[Closed] Pete Buttigieg

@vestralux You have clarified so much for me.  Thank you. All you have written here feels right and as always, you write it so well.  Is it okay with you if I move both our posts to the Pete Buttigieg thread?  I had already moved my own post about Masha Gessen's article to that thread while you were writing your post. 

@jeanne-mayell

I know this should probably go under a different thread, but I wanted to respond to your earlier message about posting and searching for predictions:

I do like @vestralux ’s idea about creating a separate forum topic where people could post predictions that come up for them outside the group Read the Future nights.  They could all be housed in one place, instead of scattered throughout some of the forum threads.  But as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don’t want to complicate things or create more work for you or anyone.  Perhaps we could just leave it up to each individual who posts a  prediction to be personally responsible for alerting you when one of their predictions comes about, using the proper format and links?  Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. 

Thank you, Jeanne, for all that you do for us.  It's amazing how much this community has grown since I joined in late 2018.  I can only imagine how much work is involved for you in maintaining this wonderful site. I never want to take this community or you for granted.  What you have developed is a labor of love, and is clearly driven by Spirit. I don’t know where I’d be, especially during these trying times, without the love and support of this wonderful community.  Bless you, dear Jeanne.

@vestralux

How beautifully said.  I admire Pete in many ways and I fear for his safety in this cruel, medievally retro world in which we live. The more the primary season goes on, the more his inexperience shows.  I admire his bravery in speaking his truth about his sexual preference and his Christian faith and know the far right evangelicals would try to destroy him for those things alone.  Yet, I don't think he's ready for the presidency.  I can see him growing and gaining more experience at a national level first.  That said, if he received the nomination, I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him.  We must get rid of the Orange One, after all.   Love you. 

Pete reminds me of Obama, and it's interesting that Obama is a big admirer of his. Obama always struck me as someone who wanted acceptance in society. He's a decent man and was an honest president, but he wasn't progressive enough, and not the right person, in my opinion, to fight the crazy right wing. If the right is increasingly unhinged and authoritarian, the democrats can't just be middle of the road, because there will be no counterbalance to the right's extremism. Obama occupied a fantasy land where reasonable people could find common ground, except the other side was never reasonable. I fear Pete thinks the same way. Nice guys, but they bring a library book a gun fight. 

@Jeanne-Mayell

Thank you so much, Jeanne. And of course! Always feel free to move my sidebars. :) 

@BlueBelle

I agree totally.

Though, I do think Pete could potentially split off the votes of a growing group of younger evangelicals. Of course, that political divide appears to be growing with or without Pete. So, like you said, if he does take the nomination somehow, I think his greater weakness is his inexperience. Obviously, T had zero experience for the job, but he's an anomaly in every sense (and one I pray we never see again).

My greater concern for the last year has been that, as soon as T and Pence are out of the picture, Nikki Haley steps forward and the party rallies behind her. If she were somehow in the running, however unlikely, I personally think the only Democratic candidate left with a chance of beating her is probably Klobuchar. 

She's as essentially conservative as Pete, if not more so, which makes her unappealing to me, though I respect her a great deal and would, of course, vote for her. Amy is definitely experienced and highly skilled at addressing nonsense with grace and power. The winner will need those things—in the T scenario or this one (with Nikki Haley).

Nikki is like a vampire or an old witch from a fairytale; she uses a powerful brand of glamour magic to convince the world she's charming, alluring, compelling, rational, fair-minded, and safe. In reality, she's venomous. She's at least as ambitious as T (which is to say, the maximum amount of ambitious), yet she's actually a diehard. She'd be just as ruthless behind the scenes in fulfilling every neocon/Tea Party fantasy, just with something called subtlety and a lot more cunning. And just like in 2016, a lot of former Obama voters would be hypnotized by the spell. 

@vestralux

The ability of enough voters to accept a gay man, along with the huge presence of homophobia that will show up at the polls to keep it from happening has scared me about Pete from day one.

Excuse the rant to follow but the whole thing is just irritating to me. Homophobia is so strong in so many people. Personally I dont understand it. If you are gay, and not forcing me to participate in it, then what effect does it have on me? If you're a gay man, your homosexuality means less competition for me in the dating pool. If I'm religious and think you're going to hell for it, there's more room in Heaven for me because of it. If God says it's an abomination, then let him deal with that. it's his job not mine(not even bothering with the idea that if were supposedly made in his image, "he" has to be gay on some level as well since otherwise the whole premise wont work). If I'm convinced the gay population all has HIV, then I dont have to worry because I'm not having sex with them. I know these sound archaic and simplistic, but I dont get why more people dont take on this way of thinking and instead they take the more archaic views of homophobia.Add that to the fact that unless we are informed or way too damn nosy, we dont know who anyone else is sleeping with anyway and people forced to stay closeted aren't any less gay. 

@mas1581

Thanks, MAS. I don't think your arguments are archaic or simplistic. They're rational, and I'm glad you have them. And since we're on the subject, I'll try to briefly offer why I believe they don't occur to most people who experience homophobia—and even LGTBQ+ folks experience it on some level, or have, because it's endemic to our culture—it's built into the code.  

The reason, I believe, is more to do with some innate fear/repulsion we wrestle with in patriarchy about emasculation. Think about the degree of hate crimes people in the LGBTQ+ community face based on identity. Gay men generally experience more than lesbians. Among lesbians, masculine or gender-nonconforming women experience more hate than femmes/feminine women. Among gay men, effeminate/fem men experience more bashing than others. Trans people experience more than all others previously listed, and trans women, most of all. (Trans women of color? The most.) 

We're effectively living in a Judeo-Christian culture based on 3,000+ year old traditionalist values about sexuality and gender roles. So, we're really talking about something much older: the need to police masculinity (and men, surprise!) in order to ensure that the small, walled-off villages and cities our ancient ancestors built in the Levant could survive when attacked and continue to grow in numbers. Keep the men manly! It scares foreigners! Talk about simplistic and archaic. ;)

@vestralux

Those weren't exactly my personal beliefs/rationales. They are where I'm surprised simplistic thought patterns dont end up at. Without trying to sound too elitist, stupid people tend to think about themselves first and how everything effects them, so I'm surprised that more dont see it from those simplistic points of view. My viewpoint is simple-I dont give a damn who or what you do as long as you're not hurting anyone else in the process. It's your business not mine. That goes for sexuality, religion, and everything else. 

Its 3000 year old religiously modified beliefs. 3000 years ago homosexuality was as prevalent as it is today and accepted in many parts of the world if you look at period writings. It also was considered a choice for pleasure for straight people as well as a lifestyle for those were gay. It looks to me like the churches came in and, as with almost everything, decided the rules for everyone. Organized religion has been such a tool of oppression and hatred since the dawn of days. If we can ever get past that, then maybe we can evolve. 

I was in a similar conversation earlier today with someone about all major western religions(Judaism/Christianity/Islam) being basically the same religion/belief system with the only differences being certain peoples classification and a few instances of semantics. The other person wasnt having any of that because his "God" was the right God. Once that idea comes into play, even the most free thinking people seem to turn to sheep and follow whatever they're told, no matter how asinine it is. 

And just to add one thing to my thoughts on it all(as of I haven't done that enough yet. Lol), I know a lot of people who are mortified by the thought of being hit on by the same sex. I have been approached by both women and gay men in my life and although it's taken as a compliment from anyone, it's a bigger compliment to me to be approached by a gay man because they are risking a lot to do it. 

Posted by: @mas1581

@vestralux

Those weren't exactly my personal beliefs/rationales. They are where I'm surprised simplistic thought patterns dont end up at.  

I understood you were pointing to the illogic of religiously prescribed homophobia.

Regarding the larger historical (and sheer biological) picture of homosexuality/homoeroticism, right. I take the view that it's innate to all mammals and most other species to some degree. Thus, natural.

I was specifically pointing to the Levant, an ancient region (approximately located in present-day Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria—so, the regional birthplace of Judaism and Christianity (and very nearby, Islam).

But 3,000+ years ago specifically, Christianity didn't yet exist. Only a nomadic tribe of herdsmen, who were attempting to grow their strength and numbers. After physical strength (thus, territorial dominance), the most successful way that humans have found to do this is through a shared code of conduct and belief. As human consciousness became more complex, so did our belief/behavior systems. Enter religion. It's been kicking butt ever since. (If we're strictly making a timeline comparison, scientific rationalism is still just a toddler.)    

Personally, I don't fault religion for doing its evolutionary job. It's just that, in our time, the responsibility to advance human complexity has become a matter of choice: do we serve consciousness (empathy, understanding, connection) or sleep (disconnection, conflict, apathy, trauma)? 

?

A good friend of mine once told me that homophobia is based on the hatred of women.  At first, i didn't see the connection.  But the more i thought about it, the more obvious it became. 

  "Often in heteronormative spaces, if the man is not exhibiting patriarchal masculinity, people will say, "Oh bell, he’s gay." Which I think is probably one of the fiercest barriers to heterosexual men challenging patriarchy, the fear that they will be perceived as gay. The homophobia that lies underneath that. And we see that the self-actualized man or self-loving man isn’t afraid of being perceived as gay because he knows who he is. If he’s gay, that’s fine, if he’s not, that’s fine. But I think in general, most men do not allow themselves that freedom to be fully self-actualized."  -bell hooks

  Men will never be free, until all women are free and equal, and misogyny is rejected in all of it's forms.

@unk-p

Very interesting assessment, and thinking about it, that would make a lot of sense. Its breathtakingly sad as well.

I think this is exposing my biggest weakness. I utilize logic too much and try to place it where it doesnt belong sometimes.

He dropped out of the race

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/us/politics/pete-buttigieg-drops-out.html?referringSource=articleShare

@jessi1978. Thanks for posting.  I hadn't seen that coming. Right before Super Tuesday.  Before leaving he made a strong statement that Bernie would ruin the Dem's chances of beating Trump.

Shocking actually!

I think he was asked to do so, to give votes to Biden. ( That is what popped into my head, and well that makes sense I guess)

@jeanne-mayell  I was sure that he would go the distance.  I guess that he didn't see a positive to going through Super Tuesday.  Maybe he will be a VP candidate or run for Senate.

I thought he was doing very well..right behind Bernie and Biden.  He met with Jimmy Carter and Roslyn Carter today in Georgia...the news showed him seated at a table in a diner with them in serious conversation and then shaking hands. I think some important strategy went down at that table. Mayhaps he will be a VP candidate this year.

Posted by @lovendures about Pete dropping out of the race:

I think he was asked to do so, to give votes to Biden. 

 

I strongly sensed that as well.

@journeywithme2, Interesting that he met with the Carters today.

@deetoo

It had to be something they discussed in the meeting because at the first report this am - it was stated he wasn't giving up.. then? This afternoon? He is. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/01/pete-buttigieg-quit-democratic-race-joe-biden-south-carolina