Buttigieg 2020

[troph 24900]

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

If states like MI, PA, WI, NV, CO and AZ aren’t in play - if they’ve swung already to the Dems then I think anyone of the major candidates can win. I think Pete, Bernie and Warren have scaremongering issues attached to them if those states are in play but it would be a toss up. And I love a good gay politician, believe me but I think the only thing worse for the fundies than a black president is a gay one. They might struggle with a damn socialist too.

[Celery Man 20982]

 

3 minutes ago, troph said:

 

If states like MI, PA, WI, NV, CO and AZ aren’t in play - if they’ve swung already to the Dems then I think anyone of the major candidates can win. I think Pete, Bernie and Warren have scaremongering issues attached to them if those states are in play but it would be a toss up. And I love a good gay politician, believe me but I think the only thing worse for the fundies than a black president is a gay one. They might struggle with a damn socialist too.

 

i don't disagree broadly, but I think they'd have a harder time with bernie than pete.  I'm not sure how important that is.

[bad_teammate 13221]

states like MI, PA, WI, NV, CO and AZ

I think they'd have a harder time with bernie than pete

(Bernie won the states in bold in 2016)

Punditry without any evidence or data to back it up is really bad.

[bad_teammate 13221]

Also, how on earth is it OK for a Dem candidate to be saying that another Dem candidate can't win the general?

Pete is feeling his oats going so aggressively on the attack against Sanders.

I thought this wasn't the campaign we wanted to run, right?

[NWBuck 8577]

Quote

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said he doubts fellow hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) can beat President Trump in a general election. 

“I have a hard time seeing the coalition ultimately coming together there,” the South Bend, Ind., mayor told The New York Times. 

That's the quote... can anyone find the context? The "there" seems pretty nebulous.

From the linked article:

Quote

In an interview, Mr. Buttigieg said Mr. Sanders’s left-wing proposals were no longer as provocative as in 2016 — “people were refreshed by the novelty of that boldness” — and expressed skepticism that a self-described democratic socialist in his late 70s could win a general election.

Still would like to hear the full interview/quote rather than the soundbite.

Edited April 24, 2019 by NWBuck

[Celery Man 20982]

Apart from Colorado, Trump won those states in 2016.  But I was referring to the sentence about fundies and having issues with a gay man, not the different part that you quoted.

[Fozzz 152]

Rubin and others like her fluffing Mayor Pete is giving the game away.

 

 

[troph 24900]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

states like MI, PA, WI, NV, CO and AZ

I think they'd have a harder time with bernie than pete

(Bernie won the states in bold in 2016)

Punditry without any evidence or data to back it up is really bad.

he won over clinton in a dem primary.  trump won them over hillary.  come on dude.  we have no data for bernie in a general.

[HenryJames 66139]

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

it's insane the evangelicals don't get called out more for their hypocrisy.

graham is eating shit all day on twitter and it's entertaining.

[bad_teammate 13221]

50 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

it's insane the evangelicals don't get called out more for their hypocrisy.

It happens constantly, but it doesn't matter.

We are never going to own them with reason and logic.

[happyfunball 481]

[bad_teammate 13221]

13 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Ah... "openly"

[David Dennison 18941]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah... "openly"

That is what you call "male gaze."

[bad_teammate 13221]

"I wonder if this young stallion likes horses."

[LonghornJudas 1101]

"Ever seen a grown man naked?"

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

28 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

 

i may have missed it, i had a busy day, but does pete support legislation like this?  or did he from south bend (obviously it's a state, not local issue anyway).

pretty sure 48/50 states don't allow inmates to vote (if i heard that correctly).  a bunch of states allow re-enfranchisement of felons upon their release, which is what pete said at the town hall.

assuming i did not miss anything, this is a fucking stretch to say the least to loop pete in on an opinion others shared from that same stage.

[Fozzz 152]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i may have missed it, i had a busy day, but does pete support legislation like this?  or did he from south bend (obviously it's a state, not local issue anyway).

pretty sure 48/50 states don't allow inmates to vote (if i heard that correctly).  a bunch of states allow re-enfranchisement of felons upon their release, which is what pete said at the town hall.

assuming i did not miss anything, this is a fucking stretch to say the least to loop pete in on an opinion others shared from that same stage.

I don't know if he does, but supporting that type of legislation would be consistent with the argument that you should not have the right to vote until you have fully endured the punishment for your crime, that punishment including the payment of certain fines.  Why should some criminals benefit from obtaining the right to vote without having first to pay what they are required to pay as part of their criminal sentence?  Sounds like a windfall for terrorists to me.

[bad_teammate 13221]

8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i may have missed it, i had a busy day, but does pete support legislation like this?

 

no, and Bruenig is not saying that Pete does support that Florida legislation What Bruenig said is...

"This is the kind of shenanigans you enable when you depart from the simple principle of universal suffrage."

enable - give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Once you say, "this right doesn't apply to X-class of citizens) (i.e, "it is not universal") you open the door for legislation like this.

[LonghornJudas 1101]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't know if he does, but supporting that type of legislation would be consistent with the argument that you should not have the right to vote until you have fully endured the punishment for your crime, that punishment including the payment of certain fines.  Why should some criminals benefit from obtaining the right to vote without having first to pay what they are required to pay as part of their criminal sentence?  Sounds like a windfall for terrorists to me.

The only thing I have seen him say, other than the felons shouldn't be allowed to vote while incarcerated is "“Enfranchisement upon release is important, but part of the punishment...", which was part of the felons voting while incarcerated discussion. I'm not sure that was directly in regard to the bill in Florida, though.

To your question, I would say that the underlying argument here is that that type of restriction unfairly impacts those at different income levels, primarily those in the minority community, which makes some logical sense. When you simply take away the right to vote, travel internationally, be a parent, buy a firearm, etc., that impacts everyone evenly because that can't be restored through simply paying your way out of it (theoretically).

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, LonghornJudas said:

The only thing I have seen him say, other than the felons shouldn't be allowed to vote while incarcerated is "“Enfranchisement upon release is important, but part of the punishment...", which was part of the felons voting while incarcerated discussion. I'm not sure that was directly in regard to the bill in Florida, though.

To your question, I would say that the underlying argument here is that that type of restriction unfairly impacts those at different income levels, primarily those in the minority community, which makes some logical sense. When you simply take away the right to vote, travel internationally, be a parent, buy a firearm, etc., that impacts everyone evenly because that can't be restored through simply paying your way out of it (theoretically).

You don't think the same arguments would apply to incarceration?  

[bad_teammate 13221]

Tough-on-Crime Democrats: "You don't need universal rights. We will give the horde some of your blood but protect you from them taking too much."

*Democrats fail to protect the people, lose power, furrow brows while civil rights are annihilated, blacks continually locked away at astronomical rates, lives forever destroyed*

Tough-on-Crime Democrats: "Ah, well, nevertheless..."

[Celery Man 20982]

8 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

i may have missed it, i had a busy day, but does pete support legislation like this?  or did he from south bend (obviously it's a state, not local issue anyway).

pretty sure 48/50 states don't allow inmates to vote (if i heard that correctly).  a bunch of states allow re-enfranchisement of felons upon their release, which is what pete said at the town hall.

assuming i did not miss anything, this is a fucking stretch to say the least to loop pete in on an opinion others shared from that same stage.

not supporting things that Bernie started talking about 3 days ago = being a florida state house republican

[bad_teammate 13221]

5 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

not supporting things that Bernie started talking about 3 days ago = being a florida state house republican

why talk about the substance of an issue when you can whine about personalities?

[Celery Man 20982]

check your other thread on the topic for a discussion about the idea. here I'm responding to the dishonest suggestion that Pete supports legislation like a poll tax for ex felons.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

no, and Bruenig is not saying that Pete does support that Florida legislation What Bruenig said is...

"This is the kind of shenanigans you enable when you depart from the simple principle of universal suffrage."

enable - give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something.

Once you say, "this right doesn't apply to X-class of citizens) (i.e, "it is not universal") you open the door for legislation like this.

oh wow, yeah, i had head the word "enable" before, but i never quite knew what it meant.  whew, close call there.

the enable sentence was a stretch, but he didn't say anything about pete there, so it's a general stretch.  attaching it to "depart from universal suffrage" implies that 50 states allow one thing, and some are opening the door to go the other way.  it's a misrepresentation at the very least.  it's like me saying "student loan debts can get out of hand and really stunt the professional growth of a young adult when you depart from the simple principle of universal free college for all."  but hey, what works on twitter, right?

it was really the next sentence that killed it for me.  "sad to see dems like pete support similar efforts to disenfranchise voters."

um, what?  pete isn't supporting anything similar to what happened in florida.  he said inmates shouldn't be allowed to vote, which is the more commonly shared side of that argument.  then he said we should re-enfranchise upon release, which is also the more commonly shared view (and law) on the subject.  i had never heard of anything like what happened in florida, and to imply that pete specifically is paving the way for laws like this is horribly misleading.  and he's smart enough to know better.

sidenote - pretty cool that a small town mayor can say something on cnn and help open the door for laws to be passed in other states.  didn't realize he yielded that type of power.  is he an avenger? 

[bad_teammate 13221]

Quote

... and to imply that pete specifically is paving the way for laws like this is horribly misleading. 

That's not what Bruenig was doing. He is saying that Pete supports laws that are similar to the Florida one, and he is right.

The similarities are obvious:
- They remove voting rights from American citizens
- The motivation to remove the voting rights is punitive
- The justification is that the American no longer deserves voting rights because he was convicted of a crime

The difference is also obvious:

- Those in prison lose the right, those outside of prison regain the right

They are not the same, of course, but they are, in fact, very similar. The difference between an imprisoned rapist and a freed rapist is not really material to any kind of rational justification to remove the right to vote.

Bruenig isn't saying Pete is "specifically" responsible. Pete is as responsible as anyone else.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

That's not what Bruenig was doing. He is saying that Pete supports laws that are similar to the Florida one, and he is right.

The similarities are obvious:
- They remove voting rights from American citizens
- The motivation to remove the voting rights is punitive
- The justification is that the American no longer deserves voting rights because he was convicted of a crime

The difference is also obvious:

- Those in prison lose the right, those outside of prison regain the right

They are not the same, of course, but they are, in fact, very similar. The difference between an imprisoned rapist and a freed rapist is not really material to any kind of rational justification to remove the right to vote.

Bruenig isn't saying Pete is "specifically" responsible. Pete is as responsible as anyone else.

lol ok buddy.

it was an intentionally misleading tweet meant to implicate pete for something he has nothing to do with.

taking shots like this at pete just show how nervous he's making supporters of other candidates.  and i'm fine with that.

[bad_teammate 13221]

I am continually amazed at how skilled you are at avoiding substantive discussion of an issue and pivoting effortlessly to yet another whine about Bernie Bros.

[henrygandorf 29194]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am continually amazed at how skilled you are at avoiding substantive discussion of an issue and pivoting effortlessly to yet another whine about Bernie Bros.

yes, we're all amazed at my skillset.  the substantive discussion is on the thread you started.  we all chimed in.

this was a somewhat fair tweet bruenig made as long as he said "most dems" - even though i haven't seen most dems come out for a poll tax.  once he said pete's name, he opened the door to get completely deserved criticism.  unfortunately, he'll probably attract a lot of comments/likes/attention from people that just don't know better.  ahhh, twitter.

i see slanted tweets intended to mislead lazies all the time.  i just wish they weren't all coming from the same place.

[bad_teammate 13221]

*hail falls from the sky, covering henry's car in dents*

*tears fill henry's eyes as he looks to sky, shaking his fist*

"BERNIE BROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Quote

i see slanted tweets intended to mislead lazies all the time.  i just wish they weren't all coming from the same place.

Do you seriously believe that only the dastardly Bros tweet misleadingly/lazily or are you just being whiny?

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

*hail falls from the sky, covering henry's car in dents*

*tears fill henry's eyes as he looks to sky, shaking his fist*

"BERNIE BROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Do you seriously believe that only the dastardly Bros tweet misleadingly/lazily or are you just being whiny?

the majority of the misleading tweets i see from the left are from bros, sorry to say.  i would say at least 2-3x as many from the bros as the rest of the field combined.  but i admit, i don't sift thru twitter all that often, and typically click on something here that leads me that way, so it could be user error from my end.

as for the right, it's a pretty mixed bag.  except trump's.  his are neither misleading or lazy.

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you seriously believe that only the dastardly Bros tweet misleadingly/lazily or are you just being whiny?

just glad we can agree that bruenig's tweet was misleading and lazy.  good to have you on my team. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

the majority of the misleading tweets i see from the left are from bros, sorry to say.  i would say at least 2-3x as many from the bros as the rest of the field combined.

Love to make up stats to own the libs

Matt Bruenig's Tweet was good. He's good and cool.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Love to make up stats to own the libs

Matt Bruenig's Tweet was good. He's good and cool.

yes.  his mom says he's cool.

[bad_teammate 13221]

Pete's position on imprisoned suffrage is not well-thought-out and well-considered. The rationale behind his position is virtually identical to the rationale behind the people who say we shouldn't all ex-felons to vote. His support of this position makes it easier for those who want to remove voting rights from released prisoners, especially as he gains power and influence and seeks the highest office.

He is setting the wrong example and seeks to move us in the wrong direction.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Pete's position on imprisoned suffrage is not well-thought-out and well-considered. The rationale behind his position is virtually identical to the rationale behind the people who say we shouldn't all ex-felons to vote. His support of this position makes it easier for those who want to remove voting rights from released prisoners, especially as he gains power and influence and seeks the highest office.

He is setting the wrong example and seeks to move us in the wrong direction.

no, he isn't.  kamala and most others are on the same side of the issue.  it's not (and never was) a bernie vs pete issue.  it's also a state issue where 48/50 are already on the same side, so his opinion isn't "moving" something in the wrong direction.  the rationale behind voting on the inside is not "virtually identical" so stop making shit up.  he said he supports re-enfranchisement.  his opinion is the one shared by most, so he didn't say or do anything unique or bold.  the fact that you (and bruenig) are trying to single him out or make an example of him is fucking sad.

please don't respond to this here.  if you need to quote/move what i said, do it on the prison voting thread you yourself started.  i know junking up threads is your passion, but please do it elsewhere.

[bad_teammate 13221]

23 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

no, he isn't.  kamala and most others are on the same side of the issue. 

The fact that Pete is safely ensconced in the liberal establishment's accepted narrative has nothing to do with anything. I am talking about the policy position itself, the beliefs that undergird it, and where those things naturally lead.

The popularity of a proposition is meaningless here, especially if what we are trying to evaluate is leadership as opposed to someone who merely adopts the safest possible position that is closest to what they believe is best.

Quote

it's also a state issue where 48/50 are already on the same side, so his opinion isn't "moving" something in the wrong direction.

The progressive movement is towards increased voting rights for the convicted. Pete's position says, "OK, we can have some progress, but we need to stop <HERE>."

Pete is to the left of the Republican mainstream here, pushing them left. Pete is the right of the progressive left here, pushing them right.

That is what I mean by his impact on the overall movement.

Quote

  the rationale behind voting on the inside is not "virtually identical" so stop making shit up. 

Yes, it is. I'll respond to this in the policy thread, where you will continue to not provide a logical rationale behind Pete's position and will whine about Twitter and Bernie Bros even there.

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The fact that Pete is safely ensconced in the liberal establishment's accepted narrative has nothing to do with anything. I am talking about the policy position itself, the beliefs that undergird it, and where those things naturally lead.

The popularity of a proposition is meaningless here, especially if what we are trying to evaluate is leadership as opposed to someone who merely adopts the safest possible position that is closest to what they believe is best.

The progressive movement is towards increased voting rights for the convicted. Pete's position says, "OK, we can have some progress, but we need to stop <HERE>."

Pete is to the left of the Republican mainstream here, pushing them left. Pete is the right of the progressive left here, pushing them right.

That is what I mean by his impact on the overall movement.

Yes, it is. I'll respond to this in the policy thread, where you will continue to not provide a logical rationale behind Pete's position and will whine about Twitter and Bernie Bros even there.

was it the simplicity of my instructions that confused you?

[bad_teammate 13221]

I am happy to keep policy-only discussion in the policy thread, which I did. I am also happy to discuss Pete in the Pete thread, which I also did.

I understood your instructions, my lord, I simply did not respect them.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The popularity of a proposition is meaningless here, especially if what we are trying to evaluate is leadership as opposed to someone who merely adopts the safest possible position that is closest to what they believe is best.

i pointed out the popularity of the position because i was attacking the tweet, which singled out pete.  remember, that's how this started.  the tweet was slanted and shitty and completely misrepresented reality.

if we are trying to evaluate leadership, then i should look at who takes the less popular/riskier position and assume he's the better leader?  instead of the guy who, by your own words, is saying what he "believes"?  by your logic, pete should change what he believes to try to score political points.  that doesn't scream "leadership" to me. 

pete answered with conviction, and that's what i expect from him.  so did bernie, and ditto, that's what i expect.  i don't want my leaders to waffle, which is why kamala was a little disappointing to me on monday.

[Celery Man 20982]

not that it matters but that was also my takeaway - I liked Bernie for responding honestly even when they phrased the question as shitty as possible, I liked Pete for clarifying the question and then giving an answer, I didn't like Kamala for spewing a bullshit "I'm not sure which answer is better for me" response

[bad_teammate 13221]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i pointed out the popularity of the position because i was attacking the tweet, which singled out pete.  remember, that's how this started.  the tweet was slanted and shitty and completely misrepresented reality.

It didn't misrepresent anything. Bruenig's Tweet was sound. You simply don't understand racism and white supremacy and the motivations behind disenfranchisement movements. Don't worry, we're going to work through that patiently and politely in the policy thread.

Quote

if we are trying to evaluate leadership, then i should look at who takes the less popular/riskier position and assume he's the better leader?

I think it is more meaningful to look at who takes the right position and is willing to stand in the face of attacks for holding it. Who is willing to be on the more risky vanguard of progress while others follow more safely behind.

Basically what Pete wrote his Profiles in Courage essay about.

Quote

 instead of the guy who, by your own words, is saying what he "believes"?  by your logic, pete should change what he believes to try to score political points.  that doesn't scream "leadership" to me. 

If Pete's position is actually one of conviction, I would be interested to hear the values that motivate his position that the imprisoned should not have the right to vote. If it is truly leadership, I don't think it's leading in an admirable or desirable direction.

[henrygandorf 29194]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

(1)It didn't misrepresent anything. Bruenig's Tweet was sound. You simply don't understand racism and white supremacy and the motivations behind disenfranchisement movements. Don't worry, we're going to work through that patiently and politely in the policy thread.

(2)I think it is more meaningful to look at who takes the right position and is willing to stand in the face of attacks for holding it. Who is willing to be on the more risky vanguard of progress while others follow more safely behind.

(3)Basically what Pete wrote his Profiles in Courage essay about.

(4)If Pete's position is actually one of conviction, I would be interested to hear the values that motivate his position that the imprisoned should not have the right to vote. If it is truly leadership, I don't think it's leading in an admirable or desirable direction.

1. it absolutely misrepresented pete's involvement in policy like what happened in florida.  if he thought pete had anything to do with that law passing, then he thought a lot of people had to do with it, including other dems who said so on the same stage in the same night.  he singled out pete because he wanted to spread some false narrative.

2. there is no "right" position.  only what people believe.  form your own opinions, don't just wait for bernie to say something and then staunchly stand behind it.

3. pete admires bernie, as do many here.  i love the way bernie says what he believes and stands behind it.  just because it's fun to kick you in the balls doesn't mean i hate the candidate you like.

4. so if you hear pete's reasoning behind it, then you don't think he's leading in an admirable or desirable direction?  cool, don't vote for him. 

[bad_teammate 13221]

Quote

it absolutely misrepresented pete's involvement in policy like what happened in florida.  if he thought pete had anything to do with that law passing, then he thought a lot of people had to do with it, including other dems who said so on the same stage in the same night.  he singled out pete because he wanted to spread some false narrative.

He mentioned Pete because Pete is trying to become the President of the United States and just flatly and categorically said, "No" to the idea of allowing prisoners to vote on national television to a huge audience.

You see too many demons in the shadows.

[henrygandorf 29194]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

He mentioned Pete because Pete is trying to become the President of the United States and just flatly and categorically said, "No" to the idea of allowing prisoners to vote on national television to a huge audience.

and pete also said he encouraged the re-enfranchisement of released inmates, literally in the following sentence.  that florida law takes it the other way.  i still have yet to see pete support similar legislation.

kamala is also running for president.  i didn't see her name in the tweet, but i admit, i mostly skimmed it.

[bad_teammate 13221]

17 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

and pete also said he encouraged the re-enfranchisement of released inmates, literally in the following sentence.  that florida law takes it the other way.  i still have yet to see pete support similar legislation.

Matt Bruenig is correctly arguing that Pete's position gives the space necessary for the other to exist. By denying the universality of voting rights, you open the door (one might say, enable) further abrogation of voting rights beyond what you might normally support.

The natural question is this: Is a rapist suddenly more worthy of voting in elections that impact women once he steps out of the jailhouse than he was inside of it?

Quote

kamala is also running for president.  i didn't see her name in the tweet, but i admit, i mostly skimmed it.

Kamala didn't slam the door on the idea. She welcomed the conversation.

She kind of backtracked later, but in the moment she said what she said.

[henrygandorf 29194]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Kamala didn't slam the door on the idea. She welcomed the conversation.

She kind of backtracked later, but in the moment she said what she said.

“Do I think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do,” she told reporters. “I’m a prosecutor, I believe that in terms of, there has to be serious consequence for the most extreme types of crimes.”

that's what a door slam sounds like.  not a "kinda backtrack."

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kamala-harris-toughens-stance-after-calling-for-conversation-on-terrorists-voting-in-prison/

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Matt Bruenig is correctly arguing that Pete's position gives the space necessary for the other to exist. By denying the universality of voting rights, you open the door (one might say, enable) further abrogation of voting rights beyond what you might normally support.

The natural question is this: Is a rapist suddenly more worthy of voting in elections that impact women once he steps out of the jailhouse than he was inside of it?

the fact that you have to keep assuming leaps in logic to try to backbend into defending bruenig's tweet tells me all i need to know.

i think the parole release conditions on violent and sexual criminals as set by the state should cover it.  i have absolutely no issue with preventing these types of felons from voting as part of their parole agreement if/when they are set free.  and i know for a fact they would happily make that concession.

whether i think the rapist is more worthy has nothing to do with it.  i think lots of bad shit should happen to that rapist in and out of prison.  doesn't mean i would support laws to allow it.