Buttigieg 2020

[troph 24,923]

Does anyone have an update on the Hamilton show with Chasten contest? I've been donating thousands of dollars a day to get as many chances to win as I can, but I haven't heard if the contest is over. I just took out a second mortgage yesterday so I think I've got a pretty good shot at winning. I mean, can you imagine, HAMILTON and CHASTEN all in one night? Magical! 

Saw it on my fb page too. They are doubling down. Two for one credits for the POCs... Hurry up!!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[Hank Scorpio 17,731]

lol no way who could have seen this coming

[bad_teammate 13,299]

Going to be hilarious when President Pete installs Bipartisan Moderate choices to the SC that overturn Roe and strike down regulation of CO2 emissions

 

[Pancho 45,429]

And Pete thinks black folks don’t wanna vote for him because he’s gay.

 

fuck outta here bro 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Man, Pete is getting scrutinized like a contender and it concerns me. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Man, Pete is getting scrutinized like a contender and it concerns me. 

Haha no shit, just checked Twitter for first time in a few hours and it's an onslaught. 

 

[Js1 85,744]

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Man, Pete is getting scrutinized like a contender and it concerns me. 

Harris got the same treatment.  Once you start rising, you start getting scrutinized. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Bama Chick laughs in Beto.

[wildcat09 29,453]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Going to be hilarious when President Pete installs Bipartisan Moderate choices to the SC that overturn Roe and strike down regulation of CO2 emissions

 

Pete's heel turn this week has been pretty epic.  He's obviously fully bought in on politics as WWE. Next we'll see him take a chair to Bernie or Warren and start promoting Tulsi.

[Js1 85,744]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Pete's heel turn this week has been pretty epic.  He's obviously fully bought in on politics as WWE. Next we'll see him take a chair to Bernie or Warren and start promoting Tulsi.

So I gotta tune into the November debate, 100%. 

[tantric superman 4,668]

Pete's just not down with the flava.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Kinda want to see a Pete vs AOC debate since, unlike eight months ago, they appear to disagree on just about everything. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Are they at least dropping SOME of the 12 for the next debate?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are they at least dropping SOME of the 12 for the next debate?

Nine have qualified already, still waiting on Beto.

It’s gonna be horrible but at least it isn’t on CNN. 

[Js1 85,744]

DAMN

[Bama Chick 28,596]

crawfish.gif

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Weird how Buttigieg went from cute idealist to the millennial version of the “the man” almost overnight. 

[Js1 85,744]

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

crawfish.gif

 

[Hank Scorpio 17,731]

And I thought black people hated Bernie!

[Js1 85,744]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Are they at least dropping SOME of the 12 for the next debate?

 

[henrygandorf 29,199]

12 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

And I thought black people hated Bernie!

only the black people who work at cnn.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

E for electable. 

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

L for Lobbyists

[henrygandorf 29,199]

he’s in the pocket of big cinema!

[Celery Man 21,026]

He sounded shitty in that weird tmz guitar playing clip forever ago but that may have been the guitar. Now that he’s posed with a guitar again I need to hear him play.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

he’s in the pocket of big cinema!

Well after the Harvey Weinstein mess and the NBC/Matt Lauer mess and the CBS/Les Moonves mess, I don’t think that’s all that trivial actually.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton knew all the Weinstein details but she was 100% compromised by the money and fundraising he did for her and other Democrats.

[bad_teammate 13,299]

he’s in the pocket of big cinema!

Desperately hoping people don't know what Merck is and haven't see his constant attacks on M4A lol

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

L for Lobbyists
 

LMAO. A Robillard hit piece quoting literal Warren surrogates (Jentleson).  They're not even trying to hide it anymore. 

Robillard is so pro-Warren and so offended by Pete that it broke his brain during the last debate 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[henrygandorf 29,199]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Well after the Harvey Weinstein mess and the NBC/Matt Lauer mess and the CBS/Les Moonves mess, I don’t think that’s all that trivial actually.

I don’t think Hillary Clinton knew all the Weinstein details but she was 100% compromised by the money and fundraising he did for her and other Democrats.

 

pete is absolutely in the pocket of gay hollywood, who all spend a shit-ton on controversial issues like equality for lgbtq+.  but comparing his hollywood donor list to weinstein, lauer and moonves is like comparing trump to obama, because they're both presidents.  pick on the merck stuff all you want, but i find it hard to find issue with his hollywood ties.

i think the uber alignment is interesting, because pete has taken a keen interest in rights of gig workers (wages, medical, etc).

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Don’t put words in my mouth.

You made a lame joke about “big cinema” and I pointed out that after what has gone down with what had been seen as perfectly acceptable donors in Hollywood is a shortsighted take.

Weinstein supported all kinds of progressive causes for years while being a sexual predator. And when he began to be called to account he used that financial support to try and evade justice.

And lol at using “gay Hollywood” and LGBTQ financial support as some kind of shield.

Gay men in Hollywood were absolutely part of the culture that protected Weinstein and other predators.

I don’t know anything about the Hollywood folks supporting Pete and neither do you.

My point was to dismiss the entertainment industry as some sort of “good” industry while pharma is some kind of “bad” industry is a bullshit take.

The past two years have shown that to be old fashioned and naive at best and sexist and ignorant of sexual predation at worst.

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

Trying to link Buttigieg's campaign in some way to the sexual predator issues in Hollywood is ridiculous. Do better. 

 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

3 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

LMAO. A Robillard hit piece quoting literal Warren surrogates (Jentleson).  They're not even trying to hide it anymore. 

Robillard is so pro-Warren and so offended by Pete that it broke his brain during the last debate 

 

So a Merck gov relations exec didn't host a high-dollar fundraiser for Pete in Geneva last week?   That's good to hear. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So a Merck gov relations exec didn't host a high-dollar fundraiser for Pete in Geneva last week?   That's good to hear. 

I don't give a shit as long as the max donations are $2800. 

Go ahead and believe he's being bought by a Merck exec. I don't care. 

 

[henrygandorf 29,199]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

My point was to dismiss the entertainment industry as some sort of “good” industry while pharma is some kind of “bad” industry is a bullshit take.

no more bullshit than your claim that the comp is anything but "trivial".  and it's not about being "good" or "bad" but it is about being relevant.

these tweets come out to highlight that "omg pete is working with lobbyists and in the pocket of big money donors with agendas!"  "l is for lobbyists" ring a bell?  they start with merck, which is relevant, because of the contrasting policy views of the dem candidates.  duh.  but then to go on and list 21st century fox, and then a guy who used to be a bloomberg aide and used to advise uber.  tusk is a rich dude who has interests all over.  they listed ones they thought would be the most click-worthy, and you fell into the twitter trap.

the overall concern (at least around here) is that the interests of the donors would creep into and affect the interests of the candidate.  this is known.  so yeah, when i know who a lot of pete's big donors are, i pay attention to causes important to them.  does that mean ryan murphy isn't some creep?  or michael schur isn't some pedo?  or mr and mrs gwyneth aren't some seedy pervs?  i have no idea, and neither do you.

but if we're playing the assumption game, i think it's ok to see things for what they are.  goose and the gander and all that.

of course you knew that.  everyone here does.  people try so hard to post little gotcha headlines on twitter, and get so butthurt when anyone dares to question them.  comparing pete's donors to criminal sexual predators is lazy at best, and absolutely irresponsible at worst.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't give a shit as long as the max donations are $2800. 

Go ahead and believe he's being bought by a Merck exec. I don't care. 

 

Well, you care enough to attack the messenger despite apparently having no factual issue with what he is reporting.   It's not the $2800 that matters; it's the bundling of much more significant amounts by the host.   Chasten didn't fly to Geneva for $2800.

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

You have an issue with bundlers? 

 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Y’all are so messy this week.

You - makes a joke that being in Big Cinema’s pocket is a dumb criticism

Me - I don’t know if I would make that joke, Harvey Weinstein was a Democratic Donor Rockstar and his money to politicians helped enable his actions for years.

Pete fanboys - OMGGGGGG stop saying Pete’s donors are sexual predators.

Me - Y’all some messy defensive bitches. Do better.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

You have an issue with bundlers? 

 

No, not particularly.  Just pointing out that bundlers are much more powerful than their $2800 max donations.   The question, as always, is what the bundler is buying. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

Cool. Feel free to assume the worst. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

I'm not assuming the worst about Pete.  I'm assuming what's most reasonable about the powerful corporate lobbying interests who seem to be pumping money into his campaign, which is that they're doing it with the reasonable expectation that he'll be promoting their interests.  That's what they exist for, right?  I mean, I'd take his record into account if he had one on most issues of national significance. 

I'm open to other explanations, though.   Why do you think pharmaceutical execs are bundling for him at high-dollar Geneva fundraisers?    They like his plan to make the Supreme Court less political? 

[henrygandorf 29,199]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I'm not assuming the worst about Pete.  I'm assuming what's most reasonable about the powerful corporate lobbying interests who seem to be pumping money into his campaign, which is that they're doing it with the reasonable expectation that he'll be promoting their interests.  That's what they exist for, right?  I mean, I'd take his record into account if he had one on most issues of national significance. 

I'm open to other explanations, though.   Why do you think pharmaceutical execs are bundling for him at high-dollar Geneva fundraisers?    They like his plan to make the Supreme Court less political? 

i think here's where the line gets blurred and people get upset and confused (not you, but 'people' in general).

a lobbyist/donor group may be working angles to get something specific accomplished (thru a candidate) that is important and likely financially beneficial to them.

or...a lobbyist/donor group may be helping to fund the candidate that already is aligned with policy that is beneficial to them.

arbitrary difference?  probably.  but it's still a difference, especially when people on twitter get their outrage on.

go horns go. 

[bad_teammate 13,299]

You have an issue with bundlers? 

 

The entire point of bundling is for the rich to purchase time, favors, and attention from candidates.

 

Shouldn't be acceptable.

 

[henrygandorf 29,199]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The entire point of bundling is for the rich to purchase time, favors, and attention from candidates.

Shouldn't be acceptable.

dude.  he's a pointless garbage candidate.  he needs all the help he can get.

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The entire point of bundling is for the rich to purchase time, favors, and attention from candidates.

 

Shouldn't be acceptable.

 

Bernie is the only one that doesn't use bundlers. So go talk shit about Warren somewhere. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

31 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think here's where the line gets blurred and people get upset and confused (not you, but 'people' in general).

a lobbyist/donor group may be working angles to get something specific accomplished (thru a candidate) that is important and likely financially beneficial to them.

or...a lobbyist/donor group may be helping to fund the candidate that already is aligned with policy that is beneficial to them.

arbitrary difference?  probably.  but it's still a difference, especially when people on twitter get their outrage on.

go horns go. 

It's a distinction, but I'm not sure it makes a difference in this discussion.   Maybe Merck thinks Pete will owe them and push their interests as payback.   Or maybe Merck thinks Pete is already aligned with their interests and would support him even if it were anonymous.  Either way, the issue is Pete's perceived alignment with the interests of major pharmaceutical companies.   Which may or may not actually be an issue for you; many people don't give a shit about drug prices, patents, etc.  Cool, as long as we recognize the situation for what it is, and don't attack the source of the reporting or act like the $2800 maximum individual donation is material. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[henrygandorf 29,199]

10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's a distinction, but I'm not sure it makes a difference in this discussion.   Maybe Merck thinks Pete will owe them and push their interests as payback.   Or maybe Merck thinks Pete is already aligned with their interests and would support him even if it were anonymous.  Either way, the issue is Pete's perceived alignment with the interests of major pharmaceutical companies.   Which may or may not actually be an issue for you; many people don't give a shit about drug prices, patents, etc.  Cool, as long as we recognize the situation for what it is, and don't attack the source of the reporting or act like the $2800 maximum individual donation is material. 

that was hank, who is on twitter more and has his own opinions about the people reporting the information.

my point is that there are 2 candidates in the top 3 that want to end private insurance.  it's fairly well known.  i think this is one category where insurance/pharma is going to throw money at the other 2-3 in the top 5 who aren't proposing that.

[Hank Kingsley 21,083]

28 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's a distinction, but I'm not sure it makes a difference in this discussion.   Maybe Merck thinks Pete will owe them and push their interests as payback.   Or maybe Merck thinks Pete is already aligned with their interests and would support him even if it were anonymous.  Either way, the issue is Pete's perceived alignment with the interests of major pharmaceutical companies.   Which may or may not actually be an issue for you; many people don't give a shit about drug prices, patents, etc.  Cool, as long as we recognize the situation for what it is, and don't attack the source of the reporting or act like the $2800 maximum individual donation is material. 

Pete has policy out about drastically reducing drug pricing and holding pharmaceutical companies accountable. https://storage.googleapis.com/pfa-webapp/documents/PFA_Affordable Medicines for All_ white paper.pdf

The COO of Facebook maxed out a donation to Warren late last year. I read puff pieces about big tech donations to Warren because they agree with her. No one doubts her intentions. That's fine. She's earned that trust with her supporters. 

The "perceived" alignment with Pete and major pharmaceutical companies is just that, a perception created by detractors. 

Pete is a bit of an unknown. That's why I did my own research on him. I trust his intentions. I wouldn't be willingly defending a candidate that I felt was doing something nefarious. 

 

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

that was hank, who is on twitter more and has his own opinions about the people reporting the information.

my point is that there are 2 candidates in the top 3 that want to end private insurance.  it's fairly well known.  i think this is one category where insurance/pharma is going to throw money at the other 2-3 in the top 5 who aren't proposing that.

Fair point.  I think Pete's positioning in the race as a centrist corporate Dem has become more clear in recent weeks than it used to be, at least to me, so the Merck thing is less of a revelation than a confirmation at this point.  To be clear, I don't think Pete is corrupt, just misguided.