Buttigieg's Elephant
A late night conversation around a campfire at a recent Indian Guides campout (after the boys had gone to bed) turned to a discussion of Buttigieg's "elephant in the room", namely his gay marriage and what that portends for the White House should he be elected. I was surprised at a comment of one of our tribe's African-American dads that his faith and its opposition to gay marriage would make it very difficult, even as a Democrat, to vote to have a "dude" as a "first lady". He's Southern Baptist. This led to wonder if the candidate's gay marriage will ever be openly discussed from a standpoint of how the country and/or presidency will be acceptable to people of faith both in the US and internationally, especially both fundamental Christians and Muslims. While I've always assumed that sooner or later we'd have a female President and a male "First Gentleman", I admit I'm not sure I'm ready for the President of the United States publicly holding hands, or having other public display's of affection,with his husband. Comments appreciated.
Oh, yeah, new thought. Open borders.
Currently, about 4.5% of the population is gay. A little over 7 millions. That may seem like a lot. To me that is a very small number compared to the rest of the population. Therefore, I don't believe that Buttigieg's lifestyle of choice represents me or the rest of the American voters. Not to mention Buttigieg's cuck ideas on issues affecting America. I also think his pandering to specific groups for votes is nauseating.
Perhaps I am generalizing too much in this day and age, but as a Hispanic, someone like Buttigieg would not draw too many Hispanic votes from any other candidate. Backwards or not, we Hispanic men still hold a streak of machismo in which men and women act and have different roles in relationships. Right now the DNC doesn't really have a worthy candidate to go against Trump. I guess they'll have to come up with a swim suit competition to determine a winner. If so, Trump can give them guidance on that too.
As things develop, I'm betting we will find that Hispanic voters are just as uncomfortable with the idea of a gay president. Ironically, both black and Hispanic voters are more morally conservative than their white counterparts, who are very much into virtue signalling their tolerance for deviant practices. That's the real "war" in the Democrat party, moral progressives vs moral conservatives.
A completely agree that interaction and negotations with muslim countries can be absolutely affected. I seriously doubt he would be "allowed" to bring his "husband" to their country. America can allow what it wants within its borders. But, we cannot force it on others. It is just another problem we DO NOT need. International negotiations/treaties complicated by this??? We do not need it.
There were enough rumors floating around about NObama.
That said, he IS a democrat and wants bigger government, which kicks him out of the running for me. He will probably never make it as the democratic nominee, as their bent is to get a woman in there before a gay dude. Unfortunately this time around, democrats are so intent on getting rid of Trump that they have very little to offer the country.
Right with you there.
THAT is how far the liberal agenda has infiltrated our consciousness. We can't even say we don't like a certain behavior, or that we think it's wrong!
Though I have happily worked alongside admittedly queer people, it still disgusts me to see acts, normally acceptable between men and women, shared by two of the same sex.
I have no concerns about the religious beliefs of a Presidential candidate and possibly would consider a female, should she exhibit the necessary attributes. However, I will never accept a candidate who openly exhibits attributes that many consider "unnatural" in human society.
I don't generally make blanket statements, but I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people across the country who agree with you, who just aren't ready for a President and his husband in the White House.
It could pose some logistic problems, as I don't think his marriage would be recognized everywhere he went. And I quite agree that could very well cause some serious problems with certain cultures (one of which throws gay men off rooftops).
(Warning: Completely subjective opinion to follow.) My issue with the idea is the radical push he would make to further shove the so-called LGBTAtoZ "rights" deeper and deeper into mainstream America (no pun intended; I just don't know how else to word that idea).
And I hope nobody accepts the media like that this guy is a moderate Dem. He's just as radical as any other D running; he's just being quiet about it.
However, if he is the candidate, I don't think the media will "allow" President Trump to make a campaign issue of it. He'll be branded as "Homophobe In Chief" if he utters even one word about it.
So while it may be an elephant, I don't think it's one that can or will be a campaign topic. Trump can blast the Sanders/et al Medicare for All plans, and he can show the utter idiocy of any kind of Green New Deal. But the alphabet groups? Totally off limits. It might be the biggest mistake Trump could make that could seriously jeopardize his re-election chances.
Or….if Chasten becomes First Man, what would that make Mayor Pete….Madam President???
This is all very confusing to me….
I admit that I never understood the homosexual lifestyle. To me, a wife is a female. In a homosexual marriage, I don’t know who does what…..with which…..and to whom……….and I don’t want to know.
As far as the co-opted term “gay” is concerned, I find that the notion of 2 men engaging in oral and/or anal sex with each other to be anything but gay. Disgusting, yes……..Aberrant, yes. …..Abnormal, yes….Deviant, yes…… · divergent · · transgressing …… strange …..· odd…… queer….all yes……….but not gay!
The problem is that the “4%”, with the help of vote pandering liberal politicians and a sympathetic press, have manipulated the legal system such that the law forces the 96% majority to accept their perverted lifestyle…..under pain of punishment, if need be. So, regardless of religious conviction and personal opinion, we are forced to accept homosexual marriage, trans men in women’s bathrooms, and lesbians who demand wedding cakes that support their evil wedding ceremonies.
Just another sign that we are in moral decline.
One huge steaming pile of male bovine excrement!
Anyway, none of this matter because Mayor Pete will not win the White House in November, 2020.
"Think of how stupid the average voter is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
also
"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” H.L. Mencken
Mencken also said,
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
Similar, Philosopher Bertrand Russell,
"Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power."
(Socialism in one sentence)
Hell……the world isn’t ready for a homosexual POTUS….or top leader in any other country……(except perhaps in San Francisco).
That may not be politically correct, but who cares….because there It is.
The Arab world would have ideological field day……America ……the Great Satan….I can hear it now.
We would suffer in every strong measure of international stature that President Trump has regained for this country.
But then…..I digress……because…..it ain’t gonna happen, G.I.
Trump/Pence – 2020 MAGA!
Time to stop it.
Then, some of that kind of objection may dissipate, comment on the policies and actions not the sex/gender of the current squeeze.
So does Sanders or Warren.
These wannabe "politicians" (I have an issue calling them that: more appropriate is "opportunists" in the worse sense of the word.) use public appearance as a vanity tool. They are fully aware they don't have a lick to be elected but they parade and masquerade, nonetheless, fraudulently spending campaign contributions to satisfy their miserable egos.
The entire process of electing the next president is getting more and more disgusting and corrupt, pretending to be a legitimate undertaking. It is not. Ceased be one a long time ago.
Should we mock that? Regardless whether the universe would collapse as a result or not, it will have an effect on the brain, the mind and our behaviors...what's next, what else do we ignore, how far down that rabbit hole do we go before we can never return.
Having married men in our white house as President and first dude would be ultimately bad for society and if one believes " our covenant" to be a valid thing...it would be bad for that too, bad for society and a bad example for children as well...but that is exactly what postmodernist want to happen.
They have no morals nor any meaningful connection to anything but their Idiot-ology.
The purpose of relations between the 2 sexes is bringing another human being into existence. As God inteneded it to be.
It wasn't until he returned from Afghanistan when when he decided to 'come out', announcing his homosexuality. For the most part, the residents of South Bend, IN couldn't care less. He did get some flak from some, primarily the more religiously fundamental people of the city. After the initial clatter, it settled down and returned to business-as-usual.
The fact that South Bend can get past this topic is a possible marker of the attitude of the country. Yes, there will be those who will not accept him, even if the voice of God thunders down declaring "HE'S GOOD". Even this is what makes this country so awesome.
Throughout the interview, I had this increasingly confirming feel that this man prefers results (like an objectivist) with little regard to what people think of him. His skin is thicker than many.
If he's elected, the elephant will eventually fade away. Let the Muslims, Catholics and fundamentalists cry, eventually it'll just go away.
All issues combined, he can't win.
Neither should Sanders be able too, but....