Buttigieg 2020

[atomheartbevo 89666]

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'd much prefer politicians just stop talking about their religious faith, even if it owns the CHUDs.

Every time any friends or family start pulling the “we need more religion/God in schools or the government” crap, I remind them about the Constitution.  Most don’t seem bothered, and then i remind them that we live in a state where the Catholic Church would be calling the shots, and all of the sudden they shut the fuck up and change the topic.  

[atomheartbevo 89666]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have a feeling Trump will replace Pence if he’s running in 2020.  Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul are well positioned. 

Graham and Paul plan on being in Congress long after Trump is out of politics.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He's not doing that. At all. 

He's trying to reclaim the idea that real Christian faith is helping the poor, taking care of the stranger, etc. instead of the religious right's focus on sin and sexuality.

That is a dubious use of the word "reclaim".

Pete is the one who began bringing up his faith in response to questions about Mike Pence. The common thing for the interviewer to bring up is, "Wow you're gay in Indiana and Mike Pence is from Indiana and he hates gays!" and Pete uses it as an opportunity to sell the lib-Christian gospel and paint himself as a Good Christian vs Mike Pence's Bad Christian. And the horserace-watchers are cheering that it's good strategy, which it might be, but what is the actual longer-term impact of making the 2020 election an internecine Jesus War between a handful of white Christian men?

Who are the marginalized groups we need to be worried about right now and what does a revitalized and centered Christian perspective offer to them?

Yes, it's fun to fight with Republicans, but who is actually in the middle of that fight?

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it's just what he already believes in...

It would be better if it was cynical on his part. If he truly believes in the tenets of Christianity, has truly read the Bible sincerely, and truly thinks, "Jesus actually exists and is basically OK with everyone and everything!" then that's a pretty huge strike on his supposed genius on a few different levels.

35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Erickson has always been a fucking clown.

100% truth

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

22 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Graham and Paul plan on being in Congress long after Trump is out of politics.  

But they both really want to be president 

[henrygandorf 29191]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That is a dubious use of the word "reclaim".

Pete is the one who began bringing up his faith in response to questions about Mike Pence. The common thing for the interviewer to bring up is, "Wow you're gay in Indiana and Mike Pence is from Indiana and he hates gays!" and Pete uses it as an opportunity to sell the lib-Christian gospel and paint himself as a Good Christian vs Mike Pence's Bad Christian. And the horserace-watchers are cheering that it's good strategy, which it might be, but what is the actual longer-term impact of making the 2020 election an internecine Jesus War between a handful of white Christian men?

i don't think he's painting mike pence as a bad christian.  i think he's painting mike pence as a fucking hypocrite.  hard to argue otherwise.

i think he's painting trump as a bad christian (or more generally, someone who doesn't take religion seriously, but claims to).  i think he's painting a bunch of them as liars, panderers, and sellouts for trying to politicize and win through claiming something that's false, while he actually claims it because it's true.

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

27 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete is the one who began bringing up his faith in response to questions about Mike Pence. The common thing for the interviewer to bring up is, "Wow you're gay in Indiana and Mike Pence is from Indiana and he hates gays!" and Pete uses it as an opportunity to sell the lib-Christian gospel and paint himself as a Good Christian vs Mike Pence's Bad Christian. And the horserace-watchers are cheering that it's good strategy, which it might be, but what is the actual longer-term impact of making the 2020 election an internecine Jesus War between a handful of white Christian men?

Who are the marginalized groups we need to be worried about right now and what does a revitalized and centered Christian perspective offer to them?

Yes, it's fun to fight with Republicans, but who is actually in the middle of that fight?

It would be better if it was cynical on his part. If he truly believes in the tenets of Christianity, has truly read the Bible sincerely, and truly thinks, "Jesus actually exists and is basically OK with everyone and everything!" then that's a pretty huge strike on his supposed genius on a few different levels.

I think this clip answers your questions. 

 

[henrygandorf 29191]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It would be better if it was cynical on his part. If he truly believes in the tenets of Christianity, has truly read the Bible sincerely, and truly thinks, "Jesus actually exists and is basically OK with everyone and everything!" then that's a pretty huge strike on his supposed genius on a few different levels.

you've said these kinds of things a few times, and i'm struggling to figure out why.  the only reason must be that you haven't actually watched these interviews.  he's never claimed to believe the bible is a work of non-fiction.  i'd be scared to death of anyone who truly did believe that and was running for president.  

i'm not religious, but i know a lot of people who are.  there are many types on the spectrum who believe and interpret different things in different ways.  pete has said a number of times that his faith, his going to church, his reading, his listening, his learning - he takes the information and he pulls from it and interprets things he uses in his every day life.  in several interviews he mentions this very specifically.  and the values he's picked up and learned from scripture  (helping the poor, the outsider, being generally kind) don't match (in his mind) what we're seeing from our current president, who claims to take religion very seriously.

you've made several comments like, "i wish pete would..." or "i'd prefer if instead he..." or in this case, "it would be better if..." 

better for who?  i think you like pete, but there are a few things that you'd like to fix.  that's understandable.  but i've said it over and over - this is just who this guy is.  he may not check every single box that's important to you.  i bet bernie doesn't either.  nobody checks every box for everyone, no matter how much they lie to themselves about it.  this is pete.  he owns it.  sorry he's not cynical enough for you, or that you've found potential flaws that make you question his "supposed genius."  

[henrygandorf 29191]

well shit, hank's clip really summed up what it took me 4 paragraphs to write, but yeah.

[Mole 4333]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the continuation of the core, defining strategy of Modern American Fundagelical Christianity.

Catholics aren't "real Christians."  Presbyterians aren't "real Christians."  Episcopalians aren't "real Christians."  The group of people defined as "real Christians" gets smaller, and smaller, and smaller.  At this point, the only people who meet the "real Christians" standard are those who meet the following criteria: 1) complete, unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump, and 2) interested in buying Jim Bakker survival buckets.

Note how none of those criteria really have jack-shit to do with the Gospels.

Summary: "real Christians" aren't Christian at all.  The label of Christian is now a toxic, co-opted shield used to excuse all manner of loathsomeness behind the unassailable wall of "religious freedom."

Pete is right, and several commentators on the subject are right -- it's time to take Christianity back.  Fuck those fucks for stealing the label.  "Christian" means something, objectively, and it has everything to do with the Gospels and nothing to do with an agenda of hate and cruelty.

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

I’m definitely more theologically and politically conservative than Pete. I have also felt somewhat shut out in recent years  in actually voting for someone rather than against the other guy. The religious right is preaching a false gospel and the left is all too often plainly antagonist towards faith. This antagonism from the left is real and not something that can be gaslighted away, even though that’s what often happens. In part, it’s what drives religious conservatives to someone as morally bankrupt as Trump. Pete comes across as the real deal with these issues and is currently my favorite candidate. I think he can win over people like me.

The political faith divide is so strong that for many on both sides it appears impossible to reconcile the concept of a gay Christian. It isn’t cognitive dissonance; there are very reasonable readings of the clobber passages that can be reconciled with such a concept. There is lots of room for disagreement on this issue while still maintaining a biblical framework. If you don’t see that, you’ve bought the fundamentalist story. 

On the other hand, we’ve seen how much the gay marriage issue has split denominations. We might see that played out on a larger scale here.

[Brisketexan 105139]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think this clip answers your questions. 

 

Spot-on.  Including the call-back to Jesuit education.  The Jesuits are the folks who finally got me to understand what the Gospel was really about.

And yeah, Bad Teammate is just swell here.  He loves the DOUBLE layer of purity-test.  First, you have to believe EXACTLY what he believes, politically.  Second, you have to believe it for APPROVED reasons (and if you are instructed by your religious faith, you are right out).  Fucking brilliant. 

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

Finally, a TRUE Scotsman. 

[Fondren & Main 6718]

Pete’s fucked up.

[Hornius Emeritus 12462]

6 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Pete’s fucked up.

 

Seems sober to me.

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think he's painting mike pence as a bad christian.

He absolutely is, and in explicitly Biblical terms, comparing them to "Pharisees".

Yes, Pete's views comport with our own tolerant liberal views. He's smarter, better, more virtuous, and more pleasant than Mike Pence. He's a better person, but he's not a better Christian. His view of Christian doctrine is not more accurate. Both of those men pick and choose which religious tenets validate their secular values and move forward from there.

All of this should be rejected if our goal is acceptance of marginalized groups.

I do not want, as Pete advocates, "an emergence of the religious left". No thank you, Jimmy Carter (I'm old like Joy Behar, so she recognizes it, too),  please very very kindly keep all nice liberal white Christian thoughts and beliefs away from the governance of non-whites, LGBTQ, and non-Christians. (We have two non-Christians in the Dem 2020 slate, by the way. Something to keep in mind.)

 

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

you've said these kinds of things a few times, and i'm struggling to figure out why.  the only reason must be that you haven't actually watched these interviews. 

Nope. I watch all this stuff. I read all this stuff.

I have a different worldview than many here, that's all. I watched the 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech from Obama and saw basically the exact same thing that Buttigieg is selling here.

Quote

and the values he's picked up and learned from scripture  (helping the poor, the outsider, being generally kind) don't match (in his mind) what we're seeing from our current president, who claims to take religion very seriously.

He didn't learn those values from scripture. This is a man whose parents were both college professors at Notre Dame. Be honest.

If he did learn those values from scripture, that's extremely worrying.

Watch The View clip I linked,

"For those of us who think our values have to be in touch with our religious faith..."

What the hell does that mean?

He then says Pence's Christian faith is "largely about sexuality"... is it? I don't like Mike Pence, but is it REALLY fair to say that Pence's faith is "largely about sexuality"? Do we know that or is that just what we care about because it is our biggest disagreement with him politically/morally?

And right after that is the HUGE problem...

"And how did he attach himself to someone who gets caught writing hush money checks to porn stars..."

The moralistic shaming of Stormy Daniels and the dismissal of her humanity here completely betrays whatever point he thinks he's making with regard to a supposedly liberal Christianity and lays bare the inherent regressive and reactionary nature of ANY religious conception of the world. Stormy wasn't even fucking Trump for money. She was upset that Trump offered her money after sex and here is Pete dismissing her as "porn star" to burnish his image.

In his quest to paint himself as a Good Moral Christian Boy, Pete callously disrespects her. I would invite Pete to read his beloved gospel regarding the adulterous woman Christ saves from a mob.

This is what I mean when I ask which marginalized groups are truly in the crossfire between a sanctimonious "religious Left" and a bloodthirsty and ignorant "religious Right".

I like Pete. I just gave the Human Rights Council a decent piece of money see his husband speak. (Chasten's speech was phenomenal, by the way, and I will soon have the picture of him and me framed in my office.)

And I would very much like for him to shut the fuck up about religion. Boy Wonder isn't going to fly in from Indiana and solve the intractable, millennia-deep problems of Christendom versus a progressive society.

Those are just my values. Others can have different values. It's not a conspiracy.

[henrygandorf 29191]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He absolutely is, and in explicitly Biblical terms, comparing them to "Pharisees".

Yes, Pete's views comport with our own tolerant liberal views. He's smarter, better, more virtuous, and more pleasant than Mike Pence. He's a better person, but he's not a better Christian. His view of Christian doctrine is not more accurate. Both of those men pick and choose which religious tenets validate their secular values and move forward from there.

All of this should be rejected if our goal is acceptance of marginalized groups.

I do not want, as Pete advocates, "an emergence of the religious left". No thank you, Jimmy Carter (I'm old like Joy Behar, so she recognizes it, too),  please very very kindly keep all nice liberal white Christian thoughts and beliefs away from the governance of non-whites, LGBTQ, and non-Christians. (We have two non-Christians in the Dem 2020 slate, by the way. Something to keep in mind.)

 

Nope. I watch all this stuff. I read all this stuff.

I have a different worldview than many here, that's all. I watched the 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech from Obama and saw basically the exact same thing that Buttigieg is selling here.

He didn't learn those values from scripture. This is a man whose parents were both college professors at Notre Dame. Be honest.

If he did learn those values from scripture, that's extremely worrying.

Watch The View clip I linked,

"For those of us who think our values have to be in touch with our religious faith..."

What the hell does that mean?

He then says Pence's Christian faith is "largely about sexuality"... is it? I don't like Mike Pence, but is it REALLY fair to say that Pence's faith is "largely about sexuality"? Do we know that or is that just what we care about because it is our biggest disagreement with him politically/morally?

And right after that is the HUGE problem...

"And how did he attach himself to someone who gets caught writing hush money checks to porn stars..."

The moralistic shaming of Stormy Daniels and the dismissal of her humanity here completely betrays whatever point he thinks he's making with regard to a supposedly liberal Christianity and lays bare the inherent regressive and reactionary nature of ANY religious conception of the world. Stormy wasn't even fucking Trump for money. She was upset that Trump offered her money after sex and here is Pete dismissing her as "porn star" to burnish his image.

In his quest to paint himself as a Good Moral Christian Boy, Pete callously disrespects her. I would invite Pete to read his beloved gospel regarding the adulterous woman Christ saves from a mob.

This is what I mean when I ask which marginalized groups are truly in the crossfire between a sanctimonious "religious Left" and a bloodthirsty and ignorant "religious Right".

I like Pete. I just gave the Human Rights Council a decent piece of money see his husband speak. (Chasten's speech was phenomenal, by the way, and I will soon have the picture of him and me framed in my office.)

And I would very much like for him to shut the fuck up about religion. Boy Wonder isn't going to fly in from Indiana and solve the intractable, millennia-deep problems of Christendom versus a progressive society.

Those are just my values. Others can have different values. It's not a conspiracy.

there's a lot to unpack here, but i'm just going to pick a few things, because, who has the time.

1. i think he probably does think he's a better christian than mike pence, but that wasn't my point, nor was it what i said.  in the interviews i've seen, i think his angle is that mike pence is a hypocrite.  pence was a certain way (according to pete) and once he hitched his wagon to trump's star, he started acting differently, conveniently forgot things that were important to him, etc.  i'm not saying that's what happened, i'm saying i think that's the point pete is trying to make - as i've heard it several times.  i think he uses the phrase "largely about sexuality" because he knows pence's views on "people like him". 

2. the stormy daniels thing - get the entire fuck out of here with that nonsense.  first of all, the term "pornstar" is not an insult.  you may think you know it is, but i know i know it isn't.  in fact, many "adult film actresses" correct people to "pornstar" because they think it sounds better.  that's just the way that business is.  she carried on an affair with a rich, married guy - maybe not for money - but maybe for other perks.  and then when he realized he didn't want that story out there, he paid her to sign an nda.  she did.  she got paid.  so while technically not paying for sex, he paid for her silence.  and that's fine.  that's business.  like charlie sheen saying "i don't pay them to fuck me, i pay them to leave."

then, later, when she realized she could get more money from the whole thing, she tried to get out of it, and milk it for all it was worth.  which again, fine.  that's business.  but she is not a victim here, at least not in the sense that you're trying to act like pete is portraying her.  he's using her as a symbol to show pence's hypocrisy and trump's character.  basically saying the mike pence he knew (and he would know) didn't seem the type to go along with "the pornstar presidency".  his opinion on pence is relevant, because indiana.

3. i don't want this election to be about religion, trust me.  but once-a-fucking-gain - this is just who pete is.  it bothers a lot of people that trump is a liar, regardless of what he's actually lying about.  it bothers a lot of people that pence (and other republicans) seem to have abandoned what they stand for to bend the knee to trump.  that seems hypocritical to them, regardless of what the issue is.  right now, he's still introducing himself to the people.  and a lot of people are very very interested in someone who is the polar opposite of our current president.  that conversation involves many things, including religion.  he'll continue to use it to his advantage when he can, because that's who he is, and that's what important to him.

also, and i mean this with about as much respect as i can possibly muster, nobody on the pete thread gives a shit about what you find "extremely worrying."  be concerned someplace else, or wait until the general.

[Brisketexan 105139]

there's a lot to unpack here, but i'm just going to pick a few things, because, who has the time.
1. i think he probably does think he's a better christian than mike pence, but that wasn't my point, nor was it what i said.  in the interviews i've seen, i think his angle is that mike pence is a hypocrite.  pence was a certain way (according to pete) and once he hitched his wagon to trump's star, he started acting differently, conveniently forgot things that were important to him, etc.  i'm not saying that's what happened, i'm saying i think that's the point pete is trying to make - as i've heard it several times.  i think he uses the phrase "largely about sexuality" because he knows pence's views on "people like him". 
2. the stormy daniels thing - get the entire fuck out of here with that nonsense.  first of all, the term "pornstar" is not an insult.  you may think you know it is, but i know i know it isn't.  in fact, many "adult film actresses" correct people to "pornstar" because they think it sounds better.  that's just the way that business is.  she carried on an affair with a rich, married guy - maybe not for money - but maybe for other perks.  and then when he realized he didn't want that story out there, he paid her to sign an nda.  she did.  she got paid.  so while technically not paying for sex, he paid for her silence.  and that's fine.  that's business.  like charlie sheen saying "i don't pay them to fuck me, i pay them to leave."
then, later, when she realized she could get more money from the whole thing, she tried to get out of it, and milk it for all it was worth.  which again, fine.  that's business.  but she is not a victim here, at least not in the sense that you're trying to act like pete is portraying her.  he's using her as a symbol to show pence's hypocrisy and trump's character.  basically saying the mike pence he knew (and he would know) didn't seem the type to go along with "the pornstar presidency".  his opinion on pence is relevant, because indiana.
3. i don't want this election to be about religion, trust me.  but once-a-fucking-gain - this is just who pete is.  it bothers a lot of people that trump is a liar, regardless of what he's actually lying about.  it bothers a lot of people that pence (and other republicans) seem to have abandoned what they stand for to bend the knee to trump.  that seems hypocritical to them, regardless of what the issue is.  right now, he's still introducing himself to the people.  and a lot of people are very very interested in someone who is the polar opposite of our current president.  that conversation involves many things, including religion.  he'll continue to use it to his advantage when he can, because that's who he is, and that's what important to him.
also, and i mean this with about as much respect as i can possibly muster, nobody on the pete thread gives a shit about what you find "extremely worrying."  be concerned someplace else, or wait until the general.

You won’t even slow him down. He wants to say “hey, don’t hate me, I actually like Dem X,” while devoting the entirety of his being to nitpicking them based on every reason they aren’t exactly like the One and Only True Savior, the Lord Bernie.

There’s only one satisfactory outcome for the Bernie Bros, and they’ll happily destroy every other Dem candidate to get there. AND, if that means that Trump wins again, well, really, it’s OUR fault for not just surrendering early and drinking the Bernie Kool-aid (which, to be fair, probably has a nice prune-juice boost in it, which is healthy).

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

first of all, the term "pornstar" is not an insult.

How Pete uses it, it is.

Choice 1: "a guy who pays hush money to women"

Choice 2: "a guy who pays hush money to porn stars"

Don't be disingenuous.

Quote

be concerned someplace else

no

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

There’s only one satisfactory outcome for the Bernie Bros, and they’ll happily destroy every other Dem candidate to get there.

Being critical of someone's words is DESTROYING them.

(Go to the Bernie thread, I've criticized him twice today (immigration and Senate filibuster))

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How Pete uses it, it is.

Choice 1: "a guy who pays hush money to women"

Choice 2: "a guy who pays hush money to porn stars"

Don't be disingenuous.

i take writing fairly seriously, and i analyze the use of language whenever possible.  i choose my words carefully, and try not to be disingenuous.

he paid hush money (fact, she literally signed a document to be quiet) to a person who calls herself a pornstar (fact, pornstar is the highest level one can "achieve" in that business).  in fact, i think he's kinda gone out of his way to be unemotional and factual when presenting this information.  stormy is not the only woman he has paid money to sign an nda (fact, karen mcdougal).

actually, the real victim here is karen mcdougal, who has far as i know, is just someone who posed nude (was in playboy) but has never been in an adult film.  whereas stormy daniels has likely been in a couple hundred movies/scenes.  stormy has been a lot of things through this process, but a "victim" was never one of them.  and she was certainly not victimized by mayor pete.  also her lawyer seems like a class act.

so, in short, leslie and brandi maxxxx are essentially the same person.   

 

[Brisketexan 105139]

I also like how B T wants Pete to be inauthentic.

“Even if his faith helped form and inform his moral worldview, he should hide that, because everyone knows that all Christians suck and will just oppress every marginalized person de jour.”

There’s no room inside B T’s tent for anyone who violates ANY of his purity laws. Christian, even of the progressive sort? BEGONE!

B T is a modern Leviticus, with no sense of irony.

[bad_teammate 13195]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i take writing fairly seriously, and i analyze the use of language whenever possible.

Then why did Pete go with Option 2 instead of Option 1?

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Then why did Pete go with Option 2 instead of Option 1?

you'd have to ask him.

my opinion?  it's more specific, descriptive, and illustrates better how much of a fucking hypocrite/sellout he believes mike pence to be.  there are people on the right who say "yeah, trump is a buffoon, but mike pence is virtuous af - look at how dedicated he is to his faith."

since there are two women that we know about, and one is a pornstar, i don't see an issue with it.  he didn't say "whore" or hooker, or prostitute, implying sex for money.  he literally called her what she calls herself.  if you think that term is offensive, well, then i guess it worked.

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 hours ago, F250 said:

The criticism of the Episcopal church is interesting because there was a time that the Republican establishment was probably made up of Episcopalians. Did the Trumpkins lock up all of the remaining WASPs in a basement or something?

Why yes they did. How’d ya find out?

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think he's painting mike pence as a bad christian.  i think he's painting mike pence as a fucking hypocrite.  hard to argue otherwise.

i think he's painting trump as a bad christian (or more generally, someone who doesn't take religion seriously, but claims to).  i think he's painting a bunch of them as liars, panderers, and sellouts for trying to politicize and win through claiming something that's false, while he actually claims it because it's true.

Yeah you make some good points but can you prove that mike pence isn’t thinking about dicks right now at this very moment. Because I bet you can’t.

So basically mike is thinking about dicks right now and hates himself for it, Pete is doing the same yet owning it, and trump is thinking about how very very small his dick is and is planning on blowing up the world because of that fact.

Need more vaginas and less dicks, I says. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Listen, everyone on here knows and I think I’ve made it quite clear that I find BT’s methods of discussion exhausting, so much so that I’ve stopped engaging with him because I don’t feel he is coming from a place of good faith in how he applies criticism to everyone not named Bernie Sanders and how he will defend Bernie on things he would eviscerate other candidates for.

(And I’m not going to rehash this BT - I’m just giving background for any new folks in this thread so what comes next will be taken seriously lol)

So, when I say I agree with BT on his point of Pete choosing to use “pornstar” over “woman”, y’all know that’s hard for me lol.

Trump is accused of paying multiple women hush money for extramarital activities to keep them quiet during the campaign. The hush money and the fact that there are multiple women should be the bigger moral issue than what one of those individual women do for a living.

Y’all know I love Pete. I’m not a purity test person. But I am one of the few women that post here and the way he phrased that struck me as him going for the most salacious aspect and making a moral judgment on her as much as he was on Trump for being a cheating whore and Pence for being a blind eye turning hypocrite.

It doesn’t make me hate him and he’s not canceled but it struck me as a typical male thing to say.

“A man who has paid hush money to multiple women in order to silence them from speaking out about his behavior and his breaking of his marriage vows.”

Emphasize all the bad behavior is his, the moral judgment is on him not the women, don’t single out just one of the women because there are multiple, don’t specify anything about the women because they didn’t break any vows so no need to morally judge them, point out the hush money which focuses on the fact that there may be legal issues beyond moral issues.

Stormy didn’t do anything wrong except exercise gross judgment by fucking a fat disgusting orange mushroom dicked shitgibbon.

Including the pornstar crack just felt like another brick in a big narrative wall of “yeah, he’s a cheating fuck but come on, she’s just a pornstar” that happens to women all the time.

I ain’t getting into all the other stuff about religion on the left and religion on the right because quite frankly, religion in politics makes me uncomfortable no matter if it’s blue or red. If it’s an integral part of a candidate, I guess I don’t expect them to ignore it but I have become so jaded about religion that I’m automatically suspicious of anyone that’s super vocal about it or uses it as a major basis for policy or business.

I’m a heathen like that.

[henrygandorf 29191]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah you make some good points but can you prove that mike pence isn’t thinking about dicks right now at this very moment. Because I bet you can’t.

So basically mike is thinking about dicks right now and hates himself for it, Pete is doing the same yet owning it, and trump is thinking about how very very small his dick is and is planning on blowing up the world because of that fact.

Need more vaginas and less dicks, I says. 

hey look you fucking asshole piece of shit jerkface.

i have always been pro-vagina.  please don't paint me any other way.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

hey look you fucking asshole piece of shit jerkface.

i have always been pro-vagina.  please don't paint me any other way.

Did I say henrygandorf was thinking about dicks and was anti vajay? Because if I did I most seriously and strenuously apologize good sir. And a Good day to you. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Did I say henrygandorf was thinking about dicks and was anti vajay? Because if I did I most seriously and strenuously apologize good sir. And a Good day to you. 

i'm just fucking with you - i tried to make that obvious and apologize if i didn't.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

i'm just fucking with you - i tried to make that obvious and apologize if i didn't.

Oh I know. Same with you. I should have used my proper English accent for my last post. The bathroom wall of the net can sometimes be hard to interpret.

[henrygandorf 29191]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Oh I know. Same with you. I should have used my proper English accent for my last post. The bathroom wall of the net can sometimes be hard to interpret.

well, #politicsboard

[henrygandorf 29191]

16 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Listen, everyone on here knows and I think I’ve made it quite clear that I find BT’s methods of discussion exhausting, so much so that I’ve stopped engaging with him because I don’t feel he is coming from a place of good faith in how he applies criticism to everyone not named Bernie Sanders and how he will defend Bernie on things he would eviscerate other candidates for.

(And I’m not going to rehash this BT - I’m just giving background for any new folks in this thread so what comes next will be taken seriously lol)

So, when I say I agree with BT on his point of Pete choosing to use “pornstar” over “woman”, y’all know that’s hard for me lol.

Trump is accused of paying multiple women hush money for extramarital activities to keep them quiet during the campaign. The hush money and the fact that there are multiple women should be the bigger moral issue than what one of those individual women do for a living.

Y’all know I love Pete. I’m not a purity test person. But I am one of the few women that post here and the way he phrased that struck me as him going for the most salacious aspect and making a moral judgment on her as much as he was on Trump for being a cheating whore and Pence for being a blind eye turning hypocrite.

It doesn’t make me hate him and he’s not canceled but it struck me as a typical male thing to say.

“A man who has paid hush money to multiple women in order to silence them from speaking out about his behavior and his breaking of his marriage vows.”

Emphasize all the bad behavior is his, the moral judgment is on him not the women, don’t single out just one of the women because there are multiple, don’t specify anything about the women because they didn’t break any vows so no need to morally judge them, point out the hush money which focuses on the fact that there may be legal issues beyond moral issues.

Stormy didn’t do anything wrong except exercise gross judgment by fucking a fat disgusting orange mushroom dicked shitgibbon.

Including the pornstar crack just felt like another brick in a big narrative wall of “yeah, he’s a cheating fuck but come on, she’s just a pornstar” that happens to women all the time.

I ain’t getting into all the other stuff about religion on the left and religion on the right because quite frankly, religion in politics makes me uncomfortable no matter if it’s blue or red. If it’s an integral part of a candidate, I guess I don’t expect them to ignore it but I have become so jaded about religion that I’m automatically suspicious of anyone that’s super vocal about it or uses it as a major basis for policy or business.

I’m a heathen like that.

you're a woman, so i will defer to your perspective.  but in my opinion, stormy took no offense until it was in her benefit to do so.  and to my knowledge, she's never taken any offense to the term "pornstar".  i honestly don't think it's a pejorative term, but i could be wrong.  it's happened before.

and when i say "take offense", i'm talking about to what the president did - i know she hasn't or would never publicly denounce anything mayor pete has said (even if she wanted to).  i don't think anyone has used the term pornstar in the way you're suggesting (excusing the president for his actions - "she's just a pornstar").  but maybe i'm blinded by living in la and being exposed (slightly) to that life.  i think people use it to embarrass him, (as they should) not her.  she shouldn't be ashamed - she chose that life, and profited greatly from it.  he should be ashamed, he's the leader of the free world.  i'm sorry, but yeah, there's a double standard.

to me, it's more of a case of pete hearing about the incident (like we all did) and asking who she was.  the response is, "she's a pornstar."  that's not editorializing - that's just calling her who she is.  if he said, "yeah, and he paid some hooker" and someone responded, "whoa, she's not a hooker" and his comeback was, "she got money, she slept with him, therefore she's a hooker, a whore" - then yes, that would be obnoxious and horrible.  but calling her a pornstar i think is just how she's known because that's literally the name of her profession.

once again, this is my opinion, and i'm a straight white male.  fire away.

[henrygandorf 29191]

also, (hey triple post!) i still think anytime mayor pete brings it up, it's a slam on pence, not trump (ironically).  obviously it's a pretty easy 2-for-1 situation, but typically he brings it up when asked about pence.  not that it's excusable or acceptable, but i think it's interesting, that he's using this particular angle to go after the vp.  it's almost like we've been discussing, that these types of issues could potentially divide the party.

i know it's a long shot, but man, that would be fucking great.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This guy gets it.  

Bravo 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Love to attack a woman with as much specificity and dismissiveness as I can to prove how not-sexist my argument is lol

Shot:

10 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i take writing fairly seriously, and i analyze the use of language whenever possible.

Chaser:

10 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

you'd have to ask him.

That's not serious analysis of his words and motivations. That's defensiveness.

That's the problem with trying to out-Jesus people. Pete needs to stop it.

[Celery Man 20949]

imo to the extent it is possible, more explicitly stating the nature of Trump's extramarital affairs (in the most high profile payoff cases he was fucking a pornstar and a nude model) = more directly poking the cognitive dissonance or at least illustrating the hypocrisy of his delusional base.  It's a statement about them and less about the women.  I think I would have a bit of the same reaction that bama chick talks about if he was categorizing Karen McDougal as a pornstar, since I don't think that she applies that label to herself.  That's not the case with Stormy Daniels and so I don't have that reaction, and think it's silly to pull that punch.  But I'm a male, so whatever.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

11 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

imo to the extent it is possible, more explicitly stating the nature of Trump's extramarital affairs (in the most high profile payoff cases he was fucking a pornstar and a nude model) = more directly poking the cognitive dissonance or at least illustrating the hypocrisy of his delusional base.  It's a statement about them and less about the women.  I think I would have a bit of the same reaction that bama chick talks about if he was categorizing Karen McDougal as a pornstar, since I don't think that she applies that label to herself.  That's not the case with Stormy Daniels and so I don't have that reaction, and think it's silly to pull that punch.  But I'm a male, so whatever.

Yeah, this is where I'm at.

The pornstar dig isn't a shot at Stormy.  It's a shot at bible clutching evangelicals.  Not only did he cheat on his wife and payoff the person he slept with, but he was tying himself to pornography - something they find immoral regardless of the participant's gender.

[bad_teammate 13195]

It's just bizarre that the two modes of accepted discussion for some of you are "uncritical adulation" and "bad-faith hate". CHOOSE ONE!

The fact that being demeaning towards women has a purpose (to attack Trump/Pence) doesn't mean it isn't demeaning towards women. It would cost Pete nothing there to be respectful and charitable towards the women (either by not even bringing them up or referring to them simply as "women"), but it wouldn't be as insulting to Trump/Pence.  And Pete knows that, because Pete is smart. He reads Mahfouz; he knows about words.

If I'm trying to rile up a bunch of racists as much as possible by accusing my fellow-white opponent of sleeping with a black woman, am I going to call that woman a "black woman" or am I going to use the n-word? (After all, they call themselves that!)

Again, this isn't me saying Pete is #CANCELLED, this is me saying that my ideal Democratic candidate keeps as silent as possible on religion and keeps completely silent on religiously-motivated moralizing.

[yoladu 4094]

16 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think this clip answers your questions. 

 

Sooo good.

but also a hard slap to the face as I slowly realize I may be becoming a stranger in my own country. How could this not resonate with my fellow countrymen? I fear, for the most part, it does not.

Edited April 9, 2019 by yoladu

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's just bizarre that the two modes of accepted discussion for some of you are "uncritical adulation" and "bad-faith hate". CHOOSE ONE!

The fact that being demeaning towards women has a purpose (to attack Trump/Pence) doesn't mean it isn't demeaning towards women. It would cost Pete nothing there to be respectful and charitable towards the women (either by not even bringing them up or referring to them simply as "women"), but it wouldn't be as insulting to Trump/Pence.  And Pete knows that, because Pete is smart. He reads Mahfouz; he knows about words.

 If I'm trying to rile up a bunch of racists as much as possible by accusing my fellow-white opponent of sleeping with a black woman, am I going to call that woman a "black woman" or am I going to use the n-word? (After all, they call themselves that!)

 Again, this isn't me saying Pete is #CANCELLED, this is me saying that my ideal Democratic candidate keeps as silent as possible on religion and keeps completely silent on religiously-motivated moralizing.

Comparing "pornstar" to the n-word is one of the most insane things you've ever posted on this site.

[406W30th 1111]

Quote

“[Religion] teaches us to reach out to others, to humble ourselves, to take care of others — the immigrant, the prisoner, and, frankly, the sex worker.”

Notice Pete's use of the phrase "sex worker". Not only is the call to look after sex workers a bold (and very much the correct) thing to do, framing it in religious terms is even more impressive.

I guess calling Stormy Daniels an "adult film actress" would have been more sensitive, but getting up in arms over using the term "pornstar" borders on ridiculous. 

[Celery Man 20949]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's just bizarre that the two modes of accepted discussion for some of you are "uncritical adulation" and "bad-faith hate". CHOOSE ONE!

The fact that being demeaning towards women has a purpose (to attack Trump/Pence) doesn't mean it isn't demeaning towards women. It would cost Pete nothing there to be respectful and charitable towards the women (either by not even bringing them up or referring to them simply as "women"), but it wouldn't be as insulting to Trump/Pence.  And Pete knows that, because Pete is smart. He reads Mahfouz; he knows about words.

If I'm trying to rile up a bunch of racists as much as possible by accusing my fellow-white opponent of sleeping with a black woman, am I going to call that woman a "black woman" or am I going to use the n-word? (After all, they call themselves that!)

Again, this isn't me saying Pete is #CANCELLED, this is me saying that my ideal Democratic candidate keeps as silent as possible on religion and keeps completely silent on religiously-motivated moralizing.

I don't know why you the old white male need to anoint yourself as the person in charge of what is demeaning to Stormy Daniels.  Maybe she can handle that on her own.

[Celery Man 20949]

[Fozzz 152]

Trump fucking pornstars is probably the coolest thing about him.  

[kevwun 15788]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

I don't know why you the old white male need to anoint yourself as the person in charge of what is demeaning to Stormy Daniels.  Maybe she can handle that on her own.

It's because he exists to attack every Dem candidate not named Bernie Sanders.  I don't know why anyone takes him seriously.

Edited April 9, 2019 by kevwun

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

Republicans trying to fight back on Buttigieg's remarks regarding Pence. 

 

Buttigieg's subtweet response: 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Wouldn't it be Pence's tolerant obligation to work with Trump regardless of Trump's sins?

lol religion

[bad_teammate 13195]

A supremely underrated reason to want Pete to win is his husband, Chasten, who is awesome.

What little we heard of his story at the HRC dinner a few nights ago was fascinating. He came out to his parents and it didn't go well. He didn't go into details, but he was very emotional and diplomatic about his family. He told a great story about a teacher who helped him and how it inspired him to become a teacher. He also made a joke about being the first man to pick out the White House China, and it killed.

Once summer hits this guy is going to do a hell of a lot of good on the campaign trail. I could listen to him talk for an hour.

[Js1 85336]

LOLOL this is literally all Christians do to non Christians 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

"You think sermonizing is your ally..."

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

 

Click-baity headline, but worth reading. Seems like the reporter was trying his hardest to nail Buttigieg on this issue, but even the people critical of Pete appreciate his ability to adapt/listen. 

 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20939]

I fucking love that Pete called out Pence and the religious right has been triggered. 

 

These fucking hypocritical pieces of shit.