What's new
By:

The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

The Thriller said:
Imagine the ugliness we’d be seeing right now if Biden stepped down and Mayor Pete were the frontrunner. The amount of disgusting homophobia that’d be coming out from Republicans would be insane. “Do you want a pedophile groomer commie socialist as president? Tee hee who’d be the First Lady tee hee gay!” It would make the the racism on display in 2008 look tame.
Click to expand...
Sure but they will do that anyway with any candidate so I would simply love to have a candidate at the top of their game. Pete is great at taking that kind of heat and handles it extremely well. I would love to see it.
 
Red said:
Well, I’m up there, and my mind is still as sharp as a tac! Now, let me see where I left my coffee this time…..
Click to expand...
Yep and there are exceptions to everything. There are 70 and 80 year olds that are super sharp and have tons of energy (bernie sanders for example) but they are the exception. Im sure there are 20 year olds that are mature beyond their years and would make a great president but we have a minimum age requirement because 20 year olds being able to a good job as president are the exceptions as well.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I was just riffing on what OB said about still being effective in politics into their 70's. We could as easily amend this to be that they cannot run after age 67, so at 67 is the last time they could run, meaning ending their last term if they get 8 years at 75. Seems somewhat reasonable. Although I agree with you about younger being better for our president. I wouldn't mind if they cut it off at 60, that at 60 is the last time you can run for office, with a single re-election allowed past that if you get elected, and that could go for any politician in the country. Senate or congress, last time to run it at 60 years old, and if your final term takes you past 60, say it ends when you are 61 or something, then that is it, you retire. Done and done.

Then they can become lobbyists for 10 years and add millions to their already hefty wealth. Seems like a win-win to me.
Click to expand...
I would vote for this to implemented.
 
fishonjazz said:
Sure but they will do that anyway with any candidate so I would simply love to have a candidate at the top of their game. Pete is great at taking that kind of heat and handles it extremely well. I would love to see it.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that this anti-LGBTQ stuff plays really well with older rural voters, it absolutely doesn't play well with younger voters. Having a gay Presidential candidate will clarify party affiliation for a huge chunk of the population who will presumably be voting for a very long time.
 
fishonjazz said:
I would vote for this to implemented.
Click to expand...
It would have to be a Constitutional amendment.

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that State’s consent.
Click to expand...
 
I just looked and it seems the average age of a Congress person is declining while the average age of a senator is increasing. I didn't look at age of the president because I think it is clearly increasing, but since it's one person any outl
fishonjazz said:
Im good with that.
Click to expand...
Sure but in reality it means it would never happen.
 
Gameface said:
Not to mention that this anti-LGBTQ stuff plays really well with older rural voters, it absolutely doesn't play well with younger voters. Having a gay Presidential candidate will clarify party affiliation for a huge chunk of the population who will presumably be voting for a very long time.
Click to expand...
I think this might be a confusing post.

What I mean is that if Buttigieg ran there would be nasty AF anti-gay messages all over the place. That would fire up gram gram and gramps and the nasty crowd that gets off on hate, but the younger voters would be disgusted and likely decide that they want to be part of the opposition to that kind of rhetoric, where they may have not really cared before.

I read something recently that showed that most people who leave their religion do so because they don't believe it's true, followed by they don't like the way their church/religion treats the LGBTQ community.

So counting out people who simply don't believe anymore the leading cause of people leaving their religion is how their religious community and authority figures therein treat gay, bi, and trans people. Being anti-LGBTQ is going to be a long-term loser for conservatives and that negative effect could be accelerated by a gay Presidential candidate, especially one as smart, articulate and personable as Pete Buttigieg.

That said I think Pete would likely lose because boomers are still the largest voting block. Largely because they vote most often.
 
Last edited:
Gameface said:
I think this might be a confusing post.

What I mean is that if Buttigieg ran there would be nasty AF anti-gay messages all over the place. That would fire up gram gram and gramps and the nasty crowd that gets off on hate, but the younger voters would be disgusted and likely decide that they want to be part of the opposition to that kind of rhetoric, where they may have not really cared before.

I read something recently that showed that most people who leave their religion do so because they don't believe it's true, followed by they don't like the way their church/religion treats the LGBTQ community.

So counting out people who simply don't believe anymore the leading cause of people leaving their religion is how their religious community and authority figures therein treat gay, bi, and trans people. Being anti-LGBTQ is going to be a long-term loser for conservatives and that negative effect could be accelerated by a gay Presidential candidate, especially one as smart, articulate and personable as Pete Buttigieg.

That said I think Pete would likely lose because boomers are still the largest voting block. Largely because they vote most often.
Click to expand...
Good post. I’d love for Pete to run again. And I agree, he’d definitely help the youth turnout. However, it would be one ugly campaign against him because he’s a married gay man. I wouldn’t want to see that. And I don’t believe key electoral college states would vote for a gay man. If the president were elected by a popular vote? Than by all means. But since the election is determined by more conservative and generally older states, I don’t think he stands a chance right now.

I don’t see Pete winning in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, states that actually determine the election. We’d be essentially handing the keys to the White House back to Trump.

I could be wrong. Maybe Pete gets enough of the youth and LGBT vote out in those states to win. But I think it’s a risk. Wish the president was elected by the popular vote. It’d force candidates to appeal to the younger and more mainstream electorate rather than ponder to the old white conservative farts living decades in the past in swing states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top