• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rush Limbaugh weighs in on Pete Buttigieg

Condor060 said:
....
Click to expand...

Ok, you're not a homophobe, and you don't care (AT ALL) but you raise the issue because....

...some other people are homophobes and you want to spare their feelings, I guess?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
As usual, Limbaugh is wrong.

Buttegieg could very well be the most daunting of all potential Dem nominees to debate Trump. Clear spoken, thoughtful and focused, the mirror opposite of Trump. Also, Trump would need to be very careful not say anything that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic.

It would be very enjoyable to watch Buttegieg calmly eviscerate the orange clown. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Trump's not a politician, don't ya know? Mayor Pete better be prepared to fight in the trenches.
 
Eriech said:
bddc8428a31553c3999d2604f639331c.jpg


Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Lulz. That's some excellent PS for a 2nd grade level.
 
cabse5 said:
Limbaugh is saying Mayor Pete wouldn't compete with Trump on the debate stage because some folks are prejudiced against gay people or married-gay people.
By the same token, IMO, Trump couldn't compete with Mayor Pete on the debate stage because some people have preconceived notions about Trump.

This is what is wrong with today's American politics, IMO: Too much rhetoric (from both Rush and anti-Trumpers) and too little substance in politics.
EDIT: Yes. Even Limbaugh is more concerned with feelings than facts.
Click to expand...

Typical right-wing rhetorical devise. And...

One of the worst (i.e. dumbest) "both sides are to guilty" arguments I've seen in a long time around here.

Geez...:roll:

Oh, and it's also just a dumb argument, as well. Did I forget to say that already???

Anyway... There are no "preconceived" notions about Trump. Not at this point. All "notions" held by political opponents about Trump's character, morality, decency and fitness for the office... have long-since been documented and validated. There is no "both sides" here.

The general rule of thumb with most (if not all) "both sides are to blame" arguments, is that they are actually fairly transparent attempts to rationalize the behavior of one side by falsely equating it to the other side. Generally speaking, they reveal the true sentiments of the person who uses them. And, generally speaking, they are the tool of closeted right wingers.
 
ultmd said:
Typical right-wing rhetorical devise. And...

One of the worst (i.e. dumbest) "both sides are to guilty" arguments I've seen in a long time around here.

Geez...:roll:

Oh, and it's also just a dumb argument, as well. Did I forget to say that already???

Anyway... There are no "preconceived" notions about Trump. Not at this point. All "notions" held by political opponents about Trump's character, morality, decency and fitness for the office... have long-since been documented and validated. There is no "both sides" here.

The general rule of thumb with most (if not all) "both sides are to blame" arguments, is that they are actually fairly transparent attempts to rationalize the behavior of one side by falsely equating it to the other side. Generally speaking, they reveal the true sentiments of the person who uses them. And, generally speaking, they are the tool of closeted right wingers.
Click to expand...

When you say there are no preconceived notions about Trump, you have preconceived notions about Trump.
 
cabse5 said:
Limbaugh is saying Mayor Pete wouldn't compete with Trump on the debate stage because some folks are prejudiced against gay people or married-gay people.
By the same token, IMO, Trump couldn't compete with Mayor Pete on the debate stage because some people have preconceived notions about Trump.

This is what is wrong with today's American politics, IMO: Too much rhetoric (from both Rush and anti-Trumpers) and too little substance in politics.
EDIT: Yes. Even Limbaugh is more concerned with feelings than facts.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is one was to see it. I see it as Rush calling Pete the F word without using the F word.
 
cabse5 said:
Trump's not a politician, don't ya know? Mayor Pete better be prepared to fight in the trenches.
Click to expand...
Trump isn’t a lot of things; smart, thoughtful, moral, unbiased, etc., but he most certainly is a politician.

Buttegieg doesn’t need to jump in the gutter with Trump to beat him.
 
WillyPete said:
Ok, you're not a homophobe, and you don't care (AT ALL) but you raise the issue because....

...some other people are homophobes and you want to spare their feelings, I guess?
Click to expand...

The attorney who leads a very large law firm that represents my company is gay. He's also one of my dearest friends. Over the 7 years I have known him I have grown quite fond of the guy. He hates Trump, votes Democrat most of the time, and we have great political debates. He's just one of many I associate with and consider my friends.

Like I said, I have absolutely no animosity or hatred for anyone because of their sexual preference. I could care less. If he decided to run for public office I would campaign for him. Mayor, Governor, Senator, Sheriff, or Dog Catcher. He has my support and my vote.

If he wanted to run for president of the US I would vote against him. and yes, because he is gay. Why? Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. The world we live in doesn't care about political correctness or being woke. It is a conglomerate of wolves that test our resolve every day and their interpretation of an openly gay US president would be a sign of weakness and global disrespect in their worlds.

Most of which wouldn't even allow him to even visit their country as they have laws that jail and/or kill homosexuals. Investors would ease up on the US markets calculating a fall out in foreign relations and trade. Aggression against this country could escalate very easily. Can you even imagine how China, North Korea, and all of the Asian countries would try and take advantage?

Are we so woke we are willing to put the countries health and security at risk just for the sake of saying, hey look, we have a gay president? Anyone who doesn't think there would be a fallout globally is just trying to be the woke one. It doesn't make sense and it isn't worth the possible problems.
 
cabse5 said:
When you say there are no preconceived notions about Trump, you have preconceived notions about Trump.
Click to expand...

Uh...no. Sorry, but that was kinda dumb.

I suggest you look up the term "preconceived notion", and try again.

But, more importantly, you should re-read my remarks. I did not suggest there could be no preconceived notions about Trump (in general). I said there are no preconceived notions about Trump's character, morality, fitness for office, etc. Everyone knows he is of low character...he's (at best) amoral...at worst, wholeheartedly immoral...and he is temperamentally and intellectually unfit for the office he holds.
 
Condor060 said:
The attorney who leads a very large law firm that represents my company is gay. He's also one of my dearest friends. Over the 7 years I have known him I have grown quite fond of the guy. He hates Trump, votes Democrat most of the time, and we have great political debates. He's just one of many I associate with and consider my friends.

Like I said, I have absolutely no animosity or hatred for anyone because of their sexual preference. I could care less. If he decided to run for public office I would campaign for him. Mayor, Governor, Senator, Sheriff, or Dog Catcher. He has my support and my vote.

If he wanted to run for president of the US I would vote against him. and yes, because he is gay. Why? Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. The world we live in doesn't care about political correctness or being woke. It is a conglomerate of wolves that test our resolve every day and their interpretation of an openly gay US president would be a sign of weakness and global disrespect in their worlds.

Most of which wouldn't even allow him to even visit their country as they have laws that jail and/or kill homosexuals. Investors would ease up on the US markets calculating a fall out in foreign relations and trade. Aggression against this country could escalate very easily. Can you even imagine how China, North Korea, and all of the Asian countries would try and take advantage?

Are we so woke we are willing to put the countries health and security at risk just for the sake of saying, hey look, we have a gay president? Anyone who doesn't think there would be a fallout globally is just trying to be the woke one. It doesn't make sense and it isn't worth the possible problems.
Click to expand...


I see the needle you're trying to thread, but it's just dumb beyond words to suggest that other nations will snub the U.S. over this.

A foreign nation arrest POTUS, or deny a visit? Laughable. What nation is going to step up to the plate?

I don't even disagree regarding the hard-nosed nature of the world, but they need us more than we need them in just about every case. That'll have them minding their manners, at a minimum. Further, if you agree it shouldn't be an issue, then we'll just be helping them get there themselves.

Where was this sort of talk when Obama was running? Plenty of nations with plenty of racism going on, and yet he managed to build some pretty solid relationships. I don't recall him being snubbed in particular.

At best, you are rationalizing and enabling other people's homophobia.

P.S.

How did "gay" become the line that shan't be crossed?

Because we crossed all the lines that came before it.
 
HumblePi said:
The right is very proud of Rush Limbaugh having received the Medal of Freedom at the SOTU address.

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday suggested former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wouldn't look masculine standing next to "Mr. Man" President Trump on a presidential debate stage because he is an openly gay married man.


Democrats are “sitting there, and they’re looking at Mayor Pete, a 37-year-old gay guy,” Limbaugh told his radio show listeners while discussing what he perceives as a weak Democratic field. “And they’re saying, 'OK, how’s this gonna look, a 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband onstage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s gonna happen there?'"


Rush Limbaugh ponders a Trump debate against Pete Buttigieg: '''What'''s gonna happen there?''' | Fox News-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a message for Rush Limbaugh. Most people that have been diagnosed with metastatic cancer, generally they believe they're facing a judgement, not with any man but with God at the end of their days.

Freedom and humanity just called, they want their medal back.
Click to expand...

And so it begins. In my short time here, I have already posted several times that Trump and his supporters will unleash a torrent of latent homophobia on Buttigieg that will set back LGBTQ progress by a generation. I thought they might hold that card until/unless Buttigieg becomes the nominee, but apparently Rush was too eager to wait and see.
 
Diesel said:
And so it begins. In my short time here, I have already posted several times that Trump and his supporters will unleash a torrent of latent homophobia on Buttigieg that will set back LGBTQ progress by a generation. I thought they might hold that card until/unless Buttigieg becomes the nominee, but apparently Rush was too eager to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Everyone knew it, it was just a matter of time that someone said it out loud.
 
WillyPete said:
I see the needle you're trying to thread, but it's just dumb beyond words to suggest that other nations will snub the U.S. over this.

A foreign nation arrest POTUS, or deny a visit? Laughable. What nation is going to step up to the plate?

I don't even disagree regarding the hard-nosed nature of the world, but they need us more than we need them in just about every case. That'll have them minding their manners, at a minimum. Further, if you agree it shouldn't be an issue, then we'll just be helping them get there themselves.

Where was this sort of talk when Obama was running? Plenty of nations with plenty of racism going on, and yet he managed to build some pretty solid relationships. I don't recall him being snubbed in particular.

At best, you are rationalizing and enabling other people's homophobia.

P.S.

How did "gay" become the line that shan't be crossed?

Because we crossed all the lines that came before it.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true American closed off to the real world. When a country prepares to conduct operations with partners or customers from another culture, a crucial aspect for the success of that venture lies in the understanding of cross-cultural differences. If the people in charge of these ventures are not aware of the impact of their behaviors on cross-cultural relations, the misunderstandings, hurt feelings and communication errors that occur often will cause serious damage to those efforts.

Homosexuality is a crime in 72 countries. I don't remember it being a crime to be black. Anywhere. Most of these have killing campaigns that are never prosecuted by law enforcement. They describe homosexuality as moral bankruptcy or modern western barbarism.

So to what benefit is there to elect a gay president? Just to say we did it? If you don't think there will be a significant impact globally then you are just closing off any opinion for no reason at all.
 
HumblePi said:
The right is very proud of Rush Limbaugh having received the Medal of Freedom at the SOTU address.

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday suggested former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wouldn't look masculine standing next to "Mr. Man" President Trump on a presidential debate stage because he is an openly gay married man.


Democrats are “sitting there, and they’re looking at Mayor Pete, a 37-year-old gay guy,” Limbaugh told his radio show listeners while discussing what he perceives as a weak Democratic field. “And they’re saying, 'OK, how’s this gonna look, a 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband onstage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s gonna happen there?'"


Rush Limbaugh ponders a Trump debate against Pete Buttigieg: '''What'''s gonna happen there?''' | Fox News-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a message for Rush Limbaugh. Most people that have been diagnosed with metastatic cancer, generally they believe they're facing a judgement, not with any man but with God at the end of their days.

Freedom and humanity just called, they want their medal back.
Click to expand...

I have NEVER used the word Man to describe trump, and never will.
 
Condor060 said:
Spoken like a true American closed off to the real world. When a country prepares to conduct operations with partners or customers from another culture, a crucial aspect for the success of that venture lies in the understanding of cross-cultural differences. If the people in charge of these ventures are not aware of the impact of their behaviors on cross-cultural relations, the misunderstandings, hurt feelings and communication errors that occur often will cause serious damage to those efforts.

Homosexuality is a crime in 72 countries. I don't remember it being a crime to be black. Anywhere. Most of these have killing campaigns that are never prosecuted by law enforcement. They describe homosexuality as moral bankruptcy or modern western barbarism.

So to what benefit is there to elect a gay president? Just to say we did it? If you don't think there will be a significant impact globally then you are just closing off any opinion for no reason at all.
Click to expand...

The bold would be a good start. The other reason would be to say, "We are the best. So, **** you!"

I thought Wing Nuts believed that ****? Now, we have fans of Rush begging us to kiss some third world Homophobic dictator's ass.
 
HumblePi said:
The right is very proud of Rush Limbaugh having received the Medal of Freedom at the SOTU address.

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday suggested former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wouldn't look masculine standing next to "Mr. Man" President Trump on a presidential debate stage because he is an openly gay married man.


Democrats are “sitting there, and they’re looking at Mayor Pete, a 37-year-old gay guy,” Limbaugh told his radio show listeners while discussing what he perceives as a weak Democratic field. “And they’re saying, 'OK, how’s this gonna look, a 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband onstage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s gonna happen there?'"


Rush Limbaugh ponders a Trump debate against Pete Buttigieg: '''What'''s gonna happen there?''' | Fox News-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a message for Rush Limbaugh. Most people that have been diagnosed with metastatic cancer, generally they believe they're facing a judgement, not with any man but with God at the end of their days.

Freedom and humanity just called, they want their medal back.
Click to expand...

Rush is a deplorable, and I believe most Trump supporters agree with everything he said.
 
cabse5 said:
Trump's not a politician, don't ya know? Mayor Pete better be prepared to fight in the trenches.
Click to expand...

Its funny, as a rule, politicians are considered to be corrupt. Trump reminds us that they look like saints compared to businessmen.

Pete's pretty witty. In a debate, the retorts might fly right over the big fella's head.
 
HumblePi said:
The right is very proud of Rush Limbaugh having received the Medal of Freedom at the SOTU address.

Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday suggested former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wouldn't look masculine standing next to "Mr. Man" President Trump on a presidential debate stage because he is an openly gay married man.


Democrats are “sitting there, and they’re looking at Mayor Pete, a 37-year-old gay guy,” Limbaugh told his radio show listeners while discussing what he perceives as a weak Democratic field. “And they’re saying, 'OK, how’s this gonna look, a 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband onstage next to Mr. Man Donald Trump? What’s gonna happen there?'"


Rush Limbaugh ponders a Trump debate against Pete Buttigieg: '''What'''s gonna happen there?''' | Fox News-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a message for Rush Limbaugh. Most people that have been diagnosed with metastatic cancer, generally they believe they're facing a judgement, not with any man but with God at the end of their days.

Freedom and humanity just called, they want their medal back.
Click to expand...
REMEMBER. No one must ever talk about reality unless you like reality. If you do not like reality, talk as if you are in fantasy land.

Would he being gay be a factor in the election? Yes. But it could be a positive one since it will be said on the MSM and by almost every Democrat the only reason anyone who doesn't vote for Mayor Pete is because they are a homophobe, just like everyone who didn't vote for Obama is a racist. They will do everything possible to replace white guilt with a newly created heterosexual guilt.

After all, isn't it heterosexuals who want to discriminate against homosexuals? One example proving this is that just like white racists won't date black people, heterosexuals won't have sex with homosexuals because of their bigoted homophobia.

See how guilt tripping works - to people who are completely gullible idiots anyway.

Could it be a legitimate issue? Maybe. How would other world leaders and the people of other countries be affected in their view and interactions with a gay president - many of which have religions that intensely condemn homosexual men and even severely criminalize it? Is that a consideration? If so, is this a plus, a negative or an irrelevancy in foreign policy? However, progressive fascists will rant even discussing that is hate mongering gay bashing.

That said, I would have no problem voting for a heterosexual, gay man, lesbian, bisexual, candidate of a diversity of partners sex life, virgin - or anything else about any candidate's sex life. I"d rather not even hear anything about it, to be candid. Gossip isn't my thing.

Nor am I into any of the current absurd PCism of what constitutes "sexual harassment." I don't think anyone should be "harassed" in general. But that you can "harass" anyone about just about anything - other than a woman - is something I don't agree with. Too much fake outrage going on. Too many ways so many people are desperate to declare themselves a victim for the purpose of destroying someone else's life for revenge - particularly years later - and possibly getting a pile of money by doing so.

Personal life is personal life. Employment life is employment life. That includes political employment. Do any employers ask job applicants about their sex life history? No. So why do voters - aren't we the hiring personnel department by elections?
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
Or maybe you should just stay on point with the poster you are communicating with instead of having to whine about it. Just a thought.

And by the way, your words aren't beyond the ability of a middle schooled drop out to understand.

But the fact that the my statement went so far over your heard is uniquely funny.
Click to expand...

When you're attacking someone's communication prowess, you'd have much more credibility if you'd run spellcheck prior to your attempt.

At the risk of sounding redundant, we now know all about you we need to know.

I certainly hope my post didn't go over your "heard" :lol:
 
j brown's body said:
Its funny, as a rule, politicians are considered to be corrupt. Trump reminds us that they look like saints compared to businessmen.

Pete's pretty witty. In a debate, the retorts might fly right over the big fella's head.
Click to expand...

We don't know if he's witty or not. He is extremely skilled at a VERY long catalog of canned answers and talking points that he memorized and delivers very will. But those were crafted by many people and continuously rehearsed in practice and while out campaigning. Nothing about that is any indication of whether he is witty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom