Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out 
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Like I said, lots of reasons why people pick their parties, and unless somebody is a complete sell out they likely dont agree with everything their party champions for. maybe sexual orientation isnt as big a deal for her as stricter gun regulations, pro choice, or free shit for everybody?
I am a registered R for one reason and that is the local primary. I really cant stand many of our state and federal Rs any more than I can their D counterparts, but at the local level there are some good Rs that need support because they arent the favorites of the local R party. Lots of reason people pick one party over the other. I am sure there are plenty of votes cast where people have to pinch their nose and go with the one least offensive to them since none of the candidates really ring true to most Americans.
Quote: @"JimmyinSD" said:
@"BigAl99" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
serious question here, I have seen it rumored several times that Iowa will "lose" its status as the first to go in the primary process... who can take it away? isnt it up to the state to set their election days? the general dates are set at the federal level, but unless the govt goes to a single primary day for the country I dont think anybody can take Iowas day away could they? sure somebody could jump ahead of them, but who the phuck would want an even earlier start date? personally I hate Iowa and NH for being as early as they are. This shit goes on to long as it is. IMO it shouldnt even be official if its held before 6 month prior to the general election.
I believe it's a Party thing not a federal decision. Far as I'm concerned, the big thing Iowa gets for being first is a cash flow influx. It could be replaced with a kumquat festival if brought visitors and we would be just as happy.
but isnt the Republican Caucus held at the same time in a year with multiple candidates for both parties? I have a hard time believing that the R and the D agree to have it on the same day unless that is a local decision. Like I said, I have serious doubts that anybody can take away Iowas day unless they want to leap ahead of them. Over all think the exposure that Iowas early start date is good for midwest issues, unfortunately I dont think that any candidate remembers them come the day after the caucus, but at least yall try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...al_primary
Apparently Primaries are run by state and local governments and Caucuses are by run by the parties. Its not a constitutional defined event.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
You can be a Democrat and not support same sex marriage. I didn't support it about 15 years ago. Barack Obama was famously undecided on the issue during his first run. But it is part of the platform now and if you're going to vote with the good guys, you should at least be aware of it.
This woman said nothing about gay marriage. I doubt she even knows it's in our platform. Sure, both parties have their fair share of ignorant voters, but she couldn't even support the idea of a gay man in the White House. That's not platform or policy. That's bigotry.
Oh...one more thing. The majority of the country supports same sex marriage, so I'm not sure why you're saying that a Buttigieg nomination ensures 4 more years. In polls, barely over a quarter of the country has said they are not ready for a gay or lesbian president. What's more, if you look into the vote breakdown in Iowa, it wasn't the cities or college towns that came out so heavily in support of Pete. It was the rural areas. Rural voters are less bigoted than I think you give them credit for.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
You can be a Democrat and not support same sex marriage. I didn't support it about 15 years ago. Barack Obama was famously undecided on the issue during his first run. But it is part of the platform now and if you're going to vote with the good guys, you should at least be aware of it.
This woman said nothing about gay marriage. I doubt she even knows it's in our platform. Sure, both parties have their fair share of ignorant voters, but she couldn't even support the idea of a gay man in the White House. That's not platform or policy. That's bigotry.
Oh...one more thing. The majority of the country supports same sex marriage, so I'm not sure why you're saying that a Buttigieg nomination ensures 4 more years. In polls, barely over a quarter of the country has said they are not ready for a gay or lesbian president. What's more, if you look into the vote breakdown in Iowa, it wasn't the cities or college towns that came out so heavily in support of Pete. It was the rural areas. Rural voters are less bigoted than I think you give them credit for.
They may not support gay marriage, but it just may not be very high up on their priorities when picking a candidate.
The woman is a nutjob and democrat.
If Pete was conservative I would support him no matter his sexuality.
He is a well spoken candidate and appears to be a good guy. That fact is evident when a mayor in a small city can be competing with Bernie for the top spot.
I would prefer him over the socialists. And any conservative over him.
I never waivered on same sex marriage.
All men need to be treated equally by our laws. That is a conservative position.
The reason why Pete might have a problem - blacks might not vote for him.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
You can be a Democrat and not support same sex marriage. I didn't support it about 15 years ago. Barack Obama was famously undecided on the issue during his first run. But it is part of the platform now and if you're going to vote with the good guys, you should at least be aware of it.
This woman said nothing about gay marriage. I doubt she even knows it's in our platform. Sure, both parties have their fair share of ignorant voters, but she couldn't even support the idea of a gay man in the White House. That's not platform or policy. That's bigotry.
Oh...one more thing. The majority of the country supports same sex marriage, so I'm not sure why you're saying that a Buttigieg nomination ensures 4 more years. In polls, barely over a quarter of the country has said they are not ready for a gay or lesbian president. What's more, if you look into the vote breakdown in Iowa, it wasn't the cities or college towns that came out so heavily in support of Pete. It was the rural areas. Rural voters are less bigoted than I think you give them credit for.
If you got a poll that says 1/4 of the population isn't ready for "xyz" you've already lost. It was said that had a 1/2 percent that voted for Trump, voted for Hillary instead she would have won.
I'm one of those rural voters. I could care less who you're into as long as its not plastered in front of me. I'd dare say that you couldn't run an election as the first openly gay person without plastering it in front of America.
This is my guess, the 18-50 crowd might be ready for a gay president but the 50+ crowd who actually show up and vote aren't.
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
You can be a Democrat and not support same sex marriage. I didn't support it about 15 years ago. Barack Obama was famously undecided on the issue during his first run. But it is part of the platform now and if you're going to vote with the good guys, you should at least be aware of it.
This woman said nothing about gay marriage. I doubt she even knows it's in our platform. Sure, both parties have their fair share of ignorant voters, but she couldn't even support the idea of a gay man in the White House. That's not platform or policy. That's bigotry.
Oh...one more thing. The majority of the country supports same sex marriage, so I'm not sure why you're saying that a Buttigieg nomination ensures 4 more years. In polls, barely over a quarter of the country has said they are not ready for a gay or lesbian president. What's more, if you look into the vote breakdown in Iowa, it wasn't the cities or college towns that came out so heavily in support of Pete. It was the rural areas. Rural voters are less bigoted than I think you give them credit for.
If you got a poll that says 1/4 of the population isn't ready for "xyz" you've already lost. It was said that had a 1/2 percent that voted for Trump, voted for Hillary instead she would have won.
It doesn't work that way. With a few exceptions that 1/4 percent is already baked into the GOP vote. 80% of the electorate is already decided, divided evenly between R and D. The votes at play are the 20% in the middle. The number of those voters who would not vote for a gay candidate would be a fraction of that 1/4 of the whole.
Quote: @"AGRforever" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"JimmyinSD" said:
@"MaroonBells" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
@"purplefaithful" said:
62% reporting...
And it's looking like this just might be Buttigieg' coming out party...
I would not be the least surprised at this.
Um, he's already out
Took a bit, but I'm damn pleased with the results.
Someone should've let this woman in on it. Have to wonder why she's even caucusing with the D's.
https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/12...94658?s=20
is it a prerequisite that you have to be accepting of homosexual behavior to be a Dem? I know plenty of Repubs that are fine with gays, should they be kicked out of the R club? who knows, this old gal might be the biggest pro choice person in IA?
Well, our platform does include marriage equality and ending DADT. If you're opposed to those things, there's another party out there that agrees with you. Now, none of us are going to agree on everything, but this woman's disgust and astonishment upon discovering that Buttigieg was gay, and married, and that she could never support such a person in the White House, tells me that she's not paying much attention. And she might just be a Republican. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Are you implying you have to be in favor of "marriage equality" to be a democrat? To be frankly honest if Pete is your guy and you guys want to take that stance then you're in for 4 more years. Which I guess is a good thing?
Heck, I usually lean republican but I disagree with at a minimum of 1/2 of what the party stands for. Its just that I identify even less so with the democrats. Its why on some of these threads you'll see me as anti Trump and others not.
simple solution here . . . Andrew Yang
|
