gay. Stop lying.

That as well.

None of this is true. Obama abandoned the public option after extensive negotiations with the GOP. There are extensive videos of him negotiating with Paul Ryan and others. You're just wrong.

No, it’s true and thank God for Trump getting rid of that dreaded mandate.

The GOP got thrashed in the midterms - elections which few people care about and which favors the GOP.

And the Dems got demolished in the Mueller garbage and now in the impeachment farce and now they’ve dug an even deeper holes politically for themselves.

In the general, Democrats will be more motivated

So are Republicans especially after knowing you guys shot and missed, he’s now over 90% favorable and over 40% overall. Those are not good numbers for the Democrats to up against incumbent, but since liberals NEVER believe it until it hits them in the face it looks like the Dems need another shellacking in November to prove them wrong once again.

possibly. If Biden is the nominee, many will stay home and Trump will win again.

Like Chris Matthews said the other day, at this point, none of these candidates can beat Trump and for once, he’s right.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites