Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13018]

fuckin' Pete out here stealing peoples' takeout

 

[Texas Jeff 1908]

11 hours ago, Js1 said:

How about if you tied it to student loan relief?  For instance, the public service job - a portion is forgiven.  Active duty - a much higher portion is forgiven (putting life on the line).  Still 100% voluntary as well - the Olivia Jades of the world don't need to do it because mom and dad paid for them to go to school, but fuck, I would have done a public service job for 18 months to cut down how much I owed out of school. 

I would go for that, including more for those taking on active duty.  On the other end of life, I would seriously consider taking a public service role for 18 months to 2 years if I could buy into Medicare at a younger age at a reasonable price.  Corporate retiree healthcare is going away for lots of us, including me.  The uncertainty of knowing what I may or may not be able to get during those last 5-10 years sucks.

So maybe a basket of benefits to entice people to volunteer ... some folks might enjoy it so much that they just keep going after their time is done.

[Hornius Emeritus 12332]

The ironic this to me is this: other than, well, you know, THAT, Buttigieg appears to be the kind of candidate that conservatives have traditionally backed:  the all-American whiz kid who was valedictorian of his class, combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, believes in Jesus and his message, is polite and respectful, and has had no instances of even questionable behavior, let alone bad behavior. In terms of his demeanor and his personal conduct, he looks to embody far more of the Christian virtues ----- by a long shot ------ than Trump does.  It's not even close.  

 

[henrygandorf 28618]

1 minute ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The ironic this to me is this: other than, well, you know, THAT, Buttigieg appears to be the kind of candidate that conservatives have traditionally backed:  the all-American whiz kid who was valedictorian of his class, combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, believes in Jesus and his message, is polite and respectful, and has had no instances of even questionable behavior, let alone bad behavior. In terms of his demeanor and his personal conduct, he looks to embody far more of the Christian virtues ----- by a long shot ------ than Trump does.  It's not even close.  

 

funny how the script has flipped.

if you had described trump and his behavior to people in the past, they would never guess that republicans not only elected him, but somehow seem to support him at every turn.  pete is the anti-trump, and somehow resembles someone the party used to back.

what a time to be alive.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

12 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

The ironic this to me is this: other than, well, you know, THAT, Buttigieg appears to be the kind of candidate that conservatives have traditionally backed:  the all-American whiz kid who was valedictorian of his class, combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, believes in Jesus and his message, is polite and respectful, and has had no instances of even questionable behavior, let alone bad behavior. In terms of his demeanor and his personal conduct, he looks to embody far more of the Christian virtues ----- by a long shot ------ than Trump does.  It's not even close.  

I can't think of a single Republican candidate in my lifetime who remotely fit that description. 

[henrygandorf 28618]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I can't think of a single Republican candidate in my lifetime who remotely fit that description. 

i don't think george hw is that far off.

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't think george hw is that far off.

He served with distinction in the military. I think the similarities end there. 

[bad_teammate 13018]

K-Street Has Chosen its Candidate: PETE!

K Street insiders who support Buttigieg say the 37-year-old candidate has inspired them to get off the sidelines of the primary.

“If you look at Mayor Pete, he’s standing there, sleeves rolled up, at his 12th event of the day, but he’s still super energized — it’s hard not to be impressed,” said Alex Slater, founder of the Clyde Group, a D.C. public relations firm. “For the D.C. strategist-lobbying class, it’s not uncommon to sit the primary out, so I think it’s very notable that many people are getting on board so early.”

Slater, who is not a registered lobbyist and helped raise money for President Barack Obama, has signed on to the Buttigieg campaign’s investment circle, a term for Buttigieg bundlers.

...

Another co-host of the May 21 fundraiser is David H. Reid, a senior policy adviser at the lobbying and law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. He served as Washington, D.C., finance director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign and has been involved in Democratic fundraising efforts for years, including for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Reid had planned to stay neutral during the primary, but Buttigieg’s message and story convinced him otherwise.

“It really was inspiring to see what it is he brought to the conversation: how thoughtful he is in the agenda he is laying out but also his approach,” Reid said. “It is a breath of fresh air to many. … He brings to the conversation a level of civility, respect and truly thought-out policy positions that I think folks will really start to gravitate toward, and I wanted to make sure that part of the conversation is heard."

[bad_teammate 13018]

GOP: Buncha Dummies

 

[Huckleberry 32144]

In other words, they see as equivalent things that may or may not  help (federal solutions, identity stuff), and things that are already abject moral crimes (Christian hegemony, minority targeting, military gluttony, war on drugs, etc.).  In fact they are resolved to tolerate the latter, but will, in the end, work against the former as they may impinge on their comfort.

This is an incredibly, and surprisingly based on the poster, terrible post.

And yes I'm way behind.

 

[Bama Chick 28595]

Yas Queen!

[Celery Man 20535]

No bite from Buttigieg - Grennel will have to master bait.

no homophobe

[henrygandorf 28618]

he’s always so fucking dependable. 

[maninblack 7974]

Butti killed Beto. It'll be interesting to see how long he lasts.

[Ozzman 36]

Another on point appearance by Pete last night. I thought he did a good job answering the question about the police chief and tapes. He doesn't dodge anything and he's honest.

The mic drop at the end was straight

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[NBMisha 224]

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

This is an incredibly, and surprisingly based on the poster, terrible post.

And yes I'm way behind.

 

I've appreciated your brutal honesty many times.  Maybe less so this time.  Terribly obtuse might be the worst crime.  Anyway...

I'm saying the pubs consider "lesser" and supposed lib moral infractions, and their own "worse" moral views as equivalent.  (Implied, this isn't justified).  Also, that while they might see some trouble sometimes with their own views, they just can't take on the dem views because they are creatures of their own comfort.   One of J. K Galbraiths last books was "The Culture of Contentment" and it has probably overly influenced me.  The thesis is that it is difficult, too difficult for most people, to vote against their comfort.  Now that most Americans are in the comfort zone, policies will be geared to the desires of the comfortable, not to those suffering.  The pubs are simply showing this by example.  As have the centrist dems of the Clinton era.  This is an observation more than an indictment.  At this point.  I'm well among the comfortable, but don't see my comfort as a justification for policy. Yay me.

I don't remember the context of the post you reference...what this thought was responding to.  Another problem with age.

 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22253]

8 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

GOP: Buncha Dummies

 

They have no idea how to attack him.

[Hank Kingsley 19828]

I appreciated his answers regarding with police chief tapes & 1000 homes/1000 days. He owned up to some mistakes. 

If last night proved anything, it's that the honeymoon period for Pete is over. Everyone is going to come after him and it will be interesting to see how he holds up.  

[Js1 82369]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I appreciated his answers regarding with police chief tapes & 1000 homes/1000 days. He owned up to some mistakes. 

If last night proved anything, it's that the honeymoon period for Pete is over. Everyone is going to come after him and it will be interesting to see how he holds up.  

He can use his young white guy powers of climbing on tables to deflect any negative coverage onto Warren, Harris or the old guys. 

[bad_teammate 13018]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If last night proved anything, it's that the honeymoon period for Pete is over. Everyone is going to come after him and it will be interesting to see how he holds up.  

Yep. I was expecting softballs from Harvard and the media since Pete has been a media darling, but it's getting real now. CNN had knives out tonight.

This is good. Right now all the Dem candidates need to toughen up on their weakest points; this is the time to get ready. A hotly contested primary makes for a stronger general election candidate, not weaker.

(Also, it's good for CNN to be the antagonist and not the other candidates.)

Edited April 23, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 28618]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I appreciated his answers regarding with police chief tapes & 1000 homes/1000 days. He owned up to some mistakes. 

If last night proved anything, it's that the honeymoon period for Pete is over. Everyone is going to come after him and it will be interesting to see how he holds up.  

i was also glad cooper pushed him on lack of specific policy (especially since you don't run for president on supreme court reform).  he obviously has some message calendar he's working off of, and it got accelerated last night.  it should.  most of the contenders are rolling out policy ideas right now and he needs to as well.  especially since it's one of the only current attacks that makes any sense.

i also liked the way the dems as a whole stayed on message last night regarding impeachment/trump.  whether they supported, dodged the question, whatever - they all said the ultimate goal is to smash him at the ballot box.  this needs to be the through-line that runs from now until next november.  hammered home by everyone. 

[bad_teammate 13018]

Pete's answer on this is going to have to get better. An outright dismissal of the concept is unacceptable and is absolutely blind to the reality of our racist police/prison system. Even the cop Kamala left it open to "a conversation".

 

[henrygandorf 28618]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's answer on this is going to have to get better. An outright dismissal of the concept is unacceptable and is absolutely blind to the reality of our racist police/prison system. Even the cop Kamala left it open to "a conversation".

 

i disagree with the categorical "unacceptable" declaration on this.  it's what he believes.  just like bernie has his rigid stance on the other side, pete believes that voting is one of the freedoms you give up.  i thought it was a strong opinion and a strong, well-thought-out answer.  i also like his stance on reestablishing voter rights after you've served your debt, and the belief that the issue has indeed been politically charged/motivated, which is shitty, and needs addressing.

he wasn't asked about prison reform, and if he doesn't have a strong stance on that right now, he shouldn't say something vague like "it's something we should take a look at."  this was one of many strong moments from him last night, as once again, it shows him as a man of conviction.  as the "youngster" on the ballot, he needs to show that he has a strong opinion on issues, and that he's not looking to elders to lead the way.

i know this hammers at the whole "pete doesn't care about minorities" narrative that seems to be emanating from someplace, but this ain't that.  you may not agree with his opinion, but his answer was absolutely "acceptable."  i don't agree with bernie's opinion, but he acquitted himself well on what was an obvious trap-door.  ditto on the "socialist" question he got from the daughters of the soviet union society or whatever.

with 20 candidates, this is not the time to be "open to a discussion" on things you should've already thought about. 

[Hank Kingsley 19828]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's answer on this is going to have to get better. An outright dismissal of the concept is unacceptable and is absolutely blind to the reality of our racist police/prison system. Even the cop Kamala left it open to "a conversation".

 

I agree with you. There's a lot more to this question when you look at the need of prison reform. That wasn't the specific question, but I think Pete should/could have weaved that into his argument. 

The question from CNN was poorly worded.  Should the Boston Bomber, murderers and rapists in prison get to vote? WTF is that shit? Just ask if people in prison should be allowed to vote. 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17691]

Bernie is just pandering to the powerful prisoner lobby. Just wait until his campaign is flooded with donations of instant noodles and prepaid calling cards. Then he's going to unveil his 5 point plan to stop snitching. 

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hank Scorpio

[pepper brooks 578]

I am at least willing to listen to this guy as a very reasonable, rational, thoughtful and well spoken man who appears to stand on principles.  I do not agree with most of his big ticket positions, but he at least has my attention as the clear best candidate from the dems.  I could probably accept him as an agree to disagree guy who would act in America's general best interest.  That represents vast improvement from the party and their candidates.  

[Chuckie Finster 22253]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The question from CNN was poorly worded.  Should the Boston Bomber, murderers and rapists in prison get to vote? WTF is that shit? Just ask if people in prison should be allowed to vote. 

I actually liked the way it was worded.  It's easy to say that everyone in prison should be able to vote.  But attaching specific examples of what that means forces the candidates to own their answers.

[Hank Kingsley 19828]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

I actually liked the way it was worded.  It's easy to say that everyone in prison should be able to vote.  But attaching specific examples of what that means forces the candidates to own their answers.

But it's also just as easy to say "no" regarding terrorists, murderers, and rapists.  What about the minority that's doing time for selling a little weed? 

[henrygandorf 28618]

i just like that he addressed the question.

i probably watched 3/5 hours total last night (have the rest dvr'd and will watch this week) and over half the time, the candidates took whatever question was asked and spun it into their stumps.  i get that's how this works, but it would've bugged me if pete said, "well, it really isn't about that, it's about prison reform and drug laws and how they biased against minorities."  he has plenty of time to come out on that later, but it's infuriating to see everyone pivot away from the questions (loaded as they may be).

we have a president that has a pliable relationship with the truth.  it's not the time for dems to be bobbing and weaving.

[Chuckie Finster 22253]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

But it's also just as easy to say "no" regarding terrorists, murderers, and rapists.  What about the minority that's doing time for selling a little weed? 

I think I'm agreeing with the point you're trying to make.  Asking "should prisoners be allowed to vote" opens the door for simple, broad answers.  By adding specifics, it forces the candidate to address issues like you stated, and potentially discuss more complicated solutions, i.e. differentiating by offense, etc..  The wording increases the chances that we get more than a basic yes/no answer.

(And, if I'm being honest, prevents the candidates from unintentionally walking into a "CANDIDATE X SAID THE BOSTON BOMBER SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE" Fox News headline, unless - like Bernie - that's exactly the headline they want.)

Edited April 23, 2019 by Chuckie Finster

[henrygandorf 28618]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

But it's also just as easy to say "no" regarding terrorists, murderers, and rapists.  What about the minority that's doing time for selling a little weed? 

i would imagine that's part of the "ok, you served 15 months for some bullshit drug offense, so now that you're out, let's get you back being a good citizen" campaign to re-enfranchise inmates.  i think plenty of people think there should be a line drawn, but he wasn't asked about that.  

[bad_teammate 13018]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

just like bernie has his rigid stance on the other side, pete believes that voting is one of the freedoms you give up.

Based on what logic, though? If there's a thorough rationale for why, then he should explain that, and if he doesn't have a thorough rationale for taking rights away from citizens then he shouldn't shut the door so absolutely.

he spends most of his response talking about restoring rights once released (not the question he was asked, but whatever)

So here is the substantive part of his response to the question, and it's rife with bad logic:
"... but look, part of the punishment when you are convicted of a crime and incarcerated is you lose certain rights. You lose your freedom. And I think, during that period, it does not make sense to have an exception for the right to vote."

You don't "lose your freedom" when you are convicted and incarcerated. You retain freedom. You still have many rights. You can speak, you are immune from cruelty (by law, at least), you have counsel, you can worship how you like, etc... So on that score, Pete is simply wrong in saying "you lose your freedom" but correct before that saying "you lose certain rights." It's contradictory.

What follows that is an inappropriate use of the word "exception". There are a suite of rights that Americans have and, when imprisoned, some are lost, but the concept of an "exception" doesn't make any sense here, but is used to trigger a feeling of the right to vote being some kind of special treatment. Which it isn't.

It's also a bad answer because he's weirdly coy and cagey in how he discusses the racist angle of this entire situation (i.e. - an openly racist criminal justice system in a white supremacist nation). Which makes no sense.

Quote

 this was one of many strong moments from him last night, as once again, it shows him as a man of conviction.  as the "youngster" on the ballot, he needs to show that he has a strong opinion on issues, and that he's not looking to elders to lead the way. 

[henrygandorf 28618]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Based on what logic, though? If there's a thorough rationale for why, then he should explain that, and if he doesn't have a thorough rationale for taking rights away from citizens then he shouldn't shut the door so absolutely.

he spends most of his response talking about restoring rights once released (not the question he was asked, but whatever)

So here is the substantive part of his response to the question, and it's rife with bad logic:
"... but look, part of the punishment when you are convicted of a crime and incarcerated is you lose certain rights. You lose your freedom. And I think, during that period, it does not make sense to have an exception for the right to vote."

You don't "lose your freedom" when you are convicted and incarcerated. You retain freedom. You still have many rights. You can speak, you are immune from cruelty (by law, at least), you have counsel, you can worship how you like, etc... So on that score, Pete is simply wrong in saying "you lose your freedom" but correct before that saying "you lose certain rights." It's contradictory.

are you asking me what logic pete has for formulating his opinion?  i have no idea.  if you think he should've expounded on that, then that's your opinion.  typically in town halls, your answer needs to neatly fit into about 2-3 minutes, so if he wanted to touch on re-enfranchising parolees/felons, then that's his right to do so.  it's not like he was fucking filibustering or stammering around.

there are laws there were set long ago concerning voting rights of prisoners/released prisoners, and the reasons for doing so back then were horribly shitty and based largely on oppression/suppression (depending on whom you ask, or what state** we're talking about).  the reform of these laws is a slow, brutal process.   

**whether this boils down to a state vs federal issue is a whole other can of worms.

the good news is that since the mid 90's, a lot of the laws concerning re-enfranchisement have been updated (again, depending on the state), and things are moving in a more progressive direction, just slowly.  there are about 10 different levels of restriction/freedom depending on the state.

the second issue - freedom vs rights, is different.  in fact, the idea of freedom and liberty and rights may boil down to interpretation, and everyone in public office is allowed their take on it, and i love hearing about it.  i'm not a constitutional scholar, but i believe when you commit a felony, you should run the risk of certain rights and freedoms being stripped (my opinion). 

prisoners are people, and people have rights and freedoms.  but, by definition, prisoners have limited rights and limited freedoms.  but to say, "if a prisoner has the right to worship how he chooses, then he should, by logic, have the right to vote."  i think that line of thinking is horribly flawed.  does a prisoner have the right to keep and bear arms?  what about search and seizure?

again, by definition, a prisoner is an exception.  prisoners have better healthcare than millions of americans.  they are provided food and shelter that many americans don't have access to.  there are holes and flaws everywhere, obviously.  you can't paint everything with a broad libertarian brush.

[bad_teammate 13018]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if you think he should've expounded on that, then that's your opinion.  typically in town halls, your answer needs to neatly fit into about 2-3 minutes, so if he wanted to touch on re-enfranchising parolees/felons, then that's his right to do so.

Yes, it is his right to do so and I do not think his right to speak should be taken from him. I am merely pointing out that he didn't use his time to explain his position on the question. I think a good answer from him would involve an explanation as to why that right should be taken away from prisoners.

Quote

but to say, "if a prisoner has the right to worship how he chooses, then he should, by logic, have the right to vote."  i think that line of thinking is horribly flawed.  does a prisoner have the right to keep and bear arms?  what about search and seizure? 

A person with that kind of power should consider each right on its own merits and be able to make and explain that determination. There is the valid perspective that the government should have to demonstrate good cause to remove a right from a man.

Keep and bear arms? In prison? Obviously not, given the safety and security concerns.
Search and seizure? In prison? Obviously not, again given the safety and security concerns.

 

[Hornius Emeritus 12332]

Why does everyone talk about a candidate's "policies"  as if they mean a damn thing?  Trump promised the sun and the moon and has accomplished nothing. Bush said he didn't believe in U.S. troops to "nation build."  He did exactly that in Iraq.   The Republicans will not let Buttigieg stack the supreme court or eliminate the electoral college. We should be electing people based on how well we think they will be able to confront the challenges that arise during their administration's time in office.  Felons voting?  It's a nonsense question and talk of the philosophy/moral implications etc... of them voting is blather.    Politics is the art of the possible.

[bad_teammate 13018]

3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Why does everyone talk about a candidate's "policies"  as if they mean a damn thing?  Trump promised the sun and the moon and has accomplished nothing. Bush said he didn't believe in U.S. troops to "nation build."  He did exactly that in Iraq.   The Republicans will not let Buttigieg stack the supreme court or eliminate the electoral college. We should be electing people based on how well we think they will be able to confront the challenges that arise during their administration's time in office.  Felons voting?  It's a nonsense question and talk of the philosophy/moral implications etc... of them voting is blather.    Politics is the art of the possible.

SCHULTZ! SCHULTZ! SCHULTZ!

 

[henrygandorf 28618]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Keep and bear arms? In prison? Obviously not, given the safety and security concerns.
Search and seizure? In prison? Obviously not, again given the safety and security concerns.

i think on this issue you run the risk of "whether prisoners are informed, or whether their vote can be suppressed/compromised, especially within a privatized prison setting".  i think there's an argument to be made on both sides, and i bet if asked again or asked to clarify, he would expound.  you may not agree with it, and i may not either, but i don't think he's "coy", "cagey" or hiding something.

keep chipping away though, it's fun.  i have a lunch meeting, but i'll be back in a few hours.

[Celery Man 20535]

I don’t pay attention to this stuff 24/7 - the first time I heard it come up was during Bernie’s town hall.  Then Kampala was asked (based on Bernie’s stance) and ditto for Pete.  In the thread on this topic that b_t started, he mentioned that he hadn’t thought about it much before last night, if I’m remembering correctly.  It seems like a new issue or stance to be asking for positions on, so I wouldn’t expect Pete to have a canned paragraph ready to recite outlining his detailed reasoning.  I liked Bernie’s answer (because he was consistent and explained why even when it was framed a very negative way, Fox headlines be damned), and I liked Pete’s answer (because he clarified that we are talking about folks currently incarcerated and then gave a position).  I did not like Kamala’s nothing of an answer.  I bet Beto would have said the same thing, and o wouldn’t have loved that either.  It’s ok to say that you haven’t thought through it in depth but your instinct is X.  “We should have the conversation” is “I need to check how this polls”.

[henrygandorf 28618]

3 hours ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Why does everyone talk about a candidate's "policies"  as if they mean a damn thing?  Trump promised the sun and the moon and has accomplished nothing. Bush said he didn't believe in U.S. troops to "nation build."  He did exactly that in Iraq.   The Republicans will not let Buttigieg stack the supreme court or eliminate the electoral college. We should be electing people based on how well we think they will be able to confront the challenges that arise during their administration's time in office.  Felons voting?  It's a nonsense question and talk of the philosophy/moral implications etc... of them voting is blather.    Politics is the art of the possible.

this is how i've always pretty much felt, which made me gravitate towards pete with relative ease.  anyone attacking him on specific policy issues 10 months ahead of the first primary is scared shitless about the way he conducts himself and the way his brain works.

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

"Asking my beautiful golden child to have a discernible set of ideas and policies is attacking him."

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Asking my beautiful golden child to have a discernible set of ideas and policies is attacking him."

Amazing.

You have absolutely zero self awareness, don't you?

Edited April 23, 2019 by BradInATX

[Irwin F Fletcher 3534]

"Asking my beautiful golden child to have a discernible set of ideas and policies is attacking him."

You're trying way to hard. Give it a rest and we may take some of your posts more seriously.

[bad_teammate 13018]

7 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Asking my beautiful golden child to have a discernible set of ideas and policies is attacking him."

You're trying way to hard. Give it a rest and we may take some of your posts more seriously.

I wake up in the morning and think,

"What will make Irwin F Fletcher of SurlyHorns dot com take me more seriously?"

 

then I weep, because it is unknowable

[Irwin F Fletcher 3534]

Well now you know, glad I could help out.

[henrygandorf 28618]

17 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Well now you know, glad I could help out.

way funnier if read in avatar's voice.

[bad_teammate 13018]

Bernie-Backed Conspiracy Media:

"Mayor Pete, do you have any policy ideas?"

henrygandorf:

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

Oh Chasten

 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22253]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh Chasten

 

 

How dare he accurately describe what is occurring?!

[bad_teammate 13018]

"Everyone should have guaranteed healthcare. Felons and prisoners should be able to vote. The minimum wage should be at least $15/hr. We should raise taxes on the wealthy and provide free public college tuition to everyone."

- "STOP INTERRUPTING!"

[bad_teammate 13018]

Does Pete think college-educated white liberals make up 51% of the voting population?