Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13,224]

love to have substantive discussions with guys who are literally in mass murderer manifestos as an inspiration

Stop being an idiot, Pete

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

Debating on Fox so their viewers can hear your policies - AMAZING

Tweeting with Shapiro 2 months ago answering a request for a possible interview so his listeners can hear your policies - CANCELED

 

Edited April 6, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

This is how the interaction started. 

 

Are we just deciding to not pursue context in this primary? Or abandoning it all together in pursuit of creating a viral tweet?  This is just an absolutely pathetic display over the last couple of weeks. 

 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

This is how the interaction started. 

 

Are we just deciding to not pursue context in this primary? Or abandoning it all together in pursuit of creating a viral tweet?  This is just an absolutely pathetic display over the last couple of weeks. 

 

well, if there was something substantial out there, it would likely come in the form of an actual piece of journalism.  since there isn't (yet), we get super-summarized out-of-context tweets.  every time i see one, it reinforces my opinion that people are scrambling to find ammo to attack.  

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

If people don't like or trust Pete, or think he's inexperienced, then cool.

Digging for a gotcha moment via Twitter (especially out of context) is pathetic and in bad faith (the tweeter, not BT).  This purity test bullshit going on right now with the left is childish. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Debating on Fox so their viewers can hear your policies - AMAZING

Tweeting with Shapiro 2 months ago answering a request for a possible interview so his listeners can hear your policies - CANCELED

"Stop being an idiot" != "CANCELLED"

There is no debate on FOX. There's a town hall hosted by Bret Baier and Martha McCallum who, while not good, are not Ben Shapiro.

[Message Board User 12,396]

 

[David Dennison 18,946]

Engaging with Ben Shapiro serves no purpose.

[tantric superman 4,667]

[Al_4_ISU 12,483]

Engaging with Ben Shapiro serves no purpose.

Disagree. I think Pete could humiliate him.

Shapiro’s entire schtick is cross examination on Adderall. Talk fast, interrupt, attempt at twisting other person’s words into inopportune sound bites. Pete won’t get caught in the snare, I predict.

I’ve been pining for a certain kind of left wing mind to engage Shapiro. Pete is that.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

well, if there was something substantial out there, it would likely come in the form of an actual piece of journalism.  since there isn't (yet), we get super-summarized out-of-context tweets.  every time i see one, it reinforces my opinion that people are scrambling to find ammo to attack.  

That’s why it’s incumbent on everyone to be diligent and do a little research.

Whenever you see one of these little twitter “controversies” always click back until you get to the original person who started the discussion and “discovered” the gotcha moment.

Then do a little scroll through their tweets to get an idea of where they stand generally and what issues they push, what candidates they support, what candidates they are negative about, and how they use the platform in general.

It’s like the woman who started the “Pete is canceled for what he said about Hillary” but couched it as a reasonable general concern about him jumping the line over and stealing time from more qualified women candidates.

When I did a little due diligence on her, her motivation was very clear. She is only interested in woman winning the nomination. She’s not really interested in any policies. For her it must be a woman or she will not support the nominee. And she hates Bernie and most of her tweets are used to bash all the male candidates and frame everything they say and do as sexist.

Some of these discussions surrounding tweets and twitter are legitimate and deserve discussion but always use a critical eye on the original source.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

I scrolled through the guy's Tweets and he's 100% Beto.

I think the Beto/Pete collision is inevitable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Engaging with Ben Shapiro serves no purpose.

This.  Dude is a bought and paid for shill.  You’d get more out of discussing policy with Diamond & Silk

[F250 28,817]

55 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This.  Dude is a bought and paid for shill.  You’d get more out of discussing policy with Diamond & Silk

Agreed, Shapiro is just another iteration of Hannity and O'Reilly. There is no genuine desire to engage in discussion on those shows but instead use gimmicky debating tactics.

No matter what happens on Shapiro's show there will be a YouTube titled "Ben Shapiro destroys Buttigieg."

[atomheartbevo 89,787]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Disagree. I think Pete could humiliate him.

Shapiro’s entire schtick is cross examination on Adderall. Talk fast, interrupt, attempt at twisting other person’s words into inopportune sound bites. Pete won’t get caught in the snare, I predict.

I’ve been pining for a certain kind of left wing mind to engage Shapiro. Pete is that.

 

Plus, Shapiro's voice.  It's like he's squeezing his nuts at times.  

[Biff Tannen 45,722]

Shapiro is the "but you participate in society, interesting!" guy from the comic, right?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Beto loves Pete too.

The candidates are much nicer than we are . Except for Pete saying Beto stands on things to ingratiate himself to voters. That wasn’t nice. But other than that, they all seem to be taking a non-personal approach.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Someone got a picture with Chasten Buttigieg tonight.

#AMA

[NWBuck 8,585]

Full interview on Meet the Press. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-buttigieg-i-m-about-as-different-from-this-president-as-it-gets-1478322243505 

[David Dennison 18,946]

17 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Full interview on Meet the Press. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-buttigieg-i-m-about-as-different-from-this-president-as-it-gets-1478322243505 

Solid, as always. He's impressive.

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

Deeply personal speech from Pete at the LGBQT Victory Fund brunch today.  Damn. 

 

[HornOnTheBayou 8,945]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Deeply personal speech from Pete at the LGBQT Victory Fund brunch today.  Damn. 

 

Fuck you, allergens in my house causing this salty-water discharge from my eyes while I think about all of my LGBT students who are dealing with these issues. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

in regards to both of those ^^^ clips, please please please allow us to get pete on the debate stage with the president.  somehow, someway, make this happen.  it might be more enjoyable than watching the texas-usc game. 

he's so ridiculously good at this.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Some of y’all were wondering how the right was going to smear Pete without getting too obvious.

Here are some trial balloons.






“He’s Episcopalian ya know. They aren’t really even real Christians. Did ya know he supports gays and abortion and all that sinning stuff. And that HE IS ACTUALLY GAY? AND MARRIED TO ANOTHER GAY MAN??? So the thrice divorced guy who fucks porn stars and never goes to church and couldn’t even name a book of the Bible is way more Christian than that faggy fake Christian Episcopalian guy.”

They’re going to call the legitimacy of his chosen denomination into question and it’s stance on homosexuality and sandwich his sexuality into that argument. It’s a sneaky little dog whistle to remind right wingers he’s gay and it’s icky without coming straight out and saying “HEY THAT NICE GUY YOU THINK IS SMART AND IMPRESSIVE? STOP LIKING HIM BECAUSE HE’S GAYYYYYYYY!”

[bad_teammate 13,224]

lol those are some sad opening salvos

Mayor Pete is going to be a superstar, sooner or later.

[Al_4_ISU 12,483]

lol those are some sad opening salvos
Mayor Pete is going to be a superstar, sooner or later.

My thoughts as well. They literally have nothing more than “gay people can’t be Christians”.

Anyone gives even the slightest shit about that hasn’t voted for a Democrat in 30 years anyhow.

[InkaUtexas 26,088]

Yep, nice attack line. Cannot go after his policies so we attack anything else no matter how weak. Quite aggy of the R's. 

[Brisketexan 105,307]

49 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Some of y’all were wondering how the right was going to smear Pete without getting too obvious.

Here are some trial balloons.






“He’s Episcopalian ya know. They aren’t really even real Christians. Did ya know he supports gays and abortion and all that sinning stuff. And that HE IS ACTUALLY GAY? AND MARRIED TO ANOTHER GAY MAN??? So the thrice divorced guy who fucks porn stars and never goes to church and couldn’t even name a book of the Bible is way more Christian than that faggy fake Christian Episcopalian guy.”

They’re going to call the legitimacy of his chosen denomination into question and it’s stance on homosexuality and sandwich his sexuality into that argument. It’s a sneaky little dog whistle to remind right wingers he’s gay and it’s icky without coming straight out and saying “HEY THAT NICE GUY YOU THINK IS SMART AND IMPRESSIVE? STOP LIKING HIM BECAUSE HE’S GAYYYYYYYY!”

This is the continuation of the core, defining strategy of Modern American Fundagelical Christianity.

Catholics aren't "real Christians."  Presbyterians aren't "real Christians."  Episcopalians aren't "real Christians."  The group of people defined as "real Christians" gets smaller, and smaller, and smaller.  At this point, the only people who meet the "real Christians" standard are those who meet the following criteria: 1) complete, unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump, and 2) interested in buying Jim Bakker survival buckets.

Note how none of those criteria really have jack-shit to do with the Gospels.

Summary: "real Christians" aren't Christian at all.  The label of Christian is now a toxic, co-opted shield used to excuse all manner of loathsomeness behind the unassailable wall of "religious freedom."

Pete is right, and several commentators on the subject are right -- it's time to take Christianity back.  Fuck those fucks for stealing the label.  "Christian" means something, objectively, and it has everything to do with the Gospels and nothing to do with an agenda of hate and cruelty.

[F250 28,817]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Some of y’all were wondering how the right was going to smear Pete without getting too obvious.

Here are some trial balloons.






“He’s Episcopalian ya know. They aren’t really even real Christians. Did ya know he supports gays and abortion and all that sinning stuff. And that HE IS ACTUALLY GAY? AND MARRIED TO ANOTHER GAY MAN??? So the thrice divorced guy who fucks porn stars and never goes to church and couldn’t even name a book of the Bible is way more Christian than that faggy fake Christian Episcopalian guy.”

They’re going to call the legitimacy of his chosen denomination into question and it’s stance on homosexuality and sandwich his sexuality into that argument. It’s a sneaky little dog whistle to remind right wingers he’s gay and it’s icky without coming straight out and saying “HEY THAT NICE GUY YOU THINK IS SMART AND IMPRESSIVE? STOP LIKING HIM BECAUSE HE’S GAYYYYYYYY!”

The criticism of the Episcopal church is interesting because there was a time that the Republican establishment was probably made up of Episcopalians. Did the Trumpkins lock up all of the remaining WASPs in a basement or something?

[TexEx15 17,568]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

lol those are some sad opening salvos

Mayor Pete is going to be a superstar, OUSUX rather than later.

FIFY

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

Dems critical of Buttigieg are mad that he has shown empathy for some Trump voters, especially in the Midwest. Yet Pete is the only candidate right now taking on the religious right and calling out the hypocrisy of so called "Christians". 

Seems to be part of a simple, and possibly effective plan.  Create disarray in the Republican Party by clearly distinguishing the differences between Trumpkins and the life long, fiscally conservative Republicans.  

Edited April 8, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Buttigieg going after Pence instead of Trump is incredibly smart politics.  It’s seeing the bigger picture beyond Trump who is a big nothing blowhard idiot.  You don’t need to make that case anymore.  Go after Pence and the underlying moral rot in the Republican Party. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Some of y’all were wondering how the right was going to smear Pete without getting too obvious.

Here are some trial balloons.






“He’s Episcopalian ya know. They aren’t really even real Christians. Did ya know he supports gays and abortion and all that sinning stuff. And that HE IS ACTUALLY GAY? AND MARRIED TO ANOTHER GAY MAN??? So the thrice divorced guy who fucks porn stars and never goes to church and couldn’t even name a book of the Bible is way more Christian than that faggy fake Christian Episcopalian guy.”

They’re going to call the legitimacy of his chosen denomination into question and it’s stance on homosexuality and sandwich his sexuality into that argument. It’s a sneaky little dog whistle to remind right wingers he’s gay and it’s icky without coming straight out and saying “HEY THAT NICE GUY YOU THINK IS SMART AND IMPRESSIVE? STOP LIKING HIM BECAUSE HE’S GAYYYYYYYY!”

i know i've said something similar to this a number of times, but when i see these kinds of "attacks", it just reaffirms that they (either republicans, or in certain cases, other dems), just don't know what to do with him.  here you have a progressive democrat talking about hope and change and the future, but reinforcing his ideas with values, religion, and military experience.  there just isn't a "defensive alignment" in the republican playbook to counter this, because it's never really been done before.  again, pete is an anomaly.

not to mention that when he speaks (like at the victory event) it comes from a place of "love" (hokey i know), but the juxtaposition of where a lot of the president's rhetoric comes from - hate, division, fear - it's got to attract some people on both sides.  and i'm not that naive - i know this isn't going to win over a bunch of the religious right.  they're not gonna just switch sides because pete's actually read a bible.  but like @Hank Kingsley said, it could end up being just the type of confusing wedge to throw in their general direction.

when i get a text from my mother at 6am on sunday morning talking about how "impressive mayor pete was on meet the press, and how much she agreed with the way he articulated his view on abortion, in regards to being pro-choice, but coming from a background of religion and faith" - those just aren't reactions i'm used to seeing.  this is no longer a game of "i'm blue so these are the 10 things i agree with", and "i'm red, so here's why you're wrong about all 10".

he's young.  he'll be a star moving forward for a long time, whether he gets taken seriously next february or not.  he's the president we need, but probably don't deserve. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Seems to be part of a simple, and possibly effective plan.  Create disarray in the Republican Party by clearly distinguishing the differences between Trumpkins and life long Republicans.  

Do you really think that's Pete's conscious plan?

It might happen, but it's not why Pete is playing the Christian card. It's a very simple, and very effective, voter appeal.

Watch Obama's 2006 "Call to Renewal" speech. Both the left and the right pick and choose what they want out of the faith to appeal to their voting bases, and that's what Pete is doing. Like Obama, he's pulling the flattering stuff out to flatter the forgiving and advanced sensibilities of liberals. An American flag draped around a cross with a rifle leaned up against it, properly framed, appeals to both conservatives and liberals, and Pete is going to hammer home all three.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

12 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

in regards to both of those ^^^ clips, please please please allow us to get pete on the debate stage with the president.  somehow, someway, make this happen.  it might be more enjoyable than watching the texas-usc game. 

he's so ridiculously good at this.

Pete in the VP debates with Pence would likewise be amazing. 

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you really think that's Pete's conscious plan?

 

Possibly? So far he's been stressing values first, policies after.  And he understands, probably from personal experience in Indiana, that there are plenty of Republican voters that do not agree with Trump's values and he wants to amplify that conversation/conflict.  

Also with Hugo's point re: going after Pence, Pete is sticking with his strategy of a 50 year vision for this country, not just defeating Trump in 2020. We need to expose and defeat Christian extremism that has infected our government.  

 

[Chad Fuck 17,753]

10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Pete in the VP debates with Pence would likewise be amazing. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you really think that's Pete's conscious plan?

It might happen, but it's not why Pete is playing the Christian card. It's a very simple, and very effective, voter appeal.

i think this is most likely accurate.  i don't think it's necessarily planned out this way (although maybe pete's super-advanced robot chess-playing brain is thinking 12 moves ahead).

i think pete is speaking from his heart about how he feels about things, and why his mind is made up about what he believes in.  but he damn sure knows the pleasant coincidence that it's caused by speaking this way.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I have a feeling Trump will replace Pence if he’s running in 2020.  Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul are well positioned. 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

12 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Pete in the VP debates with Pence would likewise be amazing. unfair.

alabama doesn't schedule high-school teams.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I have a feeling Trump will replace Pence if he’s running in 2020.  Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul are well positioned. 

it would be irresponsible of the republicans if there wasn't at least a conversation going on in some locked room somewhere working the electoral math on this.  someone over there has to push for this to be explored.

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

Triggered. 

 

[LonghornJudas 1,102]

Trump’s faith? Come on. Even the most devout Christians I know who vote Republican, some of them in my immediate family, don’t even believe he’s a faithful man or follows God in any way, shape, or form. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think pete is speaking from his heart about how he feels about things, and why his mind is made up about what he believes in.

If true, that calls his supposed genius into pretty sharp question.

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Triggered.

I'd much prefer politicians just stop talking about their religious faith, even if it owns the CHUDs. Tolerance and justice increases as governmental religiosity decreases and the last thing we need is Christianity re-centered as a pillar of white governmental authority. Even if it is wearing a velvet glove (perhaps especially if it is wearing a velvet glove).

Jimmy Carter was really nice, but no thanks on Round 2.

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'd much prefer politicians just stop talking about their religious faith, even if it owns the CHUDs. Tolerance and justice increases as governmental religiosity decreases and the last thing we need is Christianity re-centered as a pillar of white governmental authority. Even if it is wearing a velvet glove (perhaps especially if it is wearing a velvet glove).

Jimmy Carter was really nice, but no thanks on Round 2.

He's not doing that. At all. 

He's trying to reclaim the idea that real Christian faith is helping the poor, taking care of the stranger, etc. instead of the religious right's focus on sin and sexuality. 

 

[henrygandorf 29,194]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If true, that calls his supposed genius into pretty sharp question.

maybe i worded it poorly using the word "heart". 

i think pete's opinions and views come from a place of conviction.  i think he arrived at these opinions through his life experience, which includes acquisition of knowledge at many levels, including schools and jobs.  when he says what he believes, i think it's because he actually had a measured way of arriving at these opinions.  he didn't just say, "i'm a [blank] so therefore i believe [blank] and am in favor of [blank]."

i was responding to whether the religious comments were part of his conscious strategy.  i think it's just what he already believes in, so maybe it's not intentionally strategic.  but i think it's a nice coincidence that it's working out that way.

[henrygandorf 29,194]

well you can't attack trump on religion.  the bible is, after all, his favorite book:

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21,048]

Check out the ratio. Begun the Christianity wars have. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Erickson has always been a fucking clown.