Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Frankly, @Juliajms, I doubt it.  I don't believe African-Americans, who remain a significant part of the Democratic Party's base, will ever fully embrace Pete Buttigieg the way they have, say, Joe Biden.  There's simply too much weariness (to put it mildly) on the part of minorities to trust that he would understand and address our ongoing concerns with this country.

 

At this point, my advice to him would be 1) endorse another candidate ASAP (if not Biden, then Elizabeth Warren); 2) put out feelers for on-air political analyst gigs in order to stay in the public eye; and 3) run for the Senate at the next opportunity.  There's no shame in being a "career senator."  Many of our greatest politicians, in fact, were never president.  Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg of South Bend, IN, could one day join that very illustrious group.

 

(...Or, he and Chasten could get their own reality series on Logo.  I'd watch.)

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6816

  • DRW50

    5988

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3458

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Say what we will about Pete policy-wise - he was not my choice, and I had issues with him - but he is a decent man, and very important in terms of changing what's possible, and so is this:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Pete Buttigieg was the first openly gay man to run for president.  Yet, it was as if he and/or his campaign's advisers were doing everything possible to make his sexuality NOT be the thing that defined him or defined him most as a candidate -- to the point of avoiding real talk on those issues you've alluded to, @DramatistDreamer -- even as all of Buttigieg's public appearances seemingly ended with him and his husband embracing and kissing in front of the cheering crowd.  To me, that was...baffling.

 

I'm not suggesting Buttigieg should've exploited his sexuality, or that that might've helped him stay in the race longer.  But, I do believe it needed to be more of a lens through which he could see LGBTQ-related and other issues in his campaign.

 

 

If anything, Pete Buttigieg proves, once and for all, that not all gay men are like RuPaul.  Nevertheless, I'm not convinced he and Chasten are in it for the long haul. 

Please register in order to view this content

 

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

True.

 

In the end, maybe being the first openly gay man to run for president was all Pete Buttigieg needed to accomplish.  Maybe now, the path will be a little more smooth for the next, openly gay man or woman who decides to have a shot at running this country....

 

....Maybe.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If Joe Biden's performance in the South Carolina primary was all that was needed to get Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg and now Amy Klobuchar to drop out of the 2020 race, then maybe we DO need to rethink Iowa and New Hampshire being the first to primary or caucus our presidential candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Needless to say, the results of the South Carolina primary caught Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Tom Steyer off guard.  Up to that point, I think they all believed they had viable paths to the nomination.  But, African-American voters in SC pretty much told them, "Nope!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Is that nuisance Tulsi Gabbard still buzzing about?

 

Didn't Steyer come in 3rd? A very distant third but he owes that placement to whichever of his campaign workers stole Kamala's data (which they claimed they never used-wink) for his strangely generous showing in SC. Still wasn't enough but a lot better than he would've done with his $$$$ alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy