Buttigieg 2020

[Bama Chick 28596]

This seems like a big deal. Right?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Only if you live under a rock.

Or in Bug Tussle, Alabama.

I get that it’s a big deal that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate - and married to boot - but the way the press is acting like Pete is the first gay man ever is a bit much.

[406W30th 1111]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Only if you live under a rock.

Or in Bug Tussle, Alabama.

I get that it’s a big deal that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate - and married to boot - but the way the press is acting like Pete is the first gay man ever is a bit much.

 

The media absolutely loves the term "First Gentleman".

 

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

It's virtue signalling. It's showing how big and above-it-all you are to openly call for strong opposition to advancing solutions to the problems that face the people you are pretending to care about.

The target of the signalling is the wealthy white liberal who is having an awkward time with their families at Thanksgiving and want a calmer political situation so their social and familial lives are more stable. Fewer upsetting Facebook arguments. Fewer fights with grandma cleaning up the wrapping paper after Christmas morning. They are comfortable, safe, and don't really need much of anything other than decorum and a return to a bland, uncontroversial normalcy.

Just be nice! Even if it means the poor don't get access to quality healthcare.

Just be nice! Even if it means that blacks are locked up at insane rates and stripped of their rights.

Just be nice! Even if the planet dies.

The mental gymnastics BT uses here is impressive.  Above our his thoughts in regard to this question and answer. 

Interviewer: You've said that he deserves impeachment but you're consciously not talking about that either. Is that for the same reason? 

Buttigieg: Well, first of all, I'm not in Congress so I can say what I think. But my role - I have a very specific role with respect to ending this presidency - and it's to get nominated and defeat him. And the other reason I think it will be valuable for this President to be defeated resoundingly at the ballot box, is because it is the last hope we have of Republicans coming to their senses. If they are not punished politically for what they have done - which goes not only against our values but their own - if they are not punished politically for that, we will never have the Republican party regroup and become - and while I may never agree with them - the more decent and consistent and coherent party that we need the opposition to be. 

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

6 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

Only if you live under a rock.

Or in Bug Tussle, Alabama.

I get that it’s a big deal that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate - and married to boot - but the way the press is acting like Pete is the first gay man ever is a bit much.

 

Sorry that Beto is not getting the coverage you want. Tell him to go on TV every once in a while. 

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

55 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

We should pretend that tens, hundreds of millions of Americans don’t exist?

 

What do voters have to do with the parties?

Anyone who firmly identifies themselves as a Republican enough to be offended by criticism is unreachable. We need Democrats, independents, and non-voters.

You don't win voters by saying the opposition party is actually good. You win them by appealing to their material interests and offering solutions to their real problems.

"MAKE REPUBLICANS GREAT AGAIN!" is going to win roughly 20 voters, all of whom work for think-tank funded magazines.

16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The mental gymnastics BT uses here is impressive. 

...

If they are not punished politically for what they have done - which goes not only against our values but their own - if they are not punished politically for that, we will never have the Republican party regroup and become - and while I may never agree with them - the more decent and consistent and coherent party that we need the opposition to be. 

Make an argument, Hank, don't just whine.

"not only against our values but their own"

Pete has no authority or credibility to discuss what their values are. He barely has enough to discuss the values of his own party. This "Make Republicans Great Again" logic launders the moral and intellectual rot that underlies their entire worldview and tries to make it seem like they're good guys at heart just led astray by mean 'ole Donald Trump.

Just a simpering liberal fool shouting, "I know you're better than this! LOOK INTO YOUR HEART!" as Turtle Mitch swings the ax yet again and smiles.

"we will never have the Republican party regroup and become the more decent and consistent and coherent party..."

To what point in the past do we need this party to "regroup"?

When were they "decent" or "consistent" or even "coherent"? It's a fantasyland for fully-in-the-bubble white liberals.

The Republican party doesn't have any values worth going back to. This is the exact same "we can't live in the past" crap that Pete says we shouldn't do.

"...that we need the opposition to be."

This makes no sense. We don't need the Republicans to be anything but a minority power.

It's brainless.

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

I get that it’s a big deal that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate - and married to boot - but the way the press is acting like Pete is the first gay man ever is a bit much.
 

If you're a media class freak from the same nearly-all-white schools working in the same nearly-all-white media rooms for powerful corporations controlled by all-white boards and CEOs... what could be better than TWO Hamilton-loving Millenial white guys Tweeting about "smol puppers and heckin doggos"?!?! You get your id.pol without any of the pesky women or POC issues that plague your educational environment, work environment, and economic class!!

A WIN-WIN!

[Bama Chick 28596]

The media absolutely loves the term "First Gentleman".
 

They didn’t give s fuck when Hillary was running.

Or that Elizabeth Warren would give us one. Or five other women.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Sorry that Beto is not getting the coverage you want. Tell him to go on TV every once in a while. 
 

Hank Kingsley : Mayor Pete
Bad Teammate : Bernie

Take a breath and realize criticism of the media coverage is not criticism of the candidate.

I prefer Beto but I challenge you to find me constantly posting constantly in rebuttal to every post in criticism of him. In fact, I purposely refrain from doing so.

I’ll post updates about his events etc. but I’m uninterested in getting in pissing matches over the Twitter driven issue of the minute.

I’m confident in my support so I don’t feel the need to cape for Beto like it’s my job.

The fact that you took a fairly innocuous criticism of a magazine cover and turned it into a shot at a candidate I support is the same behavior you’ve been criticizing the Bernie Bros for.

I like Pete a lot but he’s far from perfect. And your need to white knight for him at every turn and take potshots isn’t winning anyone over.

[Celery Man 20934]

37 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

What do voters have to do with the parties?

Anyone who firmly identifies themselves as a Republican enough to be offended by criticism is unreachable. We need Democrats, independents, and non-voters.

You don't win voters by saying the opposition party is actually good. You win them by appealing to their material interests and offering solutions to their real problems.

"MAKE REPUBLICANS GREAT AGAIN!" is going to win roughly 20 voters, all of whom work for think-tank funded magazines.

 

in the context of the discussion he's referring to crushing the party such that conservative voters recoalesce into an opposition party that isn't abjectly deplorable

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

8 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Hank Kingsley : Mayor Pete
Bad Teammate : Bernie

Take a breath and realize criticism of the media coverage is not criticism of the candidate.

I prefer Beto but I challenge you to find me constantly posting constantly in rebuttal to every post in criticism of him. In fact, I purposely refrain from doing so.

I’ll post updates about his events etc. but I’m uninterested in getting in pissing matches over the Twitter driven issue of the minute.

I’m confident in my support so I don’t feel the need to cape for Beto like it’s my job.

The fact that you took a fairly innocuous criticism of a magazine cover and turned it into a shot at a candidate I support is the same behavior you’ve been criticizing the Bernie Bros for.

I like Pete a lot but he’s far from perfect. And your need to white knight for him at every turn and take potshots isn’t winning anyone over.

Take your own advice. The fact that you think what I wrote was a "shot" at Beto shows you're pretty wound up. 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

everyone out here pretending they aren't mad

17 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

in the context of the discussion he's referring to crushing the party such that conservative voters recoalesce into an opposition party that isn't abjectly deplorable

Yeah, but... who cares? What influence does he or anyone else have over it? What does it even matter?

It's idiotic and pointless.

[406W30th 1111]

39 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

They didn’t give s fuck when Hillary was running.

Or that Elizabeth Warren would give us one. Or five other women.

 

You're absolutely correct. Part of it is just *how adorable!* it would be to have a gay First Gentleman, part of it is Pete's (and Chasten's) status as the media darling, and part of it is the blatant strategy of the Mayor Pete campaign to put his husband more or less front & center.

While I do think there's some sexist reasons why the women in this campaign don't get/make much mention of their would-be First Gentlemen, I also can't even think of any of the other candidates' spouses being mentioned. I had to look up to see if Julian Castro was even married. For good reason, Bill Clinton took a backseat in Hillary's campaign.

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

2 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

For good reason, Bill Clinton took a backseat in Hillary's campaign.

Because he's a rapist and frequent flyer on the Lolita Express who used black slave labor at his governor's mansion?

[406W30th 1111]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Because he's a rapist and frequent flyer on the Lolita Express who used black slave labor at his governor's mansion?

To be fair, that criticism isn't unique in their household.

[Celery Man 20934]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

everyone out here pretending they aren't mad

Yeah, but... who cares? What influence does he or anyone else have over it? What does it even matter?

It's idiotic and pointless.

A) the people who fall into that bucket are roughly half of the country, so there is still some amount of interest

b) less than total but greater than none 

c) that’s more of a philosophical question, but it would seem tiresome to remain engaged in politics once you’ve decided that nothing matters 

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

Sorry in advance for angering anyone with this article. God forbid people might be interested in a 29 year old possible First Gentleman with an usual backstory for the position. 

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Take your own advice. The fact that you think what I wrote was a "shot" at Beto shows you're pretty wound up. 
 
 

Come on, don’t be coy. It was a jab. A lame one, but a jab nonetheless.

And I notice you didn’t address the actual substance of my post, you just went for another personal jab.

You’re very emotional about this. Are you okay?

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

I like you, BC. We're all good. 

Pete has made himself constantly available to the press. This is what happens when you give almost unlimited access. Maybe other candidates should start doing the same if they want more media coverage. 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Like having the best polling numbers against Trump?

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

Finally some good news!

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

22 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

A) the people who fall into that bucket are roughly half of the country, so there is still some amount of interest

No. 24% of Americans identify as Republican.

It is completely pointless to spend time worrying about the Republican Party. It is only bad.

Quote

c) that’s more of a philosophical question, but it would seem tiresome to remain engaged in politics once you’ve decided that nothing matters 

lol at this "if you don't care about bipartisanship, you don't care about anything" neo-liberal malarkey

[Celery Man 20934]

I was still referring to the group of people who would make up the base of a reconstituted Republican Party after Trumpism has been destroyed.

Edited May 2, 2019 by Celery Man

[Hornius Emeritus 12457]

If only there was a thread to Democrat candidates other than Pete Buttegieg.

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

 

[horncyclist 1387]

Apparently this happened to Pete in Dallas. Love his response. Couldn't find a video focused on him with the response. The republican party is the party of that lady and MAGA hats. Good luck with that.

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

31 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Apparently this happened to Pete in Dallas. Love his response. Couldn't find a video focused on him with the response. The republican party is the party of that lady and MAGA hats. Good luck with that.

 

 

The next time I worry about some jackass in Afghanistan taking away my freedom of speech will be the first.  What bullshit.

[horncyclist 1387]

36 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The next time I worry about some jackass in Afghanistan taking away my freedom of speech will be the first.  What bullshit.

Pretty sure that's the country we invaded that was actually tied to the 9/11 attacks. At some point our activities in Afghanistan became about something else, and maybe we could have responded to Al Qaeda without invading, but the origins of the actions were to protect national security. Preserving national security preserves American values and our government, including freedom of speech. There's a lot to be debated about our foreign engagements, but soldiers holding honest beliefs that they serve to protect American values and freedoms is not  one of them, and not bullshit. 

 

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

38 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The next time I worry about some jackass in Afghanistan taking away my freedom of speech will be the first.  What bullshit.

What exactly are you upset about? Lt. Buttigieg's service of our country or his acknowledgement that even if he doesn't agree with what is being said, that individual has a constitutional right to protest? 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

Our troops were there to kill terrorists and those that supported them.  It had nothing to do with freedom of speech and to use that as a campaign zinger is just as corny when he uses it as when Patch Crenshaw does.

[horncyclist 1387]

Our troops were there to kill terrorists and those that supported them.  It had nothing to do with freedom of speech and to use that as a campaign zinger is just as corny when he uses it as when Patch Crenshaw does.

Why do we want to kill terrorists?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Why do we want to kill terrorists?

Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter, Mr. Kotter

[bad_teammate 13194]

4 hours ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Lt. Buttigieg's service of our country or his acknowledgement that even if he doesn't agree with what is being said, that individual has a constitutional right to protest? 

lol fuck off with that shit, Pete, you weren't defending any American's rights

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

lol fuck off with that shit, Pete, you weren't defending any American's rights

I'll just assume you've never served.

[bad_teammate 13194]

"I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT, SIR!"

*joins the reserves as an officer and actually deploys a decade after the war is over*

Look, I know that the vast majority of libs are just oh so excited by all these lib troops, but that entire war is little more than a war crime pushed by a war criminal president that killed more women and children by a factor of 10,000 than any men who threatened the safety or freedom of any American.

Edited May 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 minute ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

I'll just assume you've never served.

Hell no.

[BradInATX 9208]

What a weird thing to neurotically parse through in order to find some way to take offense to what he said.

When you join the military the general gist of it is to protect America and Americans, our constitution, and our values, of which freedom of speech is one. Where you get sent isn't something you have control over, but the general purpose of your job as a soldier still remains the above. 

Strange, silly thing to take offense to. You're mostly just outing yourself as biased against Pete vs. making any valid points. It's the reach of all reaches.

There are valid things to criticize all candidates over, and I'm fine with those coming out and being debated in primary season. But this is not one of them. This is one of the debates that's emblematic of why Dems lose elections they shouldn't. This is a nonstarter.

Edited May 4, 2019 by BradInATX

[Celery Man 20934]

Bernie bros should amp up the “fuck the troops” messaging imo

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, BradInATX said:

What a weird thing to neurotically parse through in order to find some way to take offense to what he said.

It's not me taking offense (I don't even know what I'm supposed to be "offended" about), it's me mocking his politician move of shoving his overseas deployment into unrelated issues as an attempt to make himself seem noble, strong, or otherwise desirable as a leader.

It doesn't work except among the tiny slice of people already predisposed to like him, like Dukakis's tank photo and Kerry's salute.

Quote

When you join the military the general gist of it is to protect America and Americans, our constitution, and our values, of which freedom of speech is one. Where you get sent isn't something you have control over, but the general purpose of your job as a soldier still remains the above. 

Well then if you didn't actually do anything to protect America (and the rest), don't talk like you did and I won't make fun of you.

I despise militarism in politics, whether it's the conservative or liberal perpetuation of it.

[bad_teammate 13194]

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Bernie bros should amp up the “fuck the troops” messaging imo

How well has "WE LOVE THE TROOPS NO MATTER WHAT HOW DARE YOU, SIR!" worked for the Democrats in the past?

No need to shout "FUCK THE TROOPS", just an eyeroll and a dismissive jerk-off motion when some dork like Pete tries to pretend he's Audie Murphy will do the job. Then you actually fund the welfare needs of the soldiers themselves and their families. Good housing, universal education and healthcare for life, free college, not getting them killed for no reason or fucking up their brains with unnecessary conflict, etc...

Edited May 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not me taking offense (I don't even know what I'm supposed to be "offended" about), it's me mocking his politician move of shoving his overseas deployment into unrelated issues as an attempt to make himself seem noble, strong, or otherwise desirable as a leader.

It doesn't work except among the tiny slice of people already predisposed to like him, like Dukakis's tank photo and Kerry's salute.

Well then if you didn't actually do anything to protect America (and the rest), don't talk like you did and I won't make fun of you.

I despise militarism in politics, whether it's the conservative or liberal perpetuation of it.

The issue with the Dukakis picture was that he looked like a geek. 

And I'm generally with you about militarism in politics, but it's a necessary evil at times to win swing voters, especially if you're a gay man. 

And I have zero issue with him calling out some chump in the audience yelling "Repent!" at him and saying that he served to protect said chump's right to say chumpish things. And neither should you. You are reaching. You know it. It's okay to not like Pete, but let's stick to valid points (IE McKinsey which I don't agree with but give you that it's a valid concern), not silly things that the GOP wants us to fight about.

Edited May 4, 2019 by BradInATX

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, BradInATX said:

The issue with the Dukakis picture was that he looked like a geek. 

uh...

Quote

And I'm generally with you about militarism in politics, but it's a necessary evil at times to win swing voters, especially if you're a gay man. 

this is the terrible logic that gets liberals to pursue even deadlier war strategies than conservatives. It's not a necessary evil, it's just evil.

Quote

And I have zero issue with him calling out some chump in the audience yelling "Repent!" at him and saying that he served to protect said chump's right to say chumpish things. And neither should you. 

His service did absolutely nothing to protect any American's rights. How can you even pretend otherwise?

[BradInATX 9208]

His service did absolutely nothing to protect any American's rights. How can you even pretend otherwise?

Yeah, you're projecting disdain for our American military complex onto our soldiers, which is stupid. You should be intellectually mature enough to be able to separate individual soldiers from the machine that you hate.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

Well then if you didn't actually do anything to protect America (and the rest), don't talk like you did and I won't make fun of you.
I despise militarism in politics, whether it's the conservative or liberal perpetuation of it.

Your troll game is outstanding. As Pete said, you've got every right to express your opinion. That said, you do make a fool of yourself degrading the contribution of anyone who has served in the Armed Forces and especially one who was actively deployed overseas in a combat zone.

You do you, and we'll keep acknowledging that you are in fact a bad teammate, just here to troll your candidate's opponent.

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Yeah, you're projecting disdain for our American military complex onto our soldiers, which is stupid.

What disdain am I showing for soldiers? I'm stating an obvious truth: No soldier who served in the wars in the Middle East post-9/11 were protecting the rights of Americans.

The only threat to our rights existed in our government, and we gave up our own rights happily enough.

Is telling the truth about the world "disdain" for soldiers?

Quote

You should be intellectually mature enough to be able to separate individual soldiers from the machine that you hate.

Climb off of your fainting couch.

Here's what I want for soldiers:
- No unnecessary wars and deployments
- Quality, safe, and clean housing for them and their families
- Nutritious, affordable food on bases
- High-quality schools for their kids and free college for their entire family
- A living wage that will support their entire family
- Universal, comprehensive, and free healthcare for life

2 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

That said, you do make a fool of yourself degrading the contribution of anyone who has served in the Armed Forces and especially one who was actively deployed overseas in a combat zone.

Telling the truth about the nature of the service is not degrading the service. Lying about the nature of the service isn't an honor.

Those wars were unnecessary war crimes, sold on lies, that made Americans no safer or more secure in their rights.

That's not the soldiers' fault, but we shouldn't lie. Lying about those wars has perpetuated them and will continue to perpetuate them.

[BradInATX 9208]

Telling the truth about the nature of the service is not degrading the service. Lying about the nature of the service isn't an honor.
Those wars were unnecessary war crimes, sold on lies, that made Americans no safer or more secure in their rights.
That's not the soldiers' fault, but we shouldn't lie. Lying about those wars has perpetuated them and will continue to perpetuate them.

Our military is the best in the world. Despite leadership sometimes sending us into unnecessary conflicts, it remains the best in the world.

That status affords us to be the singular leader of the free world. It has kept us from any threat to our lives or way of being for a century. It allows us to project our morals and ethics onto the world stage. All of those keep America free and safe.

Every member of our military is a part of that, regardless of what they do and where they do it.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

As someone who served both in Dessert Storm and Enduring Freedom as a Reservist, you couldn't be farther from the truth bad teammate.

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

34 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Our military is the best in the world. Despite leadership sometimes sending us into unnecessary conflicts, it remains the best in the world.

That status affords us to be the singular leader of the free world. It has kept us from any threat to our lives or way of being for a century. It allows us to project our morals and ethics onto the world stage. All of those keep America free and safe.

Every member of our military is a part of that, regardless of what they do and where they do it.

Vague militaristic, jingoistic bluster

"And I'm generally with you about militarism in politics, but it's a necessary evil at times to win swing voters..."

lol fucking bloodthirsty libs

33 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

As someone who served both in Dessert Storm and Enduring Freedom as a Reservist, you couldn't be farther from the truth bad teammate.

About what?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

About what?

"No soldier who served in the wars in the Middle East post-9/11 were protecting the rights of Americans.
The only threat to our rights existed in our government, and we gave up our own rights happily enough.”

[bad_teammate 13194]

Love to project my morals and ethics onto a wedding party with a drone missile strike

Edited May 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, Irwin F Fletcher said:

"No soldier who served in the wars in the Middle East post-9/11 were protecting the rights of Americans.
The only threat to our rights existed in our government, and we gave up our own rights happily enough.”
 

Ok, cool, what is incorrect about that? What threat did the Taliban or Saddam pose to the rights of Americans?