Badmovies.org Forum

Pete Buttegieg is running for President, and the media is having a collective swoon over it because of his sexuality.


I get that this is a big milestone for gay people everywhere, but my inner 8th grader can't get over the fact that his name looks like it should be pronounced "BOOTY GIG"!

Being gay or his last name is not what I thought of when I first heard about him...it's his first name-Pete.
President Pete? Is that Petey or Peter? I think of the dog in the Little Rascals.
Maybe that's just me.
(https://i.imgur.com/WfAIG8z.gif) (https://lunapic.com)
I mean c'mon. Pete O'Toole? Pete Cushing? Petey Lorre?  :buggedout:

Of course we've had Millard and Ronny and Dwight.... :lookingup:

his name could be bolivar keggass and he'd  still be immeasurably better than the thing in the oval office now.

I can't believe the name either... doesn't anybody remember one old slang word for... eh... "peter"?   :lookingup:

PETER BOOTY GIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle: :bouncegiggle:

Icd vote for a gay guy long before icd vote for someone who runs on a platform of persecuting  gays because of ancient bronze age edicts.

As for his first name being clang for a guy's junk,  need I remind you want "bush' is slang for?

Y'mean "the Shrubs"? 

Or "Tricky Dick."

Or Pres. "Johnson."

i couldn't care less about his name. i like his platform n his personality too. being gay means nothing to me, he could be a gorgon for all i care, as long as he's good for my country. i look forward to hearing more from him. :cheers:

Good for you.

Jokes aside, I would prefer someone with some meaningful experience relative to the job.
And preferably someone that isn't an international embarrassment.

Well,  good news,  Indy. There are plenty of them to choose from.

A candidate is all well and good but there's a lot of historians that argue James Buchanan was gay.
If so, then we've already had our first gay president. Although, I can't say I'm super hyped about that.
Out of everyone that could hold that title I would very much prefer if it was anyone OTHER than Buchanan.

I admit a kinda support him out of hate. Hate for these rabid, foaming anti gay religious types. I have a nephew who is bysexual and when I heap people preaching for the extermination of people like him I feel a tremendous surge of hate at them. Frankly I'd vote for a gay man just to spit in the faces of the phelps crew and that steven anderson scum.

His policies are better than anything on the other side, that'd good too, plus his IQ seems to be in the triple digits.

if hate is your reason for voting for him. DON'T. his sexuality and your hatred is irrelevant. put the damnd  stupid irrational word HATE out of your life and use your friggin brain! emotion based voting is what got us where we are, you twinkie, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!

I dunno...I still like the old guy who talks like my Pappy Morris from the Bronx. Bernie Sanders.
And that's mostly why!
That doesn't make me a socialist- it makes me the guy who voted for Sanders because he sounds like my grampa.

I thought you don't vote...  ?

More than anything in the world I want gay rights to not be associated with politics. Using homosexuality as a tool for spite isn't helping.

I think, in all honesty, you are one of the most hate-filled people I have ever met.
You criticize other people for being hateful, then pay them back in kind.
Are you blind to your own hypocrisy?

I might this year- just to get Trump out, I will!

Omar should run

Ilhan 2020

I think we need a situation where an electable democrat runs and vows to appoint some other prominent dems to his cabinet. Like make sanders a big figure in the economic department. Try to reconcile the different major candidates instead of getting that russian troll engineered "bernie or bust" bs that hurt us last time and put that evil thing in the white house.

Now that we have a gay candidate I'm waiting for the first A/A candidate. Atheist/agnostic.

People who are non religious are the fastest growing group in america, we're more of the population than blacks, gays and a lot of other minorities that get pandered to. We need to form a voting block and start swinging our political weight around.

Here is the thing - one thing, any - that has kept me from supporting ANY Democrat in a national election.

Their solution to EVERY PROBLEM, no matter what it is, seems to be: "Give more money and power to the government."
We need programs for this and programs for that and regulations for this and regulations for that.
We are $22 FREAKING TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT, PEOPLE!  And we are the most regulated, most taxed, and least free generation of Americans who have ever lived.

How about a program to give LESS power and money to the government??

Well to be fair govt inefficiency is a problem worldwide but I will say without a check/balance in terms of regulation the less we have the worse of the working/middle class tends to be. We recenntly had a big investigation into how our banks gave out loans and found that, in part, due to lack of oversight all sorts of terrible practices were being used purely for profit. Same as the rise of rights during the industrial revolution: too much free reign and it always happens to get abused (which is why we now have a theoretical 8 hour working day although that has been creeping away thanks to transport, housing and remote work).

Like all things it needs balance, but if I was American and not rich (i'm one of those things) i don't see why you would advocate for a system of govt where it enhances the possibility of abuse by reducing the oversight govt has. That and social welfare programs are there for the good of society, not for profit. The corporate sector sure isn't going to fund good programs to try and lift people up unless it is in their intersts, and unless we have a cultural shift, it currently isn't.

There's actually economic argument to be had for govts to be in debt rather than austerity meausures, but I'm not an economist so take that as you will:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/30/governments-are-nothing-like-households/#a8ab97254f8b (https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/30/governments-are-nothing-like-households/#a8ab97254f8b)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#6ab887bf314f (https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/17/everything-youve-been-told-about-government-debt-is-wrong/#6ab887bf314f)

Marx has no answers for our current problems. racism, classism, imperialism are all harmful but they aren't the cause of our woes. the economy is what its all about. look at venezuela. there are brown skinned venezualans and lighter skinned ones. the US is constantly badgering the various leftist presidents but... thats not why they have the worst economy in the world. its because the price of oil dropped in half from its height and there garbage president didn't do the right things to pivot away from oil as the major source of income for the state.

This is the world writ large imo. desire for survival is eclipsing utopian ideology.

Republicans favor giving more power to corporations thru deregulation. I donct want corporations having kroe power,  I want them having less power.

Here's my take: Is he a down to earth person and does he have experience in politics that doesn't carry controversy? I've been screwed over by both sides due to greed, so if he's not about it then he gets my vote.

And Republicans want less government? Then wtf are they doing running for office and making as much money as they can and doing NOTHING. Bulls**t.

Given the current incarnation of the GOP, I have to agree.
The trillion dollar deficits were understandable in a Democrat administration, inexcusable from a party supposedly devoted to fiscal discipline.
Of course, when you start trying to cut budgets, you quickly realize that a HUGE chunk of spending is in the form of Social Security and Medicare.
And even the most modest proposals to reform those programs gets you accused of wanting to starve grandma to death.
So we march towards the fiscal cliff, year after year, bickering over nickels and dimes while spending billions we don't have.
And we'll still be bickering when we hit bottom and go splat.

Respectfully,  Indy,  I think this chart shows what america should cut.  But of courses  if you want to do anything but constantly toy increase military spednng yiu get accused of wanting to leave america helpless before the all mighty Al queda and ISIS military juggernaut ....  :lookingup:

(https://nelsnewday.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/military_by_country_spending-by-country.jpg)

And Here's  another pie to taste.

(https://www.michaeloart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/discretionary_spending_pie_2015_large-590x488.png)

Most of social security and medicare fall under NON discretionary spending.  This site tracks government spending in real time.
Read it and weep!!

www.usdebtclock.org (http://www.usdebtclock.org)

I do agree the military could be cut back some . . . but - if we don't defend the free world, WHO WILL?
China?  Russia?

Like it or not, we are the world's policeman.

The only alternative is to live in a world without one.

The military budget isn't 55% of the GDP though (in fact it is only about a tenth of that). Generally speaking, if you want to be able just to defend your own country in the event of a war you can get away with a around 2.5 to 3% of the national budget. If you want to engage in military adventurism then around twice that is the right figure. Going below these figures make its much tougher on any military to get the job done, while going above it tends to have quite severe economic consequences.

I think we could fix things by following the democrats plans. Raise taxes on the rich only,  restore higher tax rates on corporations,  impose a tax on wall street because they cause enough problems in america and close tax loopholes like the ones that let amazon make nearly qw billion in profit,  pay no taxes and get tax money back from the government.

And yes,  tax and regulate wall street. It caused the economic crash that has been putting ma ticans thru hell for over decade now. Tax wall street profits and use the money to help people who can't afford to play the stock market but get hurt by it when it crashes.

And the green new deal would help. As is we send hundreds of billions a year to countries like Saudi Arabia,  a major supporter of terrorism.  (15 of the 19 911 hijackers we're Saudi and so was bin ladin)  If we switched to renewable and domestic power systems we could tell the middle east to dry up and blow away which is what it would mostly do without  foreign  petro dollars.

 :buggedout: :buggedout:

I clicked on that and I thought I was back on the infamous Yvette's Bridal Formal website: so much going on.

"Like it or not, we are the world's policeman.

The only alternative is to live in a world without one."

like it or not? who's country is this?

Many people tend to  state  their beliefs and assumptions as matters of inarguanble fact. Many people believe the U. S.  must play world police. I believe that if we demanded that more of the free world stepped up and took on a more active role in defending liberty from russia and china they've do it,  they'de grumble and complain but they'd do it because had more personal experiences Dr with fascism and totalitarianism in WW2. They would step up and form stronger militaries to make it cheap to russia they weren't com racing anyone.

And guys,  remember,  russiscs economy and gbp are smaller than new york states.

If the UK and most of Europe formed a power bloc, a military alliance,  they could easily out spend  russia militarily.

Lime use they need to form a tither,  mire effective law enforcement and security agency to counter Russian social hacking and trolling.

And the current state of america ought to show the west the cannot depend on uncle sam anymore.  They need to formk a federation and  tell russia to back off or get hammered economically and militarily.  And remember the the UK and France has nuclear weapons,  an germany would easily develop them too.

So much error, so little time.  OK, here goes:  Basic laws of economics state that if you subsidize something, you get more of it, and if you punish something, you get less of it.  "Soaking the rich" simply causes them to take their wealth elsewhere.  Punishing businesses for success will cause them to look for other places to be successful.  Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that corporations and millionaires shouldn't pay any taxes at all, but there is a point past which increased rates simply don't generate increased revenue.  "Taxing Wall Street" sounds good as a populist talking point, but "Wall Street" isn't some single entity you can go rob at gunpoint and get enough cash to solve all your problems.  It's tens of thousands of businesses, corporations, and other private interests that employ hundreds of millions of people.  Strangle the goose that lays the golden egg and soon you have no gold, no eggs, and nothing but goose bones!

I don't trust big business, OK?  But in the end, choosing between big business and big government, I will choose big business every time.  Business wants one thing: My money, in the form of purchases.  I can't make purchases if I don't have money, so it is in the vested interest of big business for me to have a decent income.  Big government wants my money, my freedom, my rights, and my property to be subordinated to the needs of the state.  They want control over virtually every aspect of my life.

Businesses didn't build the Soviet gulags - a powerful, runaway state did.
Businesses didn't build Auschwitz and murder millions of people there.  A powerful, runaway government did.
Businesses didn't murder 40 million Chinese in the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution".  A powerful, runaway government did.
Seeing a trend?

Big biz can be just as bad as big gubmint. We now have prison corporations actual my threatening to sue stares if they don't keep them full of inmates.  Big tobacco lied and hid the truth abitu tobacco for decades and marketed to teens as much as possible.  Big pharma makes easiky produced medicines so expensive people die because they can't afford them.


I don't trust either but at least with government we can vote for people in it.

It's funny this topic was posted under entertainment, lol.

Alexander the great was likely gay and a strong leader.

Julius Caesar was likely ACDC and a great military  commander.

Alan Turing was definitely gay and laid the ground work for modern computers,  helped create the first progrsmmaglke computers thst helped the allies win ww2 and pioneered many of the concerts still used today.

A. C. Clarke was gay and an acknowledged genius who helped set up the chainholme radar network that saved engkasnd from the  blitz,  invented the concept of the communication sattelite and was a leader in astronomical science.

If gay people can accomplish the above I don't think being president of the US would be beyond one.

We could ask other nations we have good relations with to help out in their neck of the woods........

Or,  you know, we could just finally get off fossil fuels finally, develop real alternatives to petroleum and let Russias economy sink into a tarpit. Alng with most Muslim nations.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oil-and-gas-dependence-chart-2014-7 (https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-oil-and-gas-dependence-chart-2014-7)