Buttigieg 2020

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

And why are they losing bodies?

(It's the CEOs)

 

trump_wrong.gif

It's maybe 10% bad_ceos.

The other 90% is automation and globalization aka people in another country willing to do your $100k+ (when you include cadillac health insurance) union job for $0.10 on the dollar.  Most CEOs who don't respond to that market pressure don't last long as CEOs.  Also investors tend to like companies who stay in business and make profit for their investors so, fiduciary responsibility and all that.  But you knew that already.

Unless the goal is: "a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism." per Oxford

[henrygandorf 29225]

just give them all govt jobs with fair+ wages.

i mean, once the govt takes over everything, then most jobs will be govt jobs, i assume.

[Guest Lobo]

Nah, I don’t go with that union shit...you know what I mean?

[bad_teammate 13496]

8 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's maybe 10% bad_ceos.

The other 90% is automation and globalization aka people in another country willing to do your $100k+ (when you include cadillac health insurance) union job for $0.10 on the dollar.  Most CEOs who don't respond to that market pressure don't last long as CEOs.  Also investors tend to like companies who stay in business and make profit for their investors so, fiduciary responsibility and all that.  But you knew that already.

Hell yes, fabricated statistics! Love it.

Is the larger system of a capital and investment a huge problem that directs negative executive action? Of course. So yes, that's some obvious stuff you didn't need to "well, actually". I understand why CEOs do what they do. It doesn't change the fact that they are the ones who actually do it.

[TexEx15 17936]

Pete’s interview at Tribfest.

[RPM 26615]

Is he still in the race? He seems to have lost all traction.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

He’s doing better than 80% of the candidates still in the race.  He’s competitive in Iowa too.  If there was a candidate that could sneak attack a victory away from Warren in Iowa, it’s Pete.

He looks like the Biden back up plan that Kamala was supposed to be. 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

 

[TexEx15 17936]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

When Pete announces his exploratory committee in January, he had an email donor list of 24,000 people.  8-9 months later he has 580,000 individual donors. 

To put that in perspective, Bernie's email donor list heading into this primary was 2.1 million people. 

 

[henrygandorf 29225]

13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

When Pete announces his exploratory committee in January, he had an email donor list of 24,000 people.  8-9 months later he has 580,000 individual donors. 

To put that in perspective, Bernie's email donor list heading into this primary was 2.1 million people. 

i heard that pete's $19.1mm was all from 20 billionaires who each donated $1mm (one of them forgot a zero).

please confirm or deny.

[bad_teammate 13496]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i heard that pete's $19.1mm was all from 20 billionaires who each donated $1mm (one of them forgot a zero).

please confirm or deny.

If they all Voltron into one Satanic spirit then I think that just counts as 1 donation

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Lolz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[henrygandorf 29225]

[bad_teammate 13496]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

That a young politician with potential has turned out to be a pile of corporate whore garbage?

Yes, I'm mad about that. It's a bad thing.

[henrygandorf 29225]

yes, everyone knows you mad.  i was talking to hugo.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’m mad I donated money to Buttigieg. 

[bad_teammate 13496]

Is this a real quote?

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

February 9th, 2019...2 weeks after starting his exploratory committee and 2 months before he officially announced his candidacy. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Buttigieg is running attack ads on the candidates advocating for MFA.  

He’s a hypocrite on this issue. 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Buttigieg is running attack ads on the candidates advocating for MFA.  

He’s a hypocrite on this issue. 

"attack ads"

[bad_teammate 13496]

23 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

February 9th, 2019...2 weeks after starting his exploratory committee and 2 months before he officially announced his candidacy. 

 

How are intelligent people fooled by this bullshit?

1) "What we didn't have to do was sit and look at whether this was going to break them financially."

2) "... the flavor that I think is most appealing is one where we make some version of Medicare available on the exchanges, so that people can begin buying into as a sort of public option ..."

Can you people seriously not understand what is so obviously flawed?

[LonghornJudas 1137]

On 8/28/2019 at 8:59 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

It's amazing how much of a ghost town this thread is when substantive discussion is offered and how eager its denizens are to go around concern trolling elsewhere.

Garbage candidate. Pathetic grifter with zero hope for an actual future in his own state openly being bought by the wealthy elites so he can try to meet his personal ambitions.

So Pete was just a dumb, naive child in February of 2019 and now that he's grown up to be a big boy he realizes that taxation to pay for social welfare is bad and it is a huge coincidence that he has been openly purchased by the wealthiest people?

Is that what the Peteheads are going with on this?

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's amazing how much of a ghost town this thread is when substantive discussion is offered and how eager its denizens are to go around concern trolling elsewhere.

Garbage candidate. Pathetic grifter with zero hope for an actual future in his own state openly being bought by the wealthy elites so he can try to meet his personal ambitions.

So Pete was just a dumb, naive child in February of 2019 and now that he's grown up to be a big boy he realizes that taxation to pay for social welfare is bad and it is a huge coincidence that he has been openly purchased by the wealthiest people?

Is that what the Peteheads are going with on this?

He was already proposing Medicare for All Who Want It prior to that Morning Joe clip. He always said he believes in universal healthcare, he just doesn't agree with Bernie that we should do it his way.

Warren surrogates are freaking out and taking aim at Pete because he called her out on M4A. I have no problem with that, it's politics. But they're trying to distract from her upcoming pivot. She was quoted being for Bernie's M4A at a primary debate and is about to walk it back.  

Oh wow, he has high end donors? Did you just figure this out? 

Looking at Q3 numbers, Bernie and Warren had about 60% of their money from small-money donors. Pete's at 45%.  He has the 3rd most unique donors behind those two as well. 

 

[bad_teammate 13496]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He was already proposing Medicare for All Who Want It prior to that Morning Joe clip. He always said he believes in universal healthcare, he just doesn't agree with Bernie that we should do it his way.

Warren surrogates are freaking out and taking aim at Pete because he called her out on M4A.

If Pete had any grounds from which to call Warren out for lack of specificity, then that's a different story, but he is less clear than her about how his plan will work and be funded. It's a Tulsi-level lack of self-awareness.

He's got to attack M4A but he can't attack it directly, so he's ignoring the glaring hypocrisy of his political gambit by attacking the one weakness he can find that doesn't completely out him as a tool of capital.

- How will Pete fund the public option if its cost grows beyond the revenue generated by repealing Trump's tax cuts?
- How will Pete guarantee that everyone gets to keep their current private coverage?
- How will Pete ensure that people do not spend decades paying into private insurance only to be dumped onto the public option the moment they get seriously ill?
- How will Pete deal with the continued influence of pharma/insurance money as it endlessly attempts to sabotage the public option and decrease regulation on itself?

Quote

Oh wow, he has high end donors? Did you just figure this out?

lol the middle school response

No, it's been obvious for a while and I've commented on it for months.

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

Go read his white papers. He still has 3 parts of his healthcare plan he hasn't released yet. 

https://peteforamerica.com/a-new-era-for-health/

[Fozzz 152]

On 9/2/2019 at 8:49 PM, Lobo said:

This is a bold position for him to take in Northern Indiana.  Unions serve a purpose, but goddamn, their numbers aren't dying because of evil CEO's, they're dying because the industries they represent are losing bodies.  We just don't need as many fucking joint-fitters in Scranton or Buffalo as used to.  Get the fuck over it.  The man sees the future of workforce evolution.  And I have full faith his party will vilify him for it.  

Motherfuckers need to learn to code amirite?

[Guest Lobo]

Not necessarily, but raising your children to join you in the coal industry or manufacturing full-size sedans is one step away from child abuse.

meme, "I Don't want your life!" 

[bad_teammate 13496]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Go read his white papers. He still has 3 parts of his healthcare plan he hasn't released yet. 

https://peteforamerica.com/a-new-era-for-health/

Before I do that, can you tell me whether or not you have bothered to actually read Pete's positions? Do you know the answers to those questions and are just being coy or do you not actually know?

My guess is that you haven't actually read this stuff and don't actually care beyond him being so powerfully personally appealing to you as an individual. I might be wrong.

But who am I kidding, of course I'm going to go read every word because I can't help myself...

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Before I do that, can you tell me whether or not you have bothered to actually read Pete's positions? Do you know the answers to those questions and are just being coy or do you not actually know?

My guess is that you haven't actually read this stuff and don't actually care beyond him being so powerfully personally appealing to you as an individual. I might be wrong.

But who am I kidding, of course I'm going to go read every word because I can't help myself...

I have stated before that healthcare is a super complicated subject and I don't have enough knowledge to argue the details/inner workings, let alone be able to predict what can and can't get done. 

I know this is your #1 issue. It's not for me. I respect yours and Bernie's passion regarding M4A. Morally, I think it's the right way to go. I also believe that the right way to get there is by giving people a choice and letting the market decide. There will be a ton of obstacles, I know. 

Broadly, IMO it's a very slippery slope for our government to force everyone into M4A. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

can we also reject the position out of the box that certain people "are or are not allowed" to challenge the front-runner when she starts to waiver on (1) what her plan is and/or (2) how it will get paid for?  it's basically your purity-test version of whataboutism.

by your logic, only bernie is allowed to say anything to warren about m4a (or anything, really).

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

I'm not posting this as any sort of "gotcha". I'm pretty sure the person that tweeted the video is really anti-Bernie and I don't condone whatever she does. I'm only interested in the actual video. I'm sure there is some context/nuance missing here but the larger point remains.

Bernie is the man and M4A is his baby. But he was talking positively about a public option in 2009.  I don't think Pete deserves the hatred for proposing a public option now. 

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13496]

Medicare for All Who Want It whitepaper

Spoiler: It sucks.

- He starts off talking about the story of the woman who waited outside the ER in the parking lot with her kid to make sure it was really necessary to go in. Then, later, we get this: "He will ban surprise medical billing, put a limit on out-of-pocket costs for seniors with Medicare, and ensure that health care providers, like hospitals, price their services fairly by capping out-of-network rates."

THERE WILL STILL BE OUT-OF-NETWORK RATES THAT KEEP PEOPLE FROM SEEKING CARE.

This is the bold vision of the future, out-of-network hurdles, but they're only TWICE AS HIGH as the normal hurdles.

- "The Medicare for All Who Want It public alternative will help America reach universal coverage by providing an affordable insurance option to the currently uninsured. First, individuals with lower incomes instates that have refused to expand Medicaid will be automatically enrolled in the public option. Pete will also end Medicaid work requirements that take health care away from people. Second,individuals who forgo coverage through their employer because it’s too expensive will be able to enroll in the public option and receive access to income-based subsidies that help guarantee affordability."

So it's not even Medicare in the current way, much less Medicare in the expanded form envisioned by M4A. You have to pay a premium to get into the "Medicare" public option. (There is no premium for most on current Medicare Part A)

And what happens if I don't qualify for the right level of subsidy and I can't pay my premiums? If there's no reason to pay it, would people even bother paying it? If I get kicked off for not paying my premium, am I without healthcare entirely?

This is recycled ACA nonsense. Nothing was learned. Zero. It's pathetic.

- "Retroactively enroll those who fall through the cracks in the public option. A backstop fund will reimburse health care providers for unpaid care to patients who are uninsured. Individuals with no coverage will be retroactively enrolled in the public option."

So why wouldn't everyone just stop paying premiums entirely, get automatically covered in the public option, then stop paying those premiums, too? What would motivate anyone to pay for any of this?

And there is NOTHING in this entire document about funding any of it.

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

can we also reject the position out of the box that certain people "are or are not allowed" to challenge the front-runner when she starts to waiver on (1) what her plan is and/or (2) how it will get paid for? 

Oh god here we go again with "allowed" whining.

Pete is legally allowed to punch left. That's his right as an American and no one wants to take it away from him.

Allowed without being criticized? No, I'm sorry, that's not how any of this works, even for Grandma's Special Good Boy.

Quote

it's basically your purity-test version of whataboutism.

Buzzword bingo gibberish

Quote

by your logic, only bernie is allowed to say anything to warren about m4a (or anything, really).

I am 100% cool with all attacks from the left, whether they are from Bernie or anyone else.

I am not cool with attacks from the right. (i.e., "how are you gonna pay for it, RAISE TAXES!?!?!?!")

I will criticize attacks from the right and those who offer them.

It's kind of what happens when you have values and beliefs, and I can understand how it's confusing for those of you without those things (or those of you who are just conservatives feeling temporarily displaced by Hurricane Cheeto).

25 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have stated before that healthcare is a super complicated subject and I don't have enough knowledge to argue the details/inner workings, let alone be able to predict what can and can't get done. 

...

Broadly, IMO it's a very slippery slope for our government to force everyone into M4A. 

A slippery slope to what?

Quote

Morally, I think it's the right way to go. I also believe that the right way to get there is by giving people a choice and letting the market decide..

If you seriously think adherence to market principles is a matter of morality, you need to re-calibrate what you think morality is and what your beliefs are. That's messed up and kind of insane.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Again, I’m all for challenging Warren or Bernie or Biden or Beto.

It’s a good preparation for the general election and it’s all the candidates’s jobs to differentiate themselves as they try and win the nomination.

Just don’t be a smarmy dickhole while doing it.

I didn’t like when Castro did it or when Delaney acted the ass towards Pete.

In the September debate, Pete played the role of the kumbaya scold - “This is why people don’t watch debates you guys! Be nice!”

And come October he’s throwing snark.

He accuses others for “attacking others to stay relevant” a week ago and does the very same on the debate stage.

And honestly, I truly found his “shiny objects” and “pocket change” quips very insulting.

And not in a “I’m looking for a reason to be mad so I’ll pretend I’m insulted” way. I’m sincere when I criticize him for being mean and always criticizing other candidates for going too big because too big is too hard.

I’m not a moderate nor a socialist democrat - I’m in between and on paper, Pete should be right up my alley.

I just find him incredibly cynical and manufactured and as of the last few weeks extremely unlikeable.

[bad_teammate 13496]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think Pete deserves the hatred for proposing a public option now.

I don't know if you're being genuinely stupid or just disingenuous.

Pete isn't getting "hatred" because he proposed a public option. Lots of other bad candidates have proposed the same and we're not talking about them.

We're talking about Pete because of his sustained attack on M4A and its funding.

If his position was just, "Their plan is fine, but mine is better" no one would care and we wouldn't be talking about him.

[bad_teammate 13496]

I just want to buy a taco so I stabbed an old lady in the face.

WHY ARE THE COPS SO MAD AT ME FOR WANTING A TACO!?!?

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We're talking about Pete because of his sustained attack on M4A and its funding.

If his position was just, "Their plan is fine, but mine is better" no one would care and we wouldn't be talking about him.

It's a primary. 

He wants to clarify his stance is better by people having a choice.  As I'm sure you're very well aware of, "M4A" has been turned into a catch-all phrase with ambiguous meaning outside of Bernie. Pete is trying to clear up any possible confusion with voters and point out the major differences in plans. 

Re: funding, are you talking about him confronting Warren about middle class taxes? She's been vague. He's not going after Bernie regarding taxes, because he's actually told the truth and has been clear about it. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Oh god here we go again with "allowed" whining.

Pete is legally allowed to punch left. That's his right as an American and no one wants to take it away from him.

Allowed without being criticized? No, I'm sorry, that's not how any of this works, even for Grandma's Special Good Boy.

once again, you're disqualifying the criticism (basically attacking the messenger) from both pete and me.  this isn't a legal question, but cool.

pete is questioning the ambiguity of warren's stance on m4a.  you dismiss it because in your opinion, pete's plan is shittier.  and then you go on to say you will accept criticism from the left (just bernie i guess?).

pete and klobuchar and beto and biden and others have also criticized warren's ambiguity, and now the story is developing that warren might be backing away from bernie's m4a platform in one way or another.

but sure, let's make this all about pete's plan, because he delivered the first blow, and your blind criticism of him, because he had the sheer audacity to question warren, who until very recently was "with bernie" on m4a.  be objective for once, and keep your eye on the ball.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

15 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

pete and klobuchar and beto and biden and others have also criticized warren's ambiguity,

Out of desperation.   I can't blame them though, it's a vulnerability of Warren's own making and she's apparently banking on the voter's ability to see through the bullshit and gotcha questions.  The sad part is the candidates hitting her on it show they're more interested in taking down Warren than working towards providing single payer healthcare.  

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Out of desperation.   I can't blame them though, it's a vulnerability of Warren's own making and she's apparently banking on the voter's ability to see through the bullshit and gotcha questions.  The sad part is the candidates hitting her on it show they're more interested in taking down Warren than working towards providing single payer healthcare.  

[bad_teammate 13496]

12 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Re: funding, are you talking about him confronting Warren about middle class taxes? She's been vague. He's not going after Bernie regarding taxes, because he's actually told the truth and has been clear about it. 

And who is Pete Buttigieg to talk about this? A guy who has offered basically nothing to explain his funding process criticizing someone for being vague?

Just now, henrygandorf said:

pete is questioning the ambiguity of warren's stance on m4a.  you dismiss it because in your opinion, pete's plan is shittier.  and then you go on to say you will accept criticism from the left (just bernie i guess?).

I dismiss it because...

- Pete's overall plan is worse
- Pete's intentions are bad
- Pete's own vagueness on funding is worse than Warren's

As for "just bernie i guess?", I'm fine with ANYONE attacking from the left, I don't care who it is. I will sell Grandpa Bernie to a glue shop in a second if you give me a credible candidate to his left.

Quote

pete and klobuchar and beto and biden and others have also criticized warren's ambiguity, and now the story is developing that warren might be backing away from bernie's m4a platform in one way or another.

Why do you keep concern-trolling about Warren backing away from M4A? Is Pete the M4A-loyalty enforcer?

As for the others also criticizing Warren's ambiguity, what stellar company for Pete to be in!

 

[Hank Kingsley 21751]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

And who is Pete Buttigieg to talk about this? A guy who has offered basically nothing to explain his funding process criticizing someone for being vague?

He's said his plan will cost 1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years and that the money will come from corporate tax reform. 

 

 

[henrygandorf 29225]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I dismiss it because...

- Pete's overall plan is worse
- Pete's intentions are bad
- Pete's own vagueness on funding is worse than Warren's

As for "just bernie i guess?", I'm fine with ANYONE attacking from the left, I don't care who it is. I will sell Grandpa Bernie to a glue shop in a second if you give me a credible candidate to his left.

once again, you're attacking the messenger.  you dismiss pete's question (and everyone else's) because you think his plan is shitty.  therefore, if someone has a "better" plan in your eyes, the question is warranted.  and since you think only bernie's is better, he's the only one qualified (in your eyes) to question her.

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why do you keep concern-trolling about Warren backing away from M4A? Is Pete the M4A-loyalty enforcer?

As for the others also criticizing Warren's ambiguity, what stellar company for Pete to be in!

once againnnnn, you're making it about pete.  there's a difference between concern/interest and concern-trolling.  this is a message board, so since we're not directly involved in the campaigns, you could label anything and everything "concern-trolling".

is steven colbert the m4a loyalty enforcer?  are you cool with warren starting to wiggle away from her stance?  seems so unlike you.