Who will be the first openly LGBT US President?

[Big Bad Blue]

This is just like voting for the first women president. We're supposed to vote on identity now instead of policy.

Because refusing to vote for a woman because she's a woman is totally not voting on identity.

LGBT+ people exist. Get over it.

No, everyone is agreed a woman would make a great President, just not any woman who's actually run for the office.

...Much like feminism has been hijacked with burgeois white McFeminism that cares more about a female CEO who only makes 30 million on her male peers' 40 million than a working class woman who is working herself to death to stave off homelessness and pay for health care, we now have an affluent and mainly white McGay class whose main problem is that their straight house guests spilled wine on their Vanderkoff couch.

Or that a Black comedian makes remarks about trans people.

Probably a Republican.

It's a heavy lift to find any LGBT Republican, let alone one prominent enough for Presidential timber. Eddie Mannis was a bit of a strech. There's Lindsey but he's still in the closet.

It doesn't matter whether or not a LGBTQ+ U.S president is elected or not, it doesn't matter due to the fact that U.S imperialism in the global south will continue regardless of whether or not the president is a homosexual or whatnot due to the inherent nature of capitalism being that to constantly expand and consume more ever-increasingly infinite resources. The simple version of this already simplistic post is at least the drone strikes are rainbow coloured and in surface-level and superficial support of the LGBTQ+. God bless America.

Some latte liberals cosplaying as leftists like to believe that more drone pilots are okay, as long as they paint rainbows on their drones. More lesbian or non-binary drone pilots, y'all!

Btw, for the record, I'm a bisexual American former Democrat and former Republican who has flirted with anarcho-syndicalism, but lately is just in favor of an enlightened, benevolent stratocratic dictatorship. Either that or, if it must be civilian, something like the Committee for Public Safety under Jacobin leaders such as Robespierre and Danton. Though more like Danton, who wanted to allow dissent and stop beheading people once the real traitors were killed or exiled.

Big Danton fan. "Il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace!"

I'd say there is nothing inherently wrong with it, but that its not particularly likely within US politics. A woman candidate won't get elected for the same or similar reasons for why Hilary Clinton lost. Even most women voters seem to hate voting for women to represent them.

Clinton lost because she ran a shit campaign. Until literally the last second she took the rust belt for granted. If she hadn’t done that she likely would have been President

Clinton lost because the Electoral College failed in its duty to keep authoritarian narcissists with foreign ties out of the Oval Office. She won the popular vote by 3 million.

[Thermodolia]

Clinton lost because she ran a shit campaign. Until literally the last second she took the rust belt for granted. If she hadn’t done that she likely would have been President

Clinton lost because the Electoral College failed in its duty to keep authoritarian narcissists with foreign ties out of the Oval Office. She won the popular vote by 3 million.

Lol no. The EC was never designed to keep an authoritarian narcissist out of the White House. It was created to give slave states more power over the more populous northern states.

It has nothing to do with authoritarianism or the prevention thereof.

And yes Clinton did lose because of the EC, because she until the last minute, ignored the rust belt states. Thinking that they would be a permanent blue wall. If she had campaigned a bit more in those areas she would have been president given that Trump won by razor thin margins in those states

[New Tryphalia]

Wait, isn't Pete Buttigieg a Log Cabin Republican? He certainly has the CIA ties for it. Not to mention those wine caves and that loose talk of sending troops to Mexico (sure, it wasn't an invasion, you got Tulsi on that point, but only on the slenderest pretexts in which Emil Hacha being bullied into letting Germany occupy Czechoslovakia wasn't technically an "invasion," either).

[Big Bad Blue]

Clinton lost because the Electoral College failed in its duty to keep authoritarian narcissists with foreign ties out of the Oval Office. She won the popular vote by 3 million.

Lol no. The EC was never designed to keep an authoritarian narcissist out of the White House. It was created to give slave states more power over the more populous northern states.

It has nothing to do with authoritarianism or the prevention thereof.

And yes Clinton did lose because of the EC, because she until the last minute, ignored the rust belt states. Thinking that they would be a permanent blue wall. If she had campaigned a bit more in those areas she would have been president given that Trump won by razor thin margins in those states

True enough and it still gives the most reactionary elements in US society an outsized role in selecting a chief executive. But the rationale for it was as stated, and if it can't keep a Trump or Trumpist's hands off of the machinery of government then it has no useful role to play and we should move, one way or another, to direct election of our Presidents.

Instead of Hamilton:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

We got Mencken:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

[Immortan Khan]

Clinton lost because the Electoral College failed in its duty to keep authoritarian narcissists with foreign ties out of the Oval Office. She won the popular vote by 3 million.

Lol no. The EC was never designed to keep an authoritarian narcissist out of the White House. It was created to give slave states more power over the more populous northern states.

Is this why NJ and CT favored the EC? The system of having an EC was determined before the three fifths compromise.

[New Tryphalia]

Lol no. The EC was never designed to keep an authoritarian narcissist out of the White House. It was created to give slave states more power over the more populous northern states.

It has nothing to do with authoritarianism or the prevention thereof.

And yes Clinton did lose because of the EC, because she until the last minute, ignored the rust belt states. Thinking that they would be a permanent blue wall. If she had campaigned a bit more in those areas she would have been president given that Trump won by razor thin margins in those states

True enough and it still gives the most reactionary elements in US society an outsized role in selecting a chief executive. But the rationale for it was as stated, and if it can't keep a Trump or Trumpist's hands off of the machinery of government then it has no useful role to play and we should move, one way or another, to direct election of our Presidents.

Instead of Hamilton:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?

We got Mencken:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Didn't that just happen in the past two election cycles? Neither Biden nor Trump is exactly Stephen Hawking. And then there's Bush.

Mind you, there's Obama, but he's something of an outlier. Clinton was, well, maybe passable on the intellectual front, and even he played to the lowest common denominators of intellect and understanding with some faux-populism in 1992, mostly to counter Ross Perot's own brand, I suspect. The elder Bush was a rocket scientist compared to most of the recent Commander-in-Chiefs, and he was involved in a secret society called Skull and Bones, which makes you wonder about many Ivy League types.

In my experience, less credentialed intellectuals are often wiser than the academic elite.

I call it the "Will Hunting" effect, after Matt Damon's role in Good Will Hunting. There is a lot of untapped intellectual potential that is ignored because of the lack of university credentials. Remember, Einstein was just a patent clerk.

[HISPIDA]

why in the world is lindsey graham up there
he literally voted against lgbtq+ rights

[Ethel mermania]

I like whigs.

You don’t need anymore hair

Not out of my freaking ears, no.

[Aggicificicerous]

It's a heavy lift to find any LGBT Republican, let alone one prominent enough for Presidential timber. Eddie Mannis was a bit of a strech. There's Lindsey but he's still in the closet.

I don't see any openly LGBT politicians close to becoming president. It's probably more of a toss up, but I don't think the Democrats are the only ones who can put up a facade of openness. Republicans are more likely to fall into line behind a candidate, whereas the Democrats are more likely to put up an empty shell of a person (like Buttigieg) then scratch their heads when it doesn't work out.

[New Tryphalia]

It's a heavy lift to find any LGBT Republican, let alone one prominent enough for Presidential timber. Eddie Mannis was a bit of a strech. There's Lindsey but he's still in the closet.

I don't see any openly LGBT politicians close to becoming president. It's probably more of a toss up, but I don't think the Democrats are the only ones who can put up a facade of openness. Republicans are more likely to fall into line behind a candidate, whereas the Democrats are more likely to put up an empty shell of a person (like Buttigieg) then scratch their heads when it doesn't work out.

Fred Karger made an attempt, back in 2012. To no avail, of course. Now we got Mayor Pete, the LGBTQ DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

[New Tryphalia]

It's a heavy lift to find any LGBT Republican, let alone one prominent enough for Presidential timber. Eddie Mannis was a bit of a strech. There's Lindsey but he's still in the closet.

I don't see any openly LGBT politicians close to becoming president. It's probably more of a toss up, but I don't think the Democrats are the only ones who can put up a facade of openness. Republicans are more likely to fall into line behind a candidate, whereas the Democrats are more likely to put up an empty shell of a person (like Buttigieg) then scratch their heads when it doesn't work out.

Mayor Pete is worse than an empty suit. He's probably a CIA plant. But that's none of my business, since I'm an independent these days.

[Dominioan]

Not until at least the 2030's will this happen. They will probably be closer to Republicans on economic issues if they want a chance.

[American Legionaries]

It'll probably be a minute, and not even someone on the radar right now.

[Mercatus]

If this happens we’ll be further accelerated on the path of a violent balkanization of the country.

Talks about diversity are divisive enough, actual action would probably push everyone over the edge. Such is the penalty of identity politics.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, everyone is agreed a woman would make a great President, just not any woman who's actually run for the office.

Indeed. LGBT candidates should be treated the same way. I want good policies. I would vote for an LGBTQ candidate if I liked their policies, but they should not expect my vote just based on identity.

[Rusozak]

Lori Lightfoot as potential President, what? She was Chicago's mayor for less than a year when she already had a career-destroying scandal involving law enforcement.

[Galactic Transylvania]

Lori Lightfoot as potential President, what? She was Chicago's mayor for less than a year when she already had a career-destroying scandal involving law enforcement.

If no one escapes the New York Mayor's Mansion with their upward ambitions intact, no one escapes Chicago's with the ability to show their face in public.

[Punished UMN]

ur mom lol

[South Willowdale]

It will be someone we don't even know yet. Considering how long it took to elect a black president and the fact that there's never been a female president should tell you all you need to know. Unfortunately, this country isn't ready to vote for an LGBTQ US President any time soon.

[Neanderthaland]

But what if - hear me out - what if Trump came out?

[The Black Forrest]

But what if - hear me out - what if Trump came out?

Shush you. We don’t need to make the LGBTQ community look bad.

[Sandalos]

But what if - hear me out - what if Trump came out?

Queen, we know that he wouldn't do but girl give us the TEA~!

[-Astoria-]

But what if - hear me out - what if Trump came out?

That is a big if.

[Neanderthaland]

But what if - hear me out - what if Trump came out?

That is a big if.

I mean it's not impossible that everything up until now was just a really determined effort to convince us otherwise.

[Hemakral]

This is just like voting for the first women president. We're supposed to vote on identity now instead of policy.

Every US president for the last eighty years has been a rich white dude (apart from Obama who's black, but still rich). The only reason the establishment is trying to introduce variety is so liberals will vote for another soulless corporate shill, i.e. rich gay dude, rich black dude, rich trans woman, etc, etc. Kinda like how corporations don't do anything for the LGBT community all year round, then slap a rainbow on their merch in June. It's not representation, it's distraction from the evils of the capitalist system.