That Josh to Gretchen morph is hilarious.
OG Barnstormer for Pete; San Diego for Pete Steering Committee; '82 Georgetown Hoya. Padres, Eagles, Chargers, Wrexham AFC, SDFC, Flyers, Sixers, City. South Jersey Shore born & raised (Ventnor). Pickleball player, softball player/coach. #TeamPete #ROTR 🏳️🌈
1,394 followers 782 following 648 posts
view profile on Bluesky
That Josh to Gretchen morph is hilarious.
Many, MANY people. Step outside your silo for just a moment and engage with real people. There's a reason why Pete often lands in the first or second position in voter polls of 2028 Dem hopefuls--he's well liked and thought highly of.
Timely & important message from Pete. Digging this: "As a boy visiting family in Malta, the future US presidential candidate would ..." Love the use of future as opposed to former. 😁 Also, interesting, but not surprising, given their geographic proximity, how similar Maltese sounds to Italian.
Isn't it bizarre that this is something we have to consider, namely, are we being duped into wasting time feeding a foreign troll farm hellbent on creating chaos in our nation?
America has died a very sad, painful, public death.
She blocked me. Exhibit A for how Dems and my own LGBTQ community will promptly cancel or silence someone who doesn't agree with them 100 percent on an issue, even if you do do dispassionately with no insult, anger, or malice.
I'll continue being an ally. But I will interject when I see an ally being canceled for saying something which I know, first-hand through discussions on that exact same issue with other allies, that they agree with. I'll leave you with this, and wish you well: www.queerty.com/heres-what-p...
Wrong, on both counts. Strong ally surrounded by progressive trans allies. This here is the problem with both the Democratic Party & our own LGBTQ community--there is ZERO room for nuanced disagreement on specific issues that come up within larger issues on which we have near unified agreement.
Agree to disagree w your characterization of Pete's response to the MTF trans participation in competitive sports response as a fumble. Just about every trans ally I know shares his position. Rather than canceling all of these allies, it might be helpful to try to understand where we're coming from
You might want to educate yourself about what Pete actually said before condemning and canceling an actual ally. This right here is why we Dems have trouble winning ... we eat our own if they aren't 100 percent in lock step with every single position we believe. www.queerty.com/heres-what-p...
Let's just lose that word completely.
When the left wing of the party gets behind a candidate who successfully secures the nomination, the majority of us who are activists--the regular, non-wealthy folks who donate, canvas, text, etc., will work our butts off for that nominee, just as we do for a center-left or centrist nominee.
So essentially you're gonna be Team JD Vance if Democrats don't choose who you want? Well THAT'S encouraging.
And you don't have to be a jerk, yet here we are.
... Pete, Gavin, Tim, Jasmine, Andy, Kamala, Josh, AOC, etc. will have ample time and opportunity to develop and evolve their responses to any number of pressing issues. If you think you're gonna get the magic answer that makes even a third of Dems happy on this complex issue, good luck.
The great thing about our primary/caucus system is that the process delivers a multitude of opportunities for candidates and voters to share their thoughts about dozens of policy issues. There is little doubt that Israel/Palestine will be intensely debated and discussed ...
So I'm all ears (and eyes). Who's your winning ticket? Or your five top candidates?
Please explain how leaving participation requirements in competitive sports to the leagues and local schools rather than the federal government qualifies as hate and nullifies a history of pro-trans policy positions and comments (a position which, BTW, is shared by many progressive trans allies).
So proud of San Diego FC for highlighting SD Sparks and leaning into Pride at a time when corporations and the Trump Administration are abandoning and even targeting us. ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🖤🩶🩷🤍 www.facebook.com/share/v/1C2p...
Uh, bullshit.
Those are three very different politicians in a myriad of ways. The fact that Newsom and Buttigieg are trying to reach people on the other side of the aisle is just smart politics. Pete especially has shown that he's quite adept at engaging with rural moderate Republicans and Indpendents.
Wildly inaccurate analogy. Equating the very specific sub-issue of MTF trans athletes and who should decide whether it's appropriate for them to compete in a specific sport or league is nowhere near the same as dismissing DEI for an illogical reason. This canceling of allies is absurd.
That's what you missed. BTW, it's the same position held by just about every progressive trans ally I know. But sadly, we're at a point where "if you don't agree 100 percent with our positions, you're now our enemy."
#AndJustLikeThat ... we say goodbye (for a second time) to Carrie and her friends. I will miss you terribly, Ms. Bradshaw. It's been a wonderful, unforgettable ride. PS. You were always my favorite. #andjustlikethatseason3 #andjustlikethatfinale
His position on MTF trans athletes in competitive sports wasn't transphobic. It is a position held by many pro-trans allies. You might be surprised if you engage with people outside of your chosen bubble. Be careful/mindful of just how many people you may be canceling or demonizing w/ purity tests.
How about focusing on taking back the House in '26 and then, once the 20+ Dem candidates announce for president, we review their platforms and policies and vote accordingly? In the meantime, if there are candidates who you want to see run, it's on you to recruit them.
Yep. It's a bizarre spin on "doesn't play well with others." For Dems, it's "they don't play well with each other." We simply can't get out of our own way.
It's the 100% purity tests we put on our candidates that will cost the Democratic Party. Pete's position on trans in athletic competitions is a position held by many progressives who are strong trans allies. But by all means, let's keep devouring our own.
It's not a betrayal. It's the same position many progressives--who are strong trans allies--feel about the one specific issue regarding athletic competition. But by all means, let's keep acting like moronic Democrats and continue to eat our own when they fail the 100% purity test.
PS. You're gonna be pushing a helluva lot of strong, consistent allies off of that perilous ledge you're placing them on, I fear. There is little sense in freezing out allies over a relatively new and complicated sub-issue that is evolving quickly.
Having questions about or holding differing views on the very specific question of FTM trans athletes in competitive sports shouldn't be a reason for canceling otherwise strong, consistent trans allies. Most progressives I know who have been longtime trans allies have similar questions & opinions.
Democrats treat each other like shit. It's discouraging and oh so counterproductive.
Correction: MTF trans in sports. Sorry, should have proofread this before I hit the reply button.
Sorry, but there is not yet a definitive "one test fits all" response to this issue. For example, the NCAA & Olympics don't use the same tests to determine MTF eligibility. Discourse on this issue would be much healthier & beneficial if we weren't in such a rush to cancel out differing viewpoints.
Pete hasn't flip-flopped. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time he was specifically asked about (FTM) trans in sports. Now we know his position--and it matches up with the position that many progressive Democrats hold, if we're being fair and honest.
But that's not what Pete said (going back to the original post). Pete said politicians shouldn't be deciding this. The sports association and schools at the local should decide these issues based on medical/scientific findings (which is what the NCAAs and Olympics do). This takes time & education.
The sports issue isn't the only trans (& LGBTQIA+) issue they're using against us. It's bathrooms. It's pronouns. It's gender identity. It's drag queens reading books. It's banning our books. Fighting amongst ourselves over who's best qualified to handle MTF trans in sports is counterproductive.
Not giving Democrats the opportunity to explain their positions and offer them the ability to differ with some of us on various sub-issues within the larger issue (in this case, of trans rights), is playing into the GOP's hands. For the GOP, ANYTHING trans is evil. We can show them they're wrong.
I'm seeing nothing but glowing accounts & rave reviews of the recent 3-night epic performance of #JesusChristSuperstar starring Adam Lambert & Cynthia Erivo @ the Hollywood Bowl. Please show producers: Take this on tour or bring it to Broadway (and film it for re-broadcast).
Mamdani can't run for president or VP. He wasn't born in the US. He was born in Bombay (now Mumbai), India, and raised in Uganda.
I like them both. I'd like to live in a country where we get 16 years of them being back-to-back presidents.
There are many progressives, myself included, who support--& have always supported trans rights--who understand that issues exist specifically around the issue of fairness in sports. To try to claim that people who recognize that the issue exists are now somehow enemies of the trans community is BS.
I found the quotes from trans representative Sarah McBride (D-DE) in a similar article to be interesting. www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/07/pete...
Why? There are many progressives who support trans rights fervently but have questions about the fairness in sports issue. Are we going to pretend that this particular issue doesn't exist for people?
Anyone who even hints at this isn't worth any of your time or attention. These social media sites are NOT real life.
Lots of early data from early polling suggests you're wrong.
False narrative. He has black support, as shown by the crosstabs in recent polls. How about we let the voters decide, eh?
Toni Atkins is my personal favorite. The hardest-working elected official I've ever witnessed. Smart, kind, empathetic,and compassionate, she knows how to reach across the aisle and get things done. You don't become both CA Speaker & Senate Prez unless you're talented. youtu.be/Nz2XLDdNuPc?...
After recounts and certification, Pete Buttigieg won the most delegates in the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses, receiving 14 delegates compared to Bernie Sanders' 12. Fucking deal with it already. Whining is pathetic. The world has moved on from your pity party.
I think it's wise to understand why we lost so that we can look forward to the future by implementing a winning strategy that doesn't replicate any of what made us lose. We can reflect and strategize at the same time.
I'm a Barnstormer, so you don't have to convince me. But we won't really know until people actually vote, and even then, it depends on which groups turn out strongest to vote. We have no way of knowing what shape the country will be in when '28 rolls around.
I didn't say it was a threat. I was asking why we should trust you. You made it sound like it was more than an opinion ... that you had some crystal ball. I was curious why you are so sure that we should trust you of all people. No one's opinions are threatening, but they can be questioned, no?
*Pete (not people ... damn you, autocorrect!)
What is useless and meaningless is the head-to-head comparison with JD Vance. Both parties will look very different in '28.
39 months before the actual election, this poll is meaningless.
Polls this early are fun to chat about but all ultimately meaningless. Having said that, I'm at least optimistic that people is often at or near the top of the list of Dems mentioned. Guess we'll see where things start to develop in mid '27.
The election is 39 MONTHS (not weeks, not days) away. Polls this early are fun to chat about but are utterly meaningless.
Why should we trust you? Who are you? I'm not being sarcastic, but it sounds like you think you have all the answers, so I'm curious what your credentials are.
The election is 39 months away. These polls are fun, but essentially useless.
Who's angry? I'm simply disagreeing with you. If that makes you angry or upsets you, that's on you. I stand by my comment. Pete rarely fumbles his answer to a question. He's a great communicator who is unflappable, articulate, and persuasive, even in hostile, uninviting environments.
Pete rarely fumbles a question. Go worry about something productive.
You forgot AOC.
He probably will run. So the question is, when he does, will you join us and fight to help get him elected?
I've been out since '89 & have spent most of that time in politics, helping get gays & lesbians elected to office. Pete won Iowa in '20 by carrying the rural counties there, attracting "future former Republicans." He has broad appeal. PS. HRC won the popular vote. Kamala had 100 days to run.
They said the same thing about the country never electing a Catholic in 1960 and a black man in 2008. I implore you not to stand in the way of progress. If Pete can win the nomination, he can win the presidency.
He never makes it front & center, nor do his supporters, but we don't hide it either. He is a wicked smart, empathetic human being who is a master communicator who is also a married gay man w/ an amazing husband & 2 beautiful children. If he runs, my guess is he'll do very well. People like him.
Exactly. There's no pleasing some people.
The popular 43-year-old former mayor of South Bend, who has spent all of four years in DC as a federal agency director, isn't new enough for you? C'mon, now. His career is barely getting started.
My first thought exactly.
But, I thought Pete had zero black support, no? No. And now that Walz has opted not to run, Pete is right at the top of this list. Rumor dispelled.
In a nation of 330 million + Americans, there are bound to be differences of opinions about candidates we do and don't like. I don't share your dislike of Pete Buttigieg. He's a pragmatic progressive who is one of the Dems' most talented and influential communicators. He's empathetic & wicked smart.
Both are amazing communicators and are wicked smart.
Don't forget ... he won the Iowa caucus by appealing to voters in the rural counties, a good number of whom were what Pete liked to call "future former Republicans."
Maybe we can workshop a better name for Pete's plan prior to '28. Medicare Choice? Medicare Select?
But in all fairness, it explains exactly how it would work ... and it's not often a government program would be that honest and transparent right out of the gate.
I find this to be more of a problem on CNN. It's unwatchable when they have roundtable-formatted discussions.
Exactly! Medicare for All Who Want It (Pete's plan) is hugely popular. Everyone gets healthcare, and if the universal healthcare works as planned and promised and costs less than private insurance, people will voluntarily move over to the public option. What's not to like?
If Donald Trump is slamming you, you're doing just fine. It's when Trump is praising you that you should worry.
You're vastly underestimating Pete's support nationwide. But hey, you do you, Boo.
Given that Alig moved to NYC in the late '80s, partied, murdered, did prison time and died there, and Pete was born in '82, I'm guessing there wasn't much of a role that Alig played on any part on Pete's queer identity.
Kamala's decision on whether to run for CA governor or US president will add some clarity to both of those races. Newsom clearly wants to run. Does anyone see a world in which two powerhouse CA Bay-area candidates (and personal friends) are opponents in the '28 Dem primary battle? Thoughts?
Are we sure this is accurate? Did it all really go down this way? I'm finding conflicting information online.
A potentially strong rising star in the Democratic Party if these numbers hold in the November gubernatorial election. Harris carried NJ by 5.61%. Hopefully, this is a sign of GOP/MAGA fatigue that we could see this November, leading into next year's midterms. #TeamPete
It all has value. In a country of 330 million+, there is a multitude of opinions that are all valid and worth exploring.
That's just a few of the reasons why I support Pete Buttigieg and why I volunteered for him in 2019/2020. Hope this at least convinces you to give him a serious look if he runs for president in 2028.
9. He regularly goes on Fox News and takes speaking engagements in traditionally conservative places and with traditionally conservative groups. He understands we need to meet people where they are and give them the chance to hear about what Democrats believe in & how they can improve their lives.
7. He supports expanding the Supreme Court to 15 members. This proposal, inspired by a plan by Daniel Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman, includes five justices selected by unanimous consensus of the other 10. 8. He's in favor of abolishing the Electoral College.
5. He's kind and respectful and doesn't feel the need to demean or degrade his opponents. After a decade of Trump, we need a return to civility and decency. 6. He served in active duty in Afghanistan and understands the stress and hardships our armed forces and their families face.
2. He's almost always the smartest person in the room. After a decade of dealing with an absolute idiot like Trump, I want someone wicked smart in charge again. 3. He knows how to talk to people in a way that gets them to understand complex issues. He is a master communicator. 4. He's empathetic.
He is a pragmatic progressive. For example, he's for Medicare For All Who Want It, while others can keep their insurance and doctors if they want to. If the MFAWWI works well as designed, people will, over time, switch to it. But at least everyone is covered, but not forced to leave their plan.
Oh, so we should give up on our candidate of choice so you can better handle it? Is that how this whole nomination thing works? I wish someone had told me that I could get something like this simply by asking strangers to bully a candidate out of running.
PS. Giving another candidate a nickname like "McKinsey ghoul" is Trump/MAGA 101. If anyone is resembling a MAGA troll in this exchange, it's you. I'll give you this: You've mastered the Trump art of projection.
And you think chatting with you is a walk in the park? I'm thinking you've been around long enough to know that when you post shit, not everyone is going to agree with you. How you converse with people who do says everything about who YOU are.
It's not cognitive dissonance for me to share a different opinion than you about where the 2020 Democratic nomination would ultimately end up. It's conjecture on both of our parts. But to be fair, I didn't mis-state any facts about Iowa or NH. What happened happened.
Again, what did I state incorrectly?
Bernie lost Iowa all eight times they reported the results, until Pete was finally declared the winner days after the Iowa caucus. And then, the next primary, Bernie narrowly won NH, in Vermont's backyard. Not exactly the start Bernie wanted, nor the one that would carry him to the nomination.
