Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13191]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

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

From the WaPo Op-Ed, right?

My plan will cost about $1.5 trillion over a decade, paid for by cost savings and corporate tax reform to ensure big corporations pay their fair share.

lol so specific!!

And that's it, by the way. That's literally all he says in the op-ed. That one sentence is the beginning and end of his explanation as to how he will fund it and how much it will cost.

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

once again, you're attacking the messenger. 

When the messenger's argument is about someone else's credibility, then the trustworthiness and credibility of the messenger matters.

Who is more worth listening to, a thief calling someone else a thief or an honest man calling someone else a thief?

Him saying she's vague is a judgement call and I don't respect his judgement.

Someone who wants to criticize Warren's supposed vagueness because they're actually concerned about the passage of M4A? I'll be happy to listen (and I do, constantly, because I interact with a lot of people who attack Warren from the left, I attack Warren from the left constantly).

Quote

once againnnnn, you're making it about pete.

In the Pete thread? HOW DARE I!?

Quote

 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".

Concern-trolling is when someone pretends to care about something, but doesn't. Pete doesn't care about M4A passing, so when he pretends he does it's yet another example of him being disingenuous and dishonest.

Quote

is steven colbert the m4a loyalty enforcer?

I think she looked weak and scared on Colbert, but he's just another rich media personality and I don't care about him.

Quote

  are you cool with warren starting to wiggle away from her stance?  seems so unlike you.

Go to the Warren thread and scroll. It's not hard to find my feelings on this and the furious response from Warren stans that resulted.

My largest concern with Warren is that she's not actually loyal to progressive values. As I've said in multiple threads, I will actively oppose Warren if she flips for the general.

I'm not interested in Pete's worthless opinion on any of this and all his chiming in does is remind me of how garbage he and his plans are.

[bad_teammate 13191]

It's amazing how incapable the Peteheads are of discussing policy. It is 100% a personality cult, and the lamest one imaginable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I will actively oppose Warren if she flips for the general.

How do you define flip?

For me as long as she's advocating for a single payer system that covers everyone and renders private health insurance no longer profitable I'll be satisfied.  Her power as president will be more in her advocacy than the actual details of the plan. 

It's impossible for me to imagine she flips or comes up with some half measured approach to healthcare.  If she were to, I would hold it against her too.

[henrygandorf 29189]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

How do you define flip?

For me as long as she's advocating for a single payer system that covers everyone and renders private health insurance no longer profitable I'll be satisfied.  Her power as president will be more in her advocacy than the actual details of the plan. 

It's impossible for me to imagine she flips or comes up with some half measured approach to healthcare.  If she were to, I would hold it against her too.

ok, i don't wanna be that guy, but take it to the 2020 thread or warren thread please.

[bad_teammate 13191]

Get that outta the Pete thread, we're trying to talk about personality politics and pretend that policy doesn't exist!

[henrygandorf 29189]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's amazing how incapable the Peteheads are of discussing policy.

we are discussing policy.  we're discussing warren's policy.

just because a guy who likes pete is asking about policy doesn't mean it's a pete-centric conversation.

i like the longhorns and the astros, but i am capable of talking about the nfl, college basketball, and that euro-sport with all the kicking.

[henrygandorf 29189]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Concern-trolling is when someone pretends to care about something, but doesn't. Pete doesn't care about M4A passing, so when he pretends he does it's yet another example of him being disingenuous and dishonest.

you accused me of concern trolling.  i'm not.  warren is my #2 and my realistic #1 and i am actually concerned.

[bad_teammate 13191]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

we are discussing policy.  we're discussing warren's policy.

This is the Pete thread. We should be talking about Pete's policy, right?

Are you interested in doing that or capable of doing that?

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

you accused me of concern trolling.  i'm not.  warren is my #2 and my realistic #1 and i am actually concerned.

You're concern trolling (as is Pete) about the M4A part of it. You don't actually care whether or not Warren is loyal to M4A.

[bad_teammate 13191]

Powerful Pete energy

 

[henrygandorf 29189]

50 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're concern trolling (as is Pete) about the M4A part of it. You don't actually care whether or not Warren is loyal to M4A.

do i care if she's specifically loyal to bernie's m4a plan?  no.

do i care if she's genuine and loyal to her own ideals?  totally.  

do i care if she sticks to her guns?  yes.

do i care what her healthcare plan ends up looking like?  big-fucking-time.

she's gonna be the next president.  her healthcare plan is of huge interest for me and tens of millions of others.

[bad_teammate 13191]

Pete is a fucking weasel.

 

He gets the same question from Tapper in the July debate and look how he handles it.

 

Start at 13 for a great candidate,16 in for a good candidate, and 19 in for Pete.

 

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Clipped for the ADD.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Pete is a fucking weasel.

 

He gets the same question from Tapper in the July debate and look how he handles it.

HAHAHAHA CURIOUS!  Distinction without a difference! 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

He answered the question better in July then Warren has the 15 times she's been asked about it in the last month. 

Also something to note: Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a healthcare plan. I'd love for this "spat" to continue.  No one gives a shit what the Twitter echo chamber thinks. 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Cult.

 

 

lol

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

7 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He answered the question better in July then Warren has the 15 times she's been asked about it in the last month. 

Also something to note: Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a healthcare plan. I'd love for this "spat" to continue.  No one gives a shit what the Twitter echo chamber thinks.

Why? Because it's getting Pete attention again? Has Buttigieg support reached the point at which they aren't really in passionate about anything substantive, they're just a tribal team ready to do battle with others as a justification for their continued allegiance?

My Bros and I are down there in the harassment mines every day mining harassment crystals to power the BERN app, but it's because we have a very clear larger, leftward project in mind that we care about.

Why are you guys doing it? What's the vision?

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Why? Because it's getting Pete attention again? Has Buttigieg support reached the point at which they aren't really in passionate about anything substantive, they're just a tribal team ready to do battle with others as a justification for their continued allegiance?

My Bros and I are down there in the harassment mines every day mining harassment crystals to power the BERN app, but it's because we have a very clear larger, leftward project in mind that we care about.

Why are you guys doing it? What's the vision?

It's not surprising why you don't understand the appeal of Buttigieg. 

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

It's not surprising why you don't understand the appeal of Buttigieg.

I think I understand it very well, but can you explain why you think Pete is the best candidate?

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I think I understand it very well, but can you explain why you think Pete is the best candidate?

Yes, because his tone/vision does not alienate half the country and he will actually try to bring people together post-Trump.  Maybe it's too late and there's no going back. I'd rather give it one more shot.  He has a strategy that looks beyond 2020. 

If Pete's not the nominee, then it just becomes who I believe is an authentic overall candidate. The only other two I'd be truly happy to vote for are Liz and Bernie. 

[bad_teammate 13191]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Yes, because his tone/vision does not alienate half the country and he will actually try to bring people together post-Trump.

What/who do you mean by "half the country", specifically?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

8 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He answered the question better in July then Warren has the 15 times she's been asked about it in the last month. 

Also something to note: Elizabeth Warren doesn't have a healthcare plan. I'd love for this "spat" to continue.  No one gives a shit what the Twitter echo chamber thinks. 

 

 

 

She's gained 6 points in the last month.   Pete was ahead of her at the end of April and was still basically tied with her by mid-June, now he's behind by 18 points.   What exactly is the argument for his approach in addressing policy questions being better than hers? 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

What/who do you mean by "half the country", specifically?

I mean people that typically don't vote for liberals/Democrats. 

I'll continue this conversation in good faith. I hope you will too. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

She's gained 6 points in the last month.   Pete was ahead of her at the end of April and was still basically tied with her by mid-June, now he's behind by 18 points.   What exactly is the argument for his approach in addressing policy questions being better than hers? 

The argument for his strategic approach regarding this specific policy confrontation is that Elizabeth Warren doesn't even have a healthcare plan yet. 

[bad_teammate 13191]

1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

She's gained 6 points in the last month.   Pete was ahead of her at the end of April and was still basically tied with her by mid-June, now he's behind by 18 points.   What exactly is the argument for his approach in addressing policy questions being better than hers? 

I agree that Pete's answer was better. Pete, in general, is very good at talking and sounding like he's confident and smooth and calm and he's clever at turns of phrase.

Her rise and his fall/stagnation in the polls is a different question, I think.

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

I mean people that typically don't vote for liberals/Democrats.

So Republicans/libertarians? Non-voters? Swing voters? (All?)

Has Pete shown any advantages over other candidates with regard to those populations?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The argument for his strategic approach regarding this specific policy confrontation is that Elizabeth Warren doesn't even have a healthcare plan yet. 

That's not an argument; it's an observation.  The argument would be, "... and Warren should have her own specific health care plan because..." 

The argument against is that she's rocketed to the top of the primary while co-signing Bernie's plan, while Mayor Pete hasn't budged since releasing his plan (5.8 average on day it was released, 5.6 average today).   What is your argument for? 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

So Republicans/libertarians? Non-voters? Swing voters? (All?)

Has Pete shown any advantages over other candidates with regard to those populations?

Yes, generally all of those. 

I understand why it's hard for some to ever forgive or understand a person for being a Trump supporter. But I do people leave there needs to be some empathy without excusing a lot of their horrible idealogical beliefs. 

I think he's shown to have quite a few advantages regarding these populations. He's spent the majority of his life in the Midwest. His tone/language is not threatening. He's not capitulating on his beliefs, instead framing things in a way that won't make it feel as much of a huge idealogical battle.  There's an unusual talent there that IMO is sorely needed in this Trumpian era. 

I think he's a low risk, high reward candidate. His inexperience in D.C. is actually a positive to me. He has fantastic organization skills and 8 years as an executive that have taught him many lessons. I believe being a mayor of a city like South Bend is more valuable than 8 years in the Senate. 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

5 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

That's not an argument; it's an observation.  The argument would be, "... and Warren should have her own specific health care plan because..." 

The argument against is that she's rocketed to the top of the primary while co-signing Bernie's plan, while Mayor Pete hasn't budged since releasing his plan (5.8 average on day it was released, 5.6 average today).   What is your argument for? 

You're changing the subject, Mojo. I'm talking specifically about the "spat" regarding Buttigieg and Warren right now over. Warren should have her own specific heath care plan because she's the "I have a plan for that candidate" that seems to not have thought very hard about arguably the most important policy issue to voters. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You're changing the subject, Mojo. I'm talking specifically about the "spat" regarding Buttigieg and Warren right now over. Warren should have her own specific heath care plan because she's the "I have a plan for that candidate" that seems to not have thought very hard about arguably the most important policy issue to voters. 

I'm not changing the subject.  I'm offering a different perspective.   Pete and you seem to think that something Warren has been doing on "the most important policy issue for voters" for the last few months is a huge weakness, while his policy stand on this issue is a huge strength.   Yet she has left him in the dust during that period of time.   It looks to me like she's taking a pretty successful approach.

Saying "she needs a plan because she's the plan candidate" misses the forest for the trees.   Voters don't care if she co-signs a good plan proposed by someone else.   It's not the mere fact that she has a lot of plans that matter.  It's that voters like her approach in those plans, which focuses on corruption and leveling the playing field.   That's why she's inspiring people and Hillary didn't, even though Hillary had fucking treatises of plans all over her website. 

You seem to be treating a campaign like a debate tournament. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Mojo Hand

[bad_teammate 13191]

57 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think he's shown to have quite a few advantages regarding these populations. He's spent the majority of his life in the Midwest. His tone/language is not threatening.

Is threatening tone something that turns off independents and Republicans and non-voters? Are they looking for a soft-spoken person who is nice and calm? If so, why do you think that?

I haven't seen any evidence that Pete connects with non-white voters or even working class independents/Republicans, which is where you find the non-voters and independents. The polls haven't borne that out and his own mayoral electoral history showed black support falling.

What it seems like to me is that the white professional class is yearning for a calm, measured-tone nice person and then projecting that desire onto populations they aren't actually connected to. Pete has been in the bright spotlight of this primary for 6+ months now, and his demographic support is still almost exclusively professional class white people who are highly educated and highly liberal.

Why do you think his calm and measured tone isn't working among the target populations so far? What flip will switch?

Quote

He's not capitulating on his beliefs, instead framing things in a way that won't make it feel as much of a huge idealogical battle. 

This is a too-clever-by-half thing, to me. There is going to be a fight for all these things, and when your base consists of people who don't want to fight and you attracted them because you promised that change would be seamless and painless, how are you go to inspire a movement to fight for change?

And this leads back into the previous issue of a nice calm smart guy connecting with the lower/working classes. They know that change requires a fight. They know life is a fight. It is the wealthy classes that do not have to struggle and think big things can happen where everyone wins and there is no sacrifice. His pitch (the whole "seamless glidepath" vision of the world) is a fantasy that, I think, only sells to people who live in fantasy bubbles and that those who aren't $100k+/year will see as yet more manager-speak.

Quote

I believe being a mayor of a city like South Bend is more valuable than 8 years in the Senate. 

I agree that mayoral/executive experience is good.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Oh no baby what are you doing?

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

That’s bad. I hope he cancels that fundraiser or removes the attorney from the co-host list.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

 

[tantric superman 4667]

44 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is threatening tone something that turns off independents and Republicans and non-voters? Are they looking for a soft-spoken person who is nice and calm? If so, why do you think that?

Because such a person would be the anti-Trump in tone.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

lol

Just now, tantric superman said:

Because such a person would be the anti-Trump in tone.

Yeah, this kind of reinforces what I'm talking about.

How much privilege can one have and security one feel for tone to be up at the top of the list of concerns? Or even on it at all?

Who are the "tone-focused" voters out there?

[tantric superman 4667]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who are the "tone-focused" voters out there?

People who want a President to have a nicer tone?  I'm sure there are a good number of voters out there who aren't that interested in policy who simply want the leader of the free world not to act like a jack ass.

 

[bad_teammate 13191]

Yes, there may be millions and millions of Americans for whom "nice tone" is their #1 consideration. That might be the case. Do we have any reason to actually believe this? Is there any research or history on this? Because it seems like magical thinking to me to think that there are a significant number of people who will be on-the-fence about Trump only to be swayed by... tone.

It just seems like such a frivolous concern for people with zero real problems or concerns about the world and I cannot think of any reason to believe that tone-first voters are an actual thing.

Edited October 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29189]

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It just seems like such a frivolous concern for people with zero real problems or concerns about the world and I cannot think of any reason to believe that tone-first voters are an actual thing.

lulz.  i would bet there's plenty of people that fit this description lurking and posting on the politics board right now.  the "zero real problems or concerns about the world" contingent.

personally, i'm just happy we live in a time when there are enough bernie bros to fan out, get in our faces, and let us know who is and isn't worthy of our attention as serious candidates.  go bros go, you're doing god's work.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Is threatening tone something that turns off independents and Republicans and non-voters? Are they looking for a soft-spoken person who is nice and calm? If so, why do you think that?

I haven't seen any evidence that Pete connects with non-white voters or even working class independents/Republicans, which is where you find the non-voters and independents. The polls haven't borne that out and his own mayoral electoral history showed black support falling.

What it seems like to me is that the white professional class is yearning for a calm, measured-tone nice person and then projecting that desire onto populations they aren't actually connected to. Pete has been in the bright spotlight of this primary for 6+ months now, and his demographic support is still almost exclusively professional class white people who are highly educated and highly liberal.

Why do you think his calm and measured tone isn't working among the target populations so far? What flip will switch?

I don't think most voters are craving a D candidate that wants a big ideological battle that's going to enflame the partisan war. 

I haven't skirted around Pete's issue with POC, especially black voters. It's a problem. Why isn't he doing better? IMO, its:

1. He's new on the scene and most are still not that familiar with him. 

2. They prefer candidates that they've know for a long time and feel more comfortable to trust. That's why Joe is doing well, and why Hillary did so well in 2016 vs. Bernie.

3. Pete's had some terrible optics with the South Bend police shooting situation. 

 

Regarding him being in the "bright spotlight" for 6+ months, that's only with people seriously following politics. What do you think that is, 10-15% of the electorate? Maybe less? 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Rougarou 594]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think most voters are craving a D candidate that wants a big ideological battle that's going to enflame the partisan war. 

I haven't skirted around Pete's issue with POC, especially black voters. It's a problem. Why isn't he doing better? IMO, its:

1. He's new on the scene and most are still not that familiar with him. 

2. They prefer candidates that they've know for a long time and feel more comfortable to trust. That's why Joe is doing well, and why Hillary did so well in 2016 vs. Bernie.

3. Pete's had some terrible optics with the South Bend police shooting situation. 

 

Regarding him being in the "bright spotlight" for 6+ months, that's only with people seriously following politics. What do you think that is, 10-15% of the electorate? Maybe less? 

 

POC also are historically less tolerant of LGBT in their culture, so I'm sure that is impactful. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Good for Pete for canceling that event and Beto needs to return that donation too. I don’t know what the logistics would be since it’s from his senate campaign I believe but I have confidence he’ll do the right thing.

And I bet every other campaign is scouring their donor lists for that dude.

And on the subject of voters wanting a candidate with a better or nicer tone - whatever the fuck that means - we really using Pete as the best choice for that?

[bad_teammate 13191]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

lulz.  i would bet there's plenty of people that fit this description lurking and posting on the politics board right now.  the "zero real problems or concerns about the world" contingent.

And they're going to go into the 2020 election with an empty mind looking to attach themselves to the nicest candidate? Is that an actual thing?

(posting is not political activity, that's a pretty dumb comparison)

Quote

personally, i'm just happy we live in a time when there are enough bernie bros to fan out, get in our faces, and let us know who is and isn't worthy of our attention as serious candidates.  go bros go, you're doing god's work.

You pout a lot.

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't think most voters are craving a D candidate that wants a big ideological battle that's going to enflame the partisan war. 

Is avoiding an ideological battle with Republicans a possibility?

I don't think it is. I think it's magical thinking.

Quote

I haven't skirted around Pete's issue with POC, especially black voters. It's a problem. Why isn't he doing better? IMO, its:

1. He's new on the scene and most are still not that familiar with him.
2. They prefer candidates that they've know for a long time and feel more comfortable to trust. That's why Joe is doing well, and why Hillary did so well in 2016 vs. Bernie.
3. Pete's had some terrible optics with the South Bend police shooting situation. 

1. He's new on the scene to everyone. Are blacks just simple-minded and skittish like animals?
2. See above.
3. So it's just a matter of "optics" and black voters are just too simple-minded to see through the media "optics" into the truth?

Gee, I wonder how it works out this way lol

Quote

Regarding him being in the "bright spotlight" for 6+ months, that's only with people seriously following politics. What do you think that is, 10-15% of the electorate? Maybe less? 

Sure. Why is he performing so poorly among blacks who are seriously following?

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

POC also are historically less tolerant of LGBT in their culture, so I'm sure that is impactful. 

This is a good joke post imitating how white liberals only care about POC as fetish items and tools and fall back to the same harmful stereotypes their conservative opponents as soon as the POC lose their utility.

Good one. I'm laughing and smiling and enjoying this ironic post that you made.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

1. He's new on the scene to everyone. Are blacks just simple-minded and skittish like animals?
2. See above.
3. So it's just a matter of "optics" and black voters are just too simple-minded to see through the media "optics" into the truth?

Why are you insinuating that I think blacks are simple-minded? What the fuck is wrong with you? 

Do you actually disagree with my reasoning why he's struggled with POC? Care to offer our own thoughts? 

 

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Why are you insinuating that I think blacks are simple-minded? What the fuck is wrong with you? 

Do you actually disagree with my reasoning why he's struggled with POC? Care to offer our own thoughts? 

 

Hmmmm you don’t actually deny that you hate black people. Interesting. 

[henrygandorf 29189]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And they're going to go into the 2020 election with an empty mind looking to attach themselves to the nicest candidate? Is that an actual thing?

(posting is not political activity, that's a pretty dumb comparison)

i was really just making an observation that comfortable people with zero problems and no real concern for the world are likely more prevalent and common (and closer) than you might think.  i wasn't taking that bloc seriously - i was actually making fun of them, same as you.  and i think those types of people in general probably do have different criteria, but i don't think it attracts them all to one particular candidate or another.

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You pout a lot.

 yes, clearly i'm the bummer here.  one man's pout is another man's "having a little fun with you on a message board on a friday morning because the astros are up 3-1 in the alcs."  lighten up, francis.

[bad_teammate 13191]

22 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Why are you insinuating that I think blacks are simple-minded? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I'm not insinuating it, you are by arguing that, unlike white people, black people have to have more time to get to know a candidate before they like him/her, which is literally how we talk about animals. I am curious why you think black voters are like that and white voters aren't.

It doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I'd like to know the reasoning.

Quote

Do you actually disagree with my reasoning why he's struggled with POC? Care to offer our own thoughts?

I absolutely disagree with it.

I think he struggles with POC voters because he's an awkward, inexperienced guy who talks like a manager everyone hates. He looks and sounds and has the pedigree of everyone who has ever walked into a staff room and announced with grave tones that they're all laid off. He has little/nothing to offer black voters or basically any voter who isn't wealthy.

Pete came to white liberals with, "I'm a gay troop who went to Harvard! Listen to me speak other languages!" and white liberals fell in love. Black voters don't care about those things. They've got actual, real concerns.

It is not blacks who need to warm up to Pete, it is whites who need to think about why they fell in love with an empty suit.

So there was nothing to sell to that voting block initially and his leadership in South Bend (both past and present) hasn't improved his appeal, let's say.

Edited October 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29189]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not insinuating it, you are by arguing that, unlike white people, black people have to have more time to get to know a candidate before they like him/her, which is literally how we talk about animals. I am curious why you think black voters are like that and white voters aren't.

It doesn't make any sense at all to me, so I'd like to know the reasoning.

i'm not saying it's true or not, but a few months ago i saw an interview with a black pastor from a small-ish town, and he was asked to share his opinions about the black vote.  he said that traditionally, black voters aren't as proactive in the process early on, so there will be a lot of undecideds until later in the year.  he was older, and he was likely speaking for other, older (~50+) black people that he associates with, but i thought it was interesting.  i didn't think it was insulting, and i didn't think he was treating other black people like animals, but dynamite drop-in there.

i would think someone like you, who is sensitive to topics like disenfranchisement, systemic racism, and overall inequality, would have some understanding to african-americans' hesitance to get involved in the process, especially early on (if what the pastor said is to be believed).

[henrygandorf 29189]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It is not blacks who need to warm up to Pete, it is whites who need to think about why they fell in love with an empty suit.

you have a lot of success forcing your beliefs onto others?

sounds so time-consuming.

[bad_teammate 13191]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i would think someone like you, who is sensitive to topics like disenfranchisement, systemic racism, and overall inequality, would have some understanding to african-americans' hesitance to get involved in the process, especially early on (if what the pastor said is to be believed).

We are 6+ months into this process with Pete being a highly-covered candidate and his black vote is still 0. What is it about Pete that makes them so hesitant to jump in and say they'll vote for him? Is it because of oppression?

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

you have a lot of success forcing your beliefs onto others?

How do you walk around with that heavy cross on your back? Must have great core strength.

[Hank Kingsley 20906]

BT, I'm one of the few people on her willing to occasionally engage with you. Good faith is returned with disingenuous progressive elitism. I'll remember to pass on these conversations next time. 

The fact that I'm always complimentary of Bernie Sanders and your thoughts of Pete being a "grifter", "woodchuck psychopath" (ok, maybe I laughed), "garbage", etc. should have been enough to realize we can't have a serious conversation.