2020 Democratic Nominee

[bad_teammate 13132]

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

"an attack on Bernie Sanders". Lulz. 

Saint Bernards are so hysterically paranoid that they hear what they want to hear. 

Please explain to me how what he said was an attack on Bernie. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13132]

Well you'd have to ask the person who said "attack" about the use of that word specifically.

The conflation of Trump and Bernie as individuals and the conflation of their voting bases are both dishonest rhetorical strategies. They do not represent opposite sides of the same coin. Their intentions are not the same. Their credibility is not the same. Their capability is not the same.

I understand employing that if your goal as a candidate is to sell yourself as the reasonable moderate, of course. You can't do that as a candidate without calling out what you wish to message as the extremes on either side.

Pete's analysis here is lazy which matters in the context of a campaign. Ostensibly, in a campaign in which the competitors are at least pretending to be civil, one must be as charitable as possible when mentioning others. Better to just not mention others at all, because there can be no pretense of objectivity.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

There was no conflation of Trump and Bernie as individuals in that clip.  He's talking about voters looking for a candidate that would radically change a system that has failed them. I don't even consider what he said as anything negative about Bernie or his voters. 

Apparently there will be no patience for nuance when it comes to judging 2020 Democratic candidates. Wonderful. 

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

clearly you can’t mention bernie unless you’re going to praise the shit out of him. nevermind what you’re talking about (if you even listened). pretty sure someone heard sanders and trump in the same paragraph and it set off some bro alarm.  

from now on, if someone posts a tweet, i’m going to assume the text of the tweet came from the mouth of the poster. 

[henrygandorf 29177]

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Not impossible to know how someone will govern.

 

since we're being objective here and relying on twitter experts like tania (1953 followers and a long history of patriotism), let's take a closer look, shall we?

bernie's selection is oh so poignant, since it's a super-relevant look at his life as a mayor.  in case you were wondering, it's from a hard-hitting 4 paragraph bio from vanity fair.

when was he a mayor?  oh, for a couple terms in the 80's (the 1980's).  how did he become a mayor?  oh, he ran against, and beat, a multi-term democrat and former longtime city-councilman.  excellent work.

now, let's look at pete and all his code enforcement and pro-family-displacement data crunching...  

hmm, from that very same article, we already know he hates school teachers:

Like many residents of South Bend, Indiana, Laura Jensen has known Pete Buttigieg for years. In 2012, just after he was first elected mayor, Buttigieg started visiting the preschool where she worked. He would walk the halls and read books aloud to her students.

It was a nice gesture, but what really impressed her were the quieter, more technical fixes Buttigieg made behind the scenes. In 2018, Buttigieg allocated $100,000 of South Bend’s budget to early childhood education and asked Jensen, by then the CEO of the local United Way chapter, how he should spend it. She told him that the county had recently been awarded some federal grants and needed to expand its capacity to take advantage of them. It may not have been the sexiest policy in the world, but Buttigieg agreed to spend the city’s funds on hiring teachers and expanding classrooms.

“I can’t tell you how much it meant to have someone listen when we said we had to build our capacity,” Jensen said. “It was never about ego. It was always, ‘I want to know your thoughts.’ That was huge.”

clearly, he's done a shitty job as mayor...

By the numbers, he has done a remarkable job. Since 2012, South Bend’s population has ticked upward for the first time since 2000. Unemployment has plummeted from 11.8% to 4.1%. Good-governance initiatives have yielded extra funding for parks and millions of dollars in federal grants. Following a “Smart Streets” redesign that slowed traffic and expanded sidewalks, downtown South Bend has attracted more than $90 million in private investment.

and even this clearly one-sided hatchet piece admits:

Though Buttigieg did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this article, the co-chair of the task force, Jim Kelly, disputes the account that the 1,000 Houses in 1,000 Days initiative targeted minority homeowners. South Bend’s policy complied with the law, he said, and enforcement inspectors confirmed that each home was abandoned before deciding whether to compel owners to make repairs or demolish it. Because none of the homes were occupied,

the initiative did not result in the displacement of any South Bend residents.

“The communities in question are not worse off for having vacant lots replace unsafe, vacant houses,” Kelly said. “Adjoining homeowners were certainly not negatively affected by having the houses come down. Anyone who has had to live 15 feet away from a vacant/abandoned house will tell you so.”

i mean, why not listen to tania, she certainly has her finger on the pulse of americans and has for some time:

Tania Singh‏ @TwinklingTania Apr 19

More

Name your fav band. I discovered Queen, Pink Floyd and Mars Volta this year and a combination of those is my 2019 vibe. (In case you don’t know, I’m an immigrant and our communities can be quite insular, so I’m barely learning pre 2003 American rock music culture now.)

yeah, she sounds legit.  she's only bashed pete about 6 times in the last 35 hours, but it's not like she has an agenda.

is anyone else picking up a trend here?

[henrygandorf 29177]

i swear to god why are the quote brackets so fucking complicated when i paste multiple selections?

i blame beto. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i swear to god why are the quote brackets so fucking complicated when i paste multiple selections?

i blame beto. 

Aha! You have now attacked both Beto and the Bernie bros in the span of just a few minutes. Clearly you are a partisan Pete Butt Buddy! 

[henrygandorf 29177]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

since we're being objective here and relying on twitter experts like tania (1953 followers and a long history of patriotism), let's take a closer look, shall we?

bernie's selection is oh so poignant, since it's a super-relevant look at his life as a mayor.  in case you were wondering, it's from a hard-hitting 4 paragraph bio from vanity fair.

when was he a mayor?  oh, for a couple terms in the 80's (the 1980's).  how did he become a mayor?  oh, he ran against, and beat, a multi-term democrat and former longtime city-councilman.  excellent work.

now, let's look at pete and all his code enforcement and pro-family-displacement data crunching...  

hmm, from that very same article, we already know he hates school teachers:

 

 

and if you want an extra lulz, the "side-by-side" article clipping is her pinned tweet.

even if it were the most damning piece of evidence ever, i doubt the bros want bernie's mayoral record from the 80's defining his run for president.  give me a fucking break already.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

Whoo boy. Now we're getting a pro-Bernie Congressman taking shots at a Democratic presidential candidate.  I've always liked Khanna, but who's being "intellectually dishonest" here? 

Shit is about to get real ugly. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

A sitting Democratic Congressman willfully misrepresenting the words of a Democratic Presidential candidate because he works for the Bernie campaign. Am I wrong thinking this is a big deal?  What a terrible look for Khanna and the Bernie campaign. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

clearly you can’t mention bernie unless you’re going to praise the shit out of him. nevermind what you’re talking about (if you even listened). pretty sure someone heard sanders and trump in the same paragraph and it set off some bro alarm.  

It depends on who the "you" is, of course.

You and I on a message board? Sure, whatever, maybe 20 people are paying attention.
A fellow presidential candidate? No, at least not if the goal is a decorous and well-mannered primary.

If the goal is a friendly contest then yes, you absolutely should not mention any other candidate by name except to "praise the shit out of" him or her. (Or, as Bernie did for Hillary in the debates, actively defend them against unfair attacks from the right.)

There are reasons the candidates don't mention each other on the stump. Candidates are not objective analysts or pundits out there, they are selling themselves as superior options. If their plan is to do that by calling out other candidates by name, that's fine, but to do that invites a war.

Quote

from now on, if someone posts a tweet, i’m going to assume the text of the tweet came from the mouth of the poster. 

That's stupid, but have fun.

Quote

when was he a mayor?  oh, for a couple terms in the 80's (the 1980's).  how did he become a mayor?  oh, he ran against, and beat, a multi-term democrat and former longtime city-councilman.  excellent work.

What are you talking about? I might agree that mayoral experience is not particularly meaningful in terms of presidential electoral politics, but you argued that it is essentially a crap shoot to guess how candidates will govern, so I provided some context about the governing history of two relevant candidates.

Quote

even if it were the most damning piece of evidence ever, i doubt the bros want bernie's mayoral record from the 80's defining his run for president.  give me a fucking break already.

"the bros" over and over again. It's sad how much you want to start a fight instead of engage in a discussion.

Obviously those who support Sanders are not defining his run entirely on his mayoral record, it is merely an attempt to compare two candidates' governance. It's not Bernie's fault that Pete has only mayoral experience to use as a comparison.

[ChiTownDoc 21101]

50 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

A sitting Democratic Congressman willfully misrepresenting the words of a Democratic Presidential candidate because he works for the Bernie campaign. Am I wrong thinking this is a big deal?  What a terrible look for Khanna and the Bernie campaign. 

 

 

Very disappointed in Khanna and the Bern bros.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

love to dismiss the legitimacy and relevance of mayoral experience while defending...

*checks notes*

Pete Buttigieg

--

Ro is nice and a great member of Congress.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

Another big Bernie campaigner joining in with the willful misrepresentation of Buttigieg's comments. Khanna retweeted.  These people are too intelligent for it to be an honest mistake on their part.  

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

love to dismiss the legitimacy and relevance of mayoral experience while defending...

*checks notes*

Pete Buttigieg

--

Ro is nice and a great member of Congress.

 

He's gaslighting Buttigieg on this particular issue. Terrible. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Nina should be the VP candidate. She rules.

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It depends on who the "you" is, of course.

You and I on a message board? Sure, whatever, maybe 20 people are paying attention.
A fellow presidential candidate? No, at least not if the goal is a decorous and well-mannered primary.

If the goal is a friendly contest then yes, you absolutely should not mention any other candidate by name except to "praise the shit out of" him or her. (Or, as Bernie did for Hillary in the debates, actively defend them against unfair attacks from the right.)

There are reasons the candidates don't mention each other on the stump. Candidates are not objective analysts or pundits out there, they are selling themselves as superior options. If their plan is to do that by calling out other candidates by name, that's fine, but to do that invites a war.

That's stupid, but have fun.

What are you talking about? I might agree that mayoral experience is not particularly meaningful in terms of presidential electoral politics, but you argued that it is essentially a crap shoot to guess how candidates will govern, so I provided some context about the governing history of two relevant candidates.

"the bros" over and over again. It's sad how much you want to start a fight instead of engage in a discussion.

Obviously those who support Sanders are not defining his run entirely on his mayoral record, it is merely an attempt to compare two candidates' governance. It's not Bernie's fault that Pete has only mayoral experience to use as a comparison.

wasn’t really about you, i was shitting on tania’s tweet and the importance of context. but like i said, if you stand by the tweets you reference, then sure, i’m shitting on your take as well.

i don’t think anyone gets a sense of “how bernie would govern” from a random quote taken 30+ years ago and dropped into a 4 paragraph bio on vf.

that, and all the reactionary garbage flowing from that specific direction. 

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

"the bros" over and over again. It's sad how much you want to start a fight instead of engage in a discussion.

irony is fun for everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

but like i said, if you stand by the tweets you reference, then sure, i’m shitting on your take as well.

Which one? The one about the obvious difference in Pete and Bernie re: worldview and governance or the one about Pete violating the very basic norm of candidates in an ostensibly friendly competition not naming each other as they sell themselves?

I feel pretty confident about both and am happy to engage in a substantive discussion of either.

Quote

i don’t think anyone gets a sense of “how bernie would govern” from a random quote taken 30+ years ago and dropped into a 4 paragraph bio on vf.

The words and actions of leaders do not teach us about those leaders?

If we weren't talking about 3+ decades of consistent leadership and values messaging you might have a point. A couple of mayoral terms wouldn't really be much to go on for a Bernie presidential run without that extra few decades of context.

However, specific to the situation in question, it was not merely words on Sanders's part...

-------------------------------------------
Under Sanders’s leadership, the city adopted a number of laws to stifle the owners’ plans. One ordinance required apartment owners to give residents two years’ notice before a condo conversion. Others gave residents a pre-emptive right to buy the units and prohibited landlords from bulldozing buildings unless they replaced them with the same number of affordable units. (These measures lowered the selling price of the property.) Sanders then worked with the state government and Senator Patrick Leahy to get the $12 million needed to purchase and rehabilitate the buildings. The city allocated funds to help the tenants hire an organizer, form the Northgate Residents Association, and start the process of converting the complex to resident ownership. Today, Northgate Apartments is owned by the tenants and has long-term restrictions to keep the buildings affordable for working families.
-------------------------------------------

Bernie's concern for the individuals within working class is the primary (and secondary and tertiary) motivator behind his action and words in leadership. This is proven by decades of consistent words and actions.

I do not think the same is true of Pete. The impact of Pete's "1000 houses in 1000 days" program on the piece of South Bend that is poor and largely black was apparently invisible to him until he was confronted by those working class people. Granted, his actions changed based on "healthy pressure" from people he did not seem to consider beforehand. It's a sign that Pete can grow beyond a technocrat, perhaps, but that is contrasted starkly with someone who seemed to need no such intervention.

Perhaps that particular initiative is unindicative of Pete's values and leadership, it's true, but unfortunately we have precious little to go on. Take away his mayoral experience as a consideration, however, and we're left with a fairly empty suit stuffed with white liberal signifiers. Which is clearly enough for many, of course, and not necessarily an unsound electoral strategy.

(something something "bros" something something "twitter")

Quote

that, and all the reactionary garbage flowing from that specific direction. 

irony is fun for everyone.

[Guest Lobo]

Biden is in on Wednesday or Thursday of this week.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

oh hey awesome more white guy troops!

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Which one? The one about the obvious difference in Pete and Bernie re: worldview and governance or the one about Pete violating the very basic norm of candidates in an ostensibly friendly competition not naming each other as they sell themselves?

yes, i broke it down in post #5703.  the tania tweet.  (luuuuuulz at "obvious difference re:worldview and governance")

i think the picture in her tweet (if she even made it, which i doubt) is an overly simplistic side-by-side comparison designed to create some sort of easily digestible slam piece for bernie fans.  you know that - everyone knows that.  i just pointed out that the pete portion was taken from an article with a number of flattering paragraphs (even through it was an obvious hit-piece on mayor pete).  and i think that clip does bernie a disservice as well.  there's a ton of great shit out there, and this was an old quote pulled from a non-article (it was from a slim bio).  the comp has a quote from bernie (although an old one) and involves an article about pete with zero quotes from the candidate.  that's intentionally sloppy.

the only thing that makes it (somewhat) relevant is that it's mayoral and related to displacing citizens.  unfortunately for tania, there's a paragraph in the pete article addressing citizen displacement, and there weren't any - just like bernie opposed in his quote.  and yes b_t i would much rather have a discussion directly with you, than have you speak through tweets that cherry pick excerpts intended for twitter pins from know-nothings like tania.  but hey, at least she learned who pink floyd and queen are.

i'm not living in some pie-in-the-sky fantasyland.  i understand how politics work.  but right now, i'm seeing very little pro-bernie stuff from that camp (fans, not the senator).  it's mostly negative shit about other candidates, which is unfortunate this far out.  i really hope the circular firing squad obama predicted doesn't come true, but judging from a lot of these twitter accounts, that's all there is so far.  that, tied with articles highlighting the unlikeliness of bernie voters to support any other candidate is, well, disconcerting.

i know clarity is complicated on a board like this, because i have no real issue with you or anything you've said lately.  but some of the tweets are basically propaganda aimed at lazies.  

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Which one? The one about the obvious difference in Pete and Bernie re: worldview and governance or the one about Pete violating the very basic norm of candidates in an ostensibly friendly competition not naming each other as they sell themselves?

He was responding to a question about Bernie at a meet and greet.  What's happening to you?

 

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

13 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Whoo boy. Now we're getting a pro-Bernie Congressman taking shots at a Democratic presidential candidate.  I've always liked Khanna, but who's being "intellectually dishonest" here? 

Shit is about to get real ugly. 

 

christ, are people really commenting on this without listening to the video or even reading the quote?  (i hadn't watched it until just now).

a congressman is saying pete compared bernie to trump.  he didn't.

the article he cites is in fact titled : 

Pete Buttigieg compares Bernie supporters and Trump fans

which is already different, but he really didn't do that either, although he did mention a certain type of voter.  the quote itself talks about people wanting to blow up the establishment, which could lead them in a couple different directions.

if i was describing college football fans and who they thought might win the national championship, and i said, "a lot of people like the run and gun and high-scoring offenses in the big 12, but it doesn't always play well against the tough defenses and power running of the sec.  if you think power running and defense is important to win big games, you might pick alabama to win, or georgia to win."

would that cause articles where people came out saying "zomg!!  he said alabama and georgia are the same!  and called their fans the same!  and they hate each other!  he's crazy!!"

(there is some irony because "sec-sec-sec" but the point stands).

[Brandywine 1313]

This Dem season is already starting to blow up, it feels like. There are times I feel like we have too much information about people. And then not enough. 17 more months. Ughhhhhh.

[bad_teammate 13132]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the only thing that makes it (somewhat) relevant is that it's mayoral and related to displacing citizens.

The article and larger concerns are not just about displacing citizens. You're artificially narrowing the scope of the discussion. It's not a hit-piece. It's a critical look at Pete's tenure, but it's not unfair at all.

Quote

the quote itself talks about people wanting to blow up the establishment, which could lead them in a couple different directions.

It could, sure, and Pete was free to explain his reasoning. Unfortunately, the sole context he gave was adjacency to Trump with no effort to articulate a difference. Whether that was a conscious effort on Pete's part to try and draw a line between Trump/Bernie Trump Voters/Bernie Voters or an oversight is immaterial at the end of the day.

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He was responding to a question about Bernie at a meet and greet.

If you're going to talk about a fellow candidate in a campaign you wish to remain peaceful and friendly, you speak only praise. That's just how this works. It's called "discretion". You can throw shade or send underlings to snipe, but you keep the other candidate's names out of your mouth. This is basic stuff and it's how this stuff has always worked.

Imagine this from Sanders,
"Well, some people have actually been helped by the dramatic concentration of wealth in the upper reaches over the last few decades. Their lives are comfortable and they do not want dramatic economic or social change, but they don't like how uncivil and racist things have gotten, so some of them vote for someone like Cruz and some of them vote for someone like Pete. That's how we've gotten where we are."

Could I argue that it's a solid analysis of the existing political reality? Of course.

Should Bernie say it? Of course not.

If a candidate wants to go out and play cable news pundit and name names, that's fine, but this is what happens. Once you break the seal, other candidates are going to start playing pundit with you, too.

[henrygandorf 29177]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're artificially narrowing the scope of the discussion.

no.  the tweet did that.  the articles aren't even linked.

the photo cropped and underlined in the tweet were designed this way for a reason.

[bad_teammate 13132]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

no.  the tweet did that.  the articles aren't even linked.

the photo cropped and underlined in the tweet were designed this way for a reason.

The underlined portion of the Pete side didn't reference displacement.

It's hilarious how much more energy you spend as Twitter Detective versus how much you spend actually discussing the substance brought up.

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

I feel like I just need to link this thread anytime people argue that the characters in Game of Thrones are unrealistically focusing on petty shit while the Night King approaches.

[henrygandorf 29177]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The underlined portion of the Pete side didn't reference displacement.

It's hilarious how much more energy you spend as Twitter Detective versus how much you spend actually discussing the substance brought up.

of course it didn't mention displacement.  you know why?  because the portion of the pete article that mentions displacement is a positive part of the article (i put it in my tania response post).   you're agreeing with me without even realizing it.  i posted more excerpts from the article because it was taken out of context to try to make a pinnable tweet that was pro-bernie.  that shit is lazy, and needs to be called out.  and if you post that tweet here, you need to be called out as well.

and if "being a twitter detective" means actually researching the non-provided links and reading the entire article, then you can go ahead and deputize me.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If you're going to talk about a fellow candidate in a campaign you wish to remain peaceful and friendly, you speak only praise. That's just how this works. It's called "discretion". You can throw shade or send underlings to snipe, but you keep the other candidate's names out of your mouth. This is basic stuff and it's how this stuff has always worked.

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

fuck you asshole.  soundbytes and half-sentence tweets only please.  don't fill my brain with useful context.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

of course it didn't mention displacement.  you know why?  because the portion of the pete article that mentions displacement is a positive part of the article

Here are the underlined sentences from each:

From the Pete article: (from noted right-wing propaganda outlet... uh... HuffPo?)

"Less than a mile west of South Bend’s booming downtown, its African American and Latino residents continue to complain of police harassment, rampant evictions and a team of “code enforcement” inspectors who fine them every time they forget to mow their own lawns."

From the Bernie article:

"‘Over my dead body are you going to displace 336 working families. You are not going to convert Northgate into luxury housing,’” recalled Davis, who was Sanders’s key housing aide."

I know you have a grand conspiracy in your mind about her REAL motivations, but the things she underlined are decent-enough contrasts between the two mayors.

Do you think there is no difference between Pete-as-mayor and Bernie-as-mayor or is this entire tangent from you seriously just you trying to divine the secret intentions of a Twitterer?

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

fuck you asshole.  soundbytes and half-sentence tweets only please.  don't fill my brain with useful context.

I watched the entire 17 minute video and the part being discussed isn't in the video at all. (someone please tell me the timestamp if I missed it)

Did you even watch it?

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I watched the entire 17 minute video and the part being discussed isn't in the video at all. (someone please tell me the timestamp if I missed it)

Did you even watch it?

the video addressed your specific quote.

[Hank Kingsley 20705]

 

[henrygandorf 29177]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I know you have a grand conspiracy in your mind about her REAL motivations, but the things she underlined are decent-enough contrasts between the two mayors.

jesus, reading is not that hard.  it's not a grand conspiracy, it's exactly the opposite.  i think it's cut-corners lazy.  i think she's perfect for twitter, and likely cannot have a 3 sentence conversation about anyone involved in the 2020 election, including bernie.

as someone who is current with what's actually happening, i would think your inclination would be to not align yourself with that kind of crap.

[mchookem 16219]

10 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

so wth is wrong with that? he's right. 

[Guest Lobo]

AOC says basically the same anti- establishment shit  and y’all go nuts.  Pete says it,  with even greater eloquence , and he’s chastised by his party.   Da fuh?

[henrygandorf 29177]

10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so wth is wrong with that? he's right. 

begun, the twitter wars have.

[Bama Chick 28596]

AOC says basically the same anti- establishment shit  and y’all go nuts.  Pete says it,  with even greater eloquence , and he’s chastised by his party.   Da fuh?

AOC isn’t daring to challenge Bernie for the presidency.

[bad_teammate 13132]

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the video addressed your specific quote.

Can you give me the timestamp?

Do you think there is no difference between Pete-as-mayor and Bernie-as-mayor?

9 minutes ago, mchookem said:

so wth is wrong with that? he's right. 

That's not the original quote; that's the walk-back/clarification from today.

[WBT 20422]

This kerfuffle is humorous.  People have noted similarities in the outsider appeal of Sanders and Trump, especially vis-a-vis their advantages over HRC, since at least early 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-sanders-fantasy.html

Quote

The people who turn up at Sanders and Trump rallies are wed, across the aisle, in bonds of populist unrest. They’re revolting against party elites, and especially against the all-in-the-family candidates anointed by the Democratic and the Republican leadership: Clinton and Bush, the wife and brother of past party leaders.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/10/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-primary-anti-establishment-outsider-campaigns

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by WBT

[bad_teammate 13132]

I'm here for the CYBER WALL

[henrygandorf 29177]

32 minutes ago, WBT said:

This kerfuffle is humorous.  People have noted similarities in the outsider appeal of Sanders and Trump, especially vis-a-vis their advantages over HRC, since at least early 2016.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/24/opinion/campaign-stops/the-trump-sanders-fantasy.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/10/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-primary-anti-establishment-outsider-campaigns

 

yeah, but you can't say it, gawd!

[bad_teammate 13132]

Do you guys think candidates should name each other like that? Is that the 2020 Democratic primary you'd like to see?

Put aside your desire to own the bros and answer honestly. Should the candidates recycle pundit takes about the other candidates in public?

[henrygandorf 29177]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you give me the timestamp?

Do you think there is no difference between Pete-as-mayor and Bernie-as-mayor?

That's not the original quote; that's the walk-back/clarification from today.

ok, you keep hanging onto this mayor thing, so i'll be as clear as i can about what i was talking about, then we can move on.  but first...

1. the "timestamp" was your response to what hk posted (the entire video).  you said if a candidate mentions another, it should be in a certain way only.  when asked about bernie, he was exactly how you wanted him to be - honest, complimentary, forthcoming, and gracious.  that showed the larger context behind the idea that bernie's name was brought up later (even if that specific clip didn't include the 20 second soundbyte).  most of these are over an hour and he does several a day.  they all do.

2. i absolutely welcome comparisons of mayor bernie and mayor pete.  i do not welcome pinnable twitter excerpts that distort things so that people can rally for someone and hate on another without all the facts.  by all accounts, mayor bernie was good for his city and his people.  i never said otherwise.  i thought it was interesting that he took down a multi-term democrat to get there, but that's where we are now.  big tent, and all.  and no, i never claimed huffpo was righty leaning, that's silly. 

i used "hit-piece" which implies falsehoods, so i should've just said "negative article".  negative headlines get clicks, i don't fault the current state of online journalism.  huffpo did nothing wrong.  neither did vanity fair.  i did think it was worth pointing out that the very same article clipped in that tweet had many positive paragraphs (some of which i highlighted in my tania post) whereas that bernie quote was from a fluffy little bio on vanity fair.  bernie's quote was about displacing citizens and there was a positive paragraph about pete not displacing anyone either, but she didn't include that in her tweet (for some reason).  she made it about levying fines, with again, very little context.

she didn't link the articles.  she probably didn't even do it herself, yet she pins it at the top of her profile like it's her crowning achievement.  these are lazy, sloppy, uninformed, provide no context, and this is what is so dangerous in today's political climate.  it used to be all about soundbytes for tv.  now it's way way worse.  i could take 15 minutes and produce one of these on ms paint that made bernie look shitty, and probably get some likes and some shares.  that shouldn't be what this is all about, but this is what gets people riled up on twitter, so it keeps happening. 

and it'll get worse.

tl; dr - context is king.  twitter is lazy.

[henrygandorf 29177]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you guys think candidates should name each other like that? Is that the 2020 Democratic primary you'd like to see?

Put aside your desire to own the bros and answer honestly. Should the candidates recycle pundit takes about the other candidates in public?

it's going to happen.  and when it does happen, i hope it's exactly like it happened this time.  pete's reacting and speaking to a specific type of voter.  i don't think he was "recycling pundit takes".  i think most people can infer certain things on their own.  the first debates are in a couple of months, so you should be prepared.

pete also has a history of praising bernie in speeches, quotes, and high school essays, so i think with that in mind, what he said is fine.  if cory booker came out of nowhere and blasted klobuchar, that would be a different can of worms.  but yes, i'm biased because i like pete.  pete speaks his mind, believes what he believes, and does it all with conviction and purpose.  wonder where he learned that type of behavior?

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

that showed the larger context behind the idea that bernie's name was brought up later

It shows Pete being gracious in one instance, but that isn't necessarily context for any other statements.

I don't think Pete is on some vicious smear campaign. My personal take is that Pete was lazy/clumsy with his lumping in Trump/Sanders:TrumpVoters/SandersVoters with a larger overall point. I think it illustrates the importance of simply keeping an opponent's name out of your mouth, because even if you don't have negative intentions you can start a fight, either directly or indirectly.

Quote

2. i absolutely welcome comparisons of mayor bernie and mayor pete.

Excellent. So, given what you know, what is the comparison you would make?

Do you think there is no difference between Pete-as-mayor and Bernie-as-mayor? Do you think their actions and words as mayors of their respective cities tell us anything about their leadership? Any ideas?

I will re-offer my analysis, such as it is, to spur a conversation.

---

Bernie's concern for the individuals within working class is the primary (and secondary and tertiary) motivator behind his action and words in leadership. This is proven by decades of consistent words and actions.

I do not think the same is true of Pete. The impact of Pete's "1000 houses in 1000 days" program on the piece of South Bend that is poor and largely black was apparently invisible to him until he was confronted by those working class people. Granted, his actions changed based on "healthy pressure" from people he did not seem to consider beforehand. It's a sign that Pete can grow beyond a technocrat, perhaps, but that is contrasted starkly with someone who seemed to need no such intervention.

Perhaps that particular initiative is unindicative of Pete's values and leadership, it's true, but unfortunately we have precious little to go on. Take away his mayoral experience as a consideration, however, and we're left with a fairly empty suit stuffed with white liberal signifiers. Which is clearly enough for many, of course, and not necessarily an unsound electoral strategy.

---

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

it's going to happen.

That's not an answer to the question. Should candidates do it or not?

Should Bernie come out and say this?

"Well, some people have actually been helped by the dramatic concentration of wealth in the upper reaches over the last few decades. Their lives are comfortable and they do not want dramatic economic or social change, but they don't like how uncivil and racist things have gotten, so some of them vote for someone like Cruz and some of them vote for someone like Pete. That's how we've gotten where we are."

[bad_teammate 13132]

New Hampshire, unsurprisingly, shaping up to be THE WHITE MAN SHOWDOWN