Buttigieg 2020

[Js1 84938]

56 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Not everyone goes to college, it's true.

I don't know what probative or explanatory value that has. All Pete's saying here is, "The system that was designed by the rich benefits the rich, why change that?"

“Narrative emerging” is smart white Twitter for “you’re too dumb to get it” 

[bad_teammate 13080]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

he has other policy plans designed around "it being ok to choose to not go to college".

Who is saying it isn't OK? Any of his fellow candidates? No one is proposing a forced college plan. 

That's such a lazy distractor from the actual policy itself and, more tellingly, the logic behind it.

[henrygandorf 29168]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is saying it isn't OK? Any of his fellow candidates? No one is proposing a forced college plan. 

i think it's just society saying "if you want to succeed in america, you need to go to college" and he's trying to change that 'narrative' based on what he's seen in his hometown.  some of his stump or q&a content is just to promote himself - they're not all just attacks on progressives.  this has zero to do with any other candidate.  i think with everyone getting all revved up and bent out of shape with differing versions of college plans, he wants to keep some of his earlier stuff relevant.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's such a lazy distractor from the actual policy itself and, more tellingly, the logic behind it.

god you're so fucking right.  and it even worked on me.  shit.  i'm super distracted.

[bad_teammate 13080]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think it's just society saying "if you want to succeed in america, you need to go to college" and he's trying to change that 'narrative' based on what he's seen in his hometown.

How does means testing college tuition help accomplish this in any way at all? (Please answer)

It's a non-sequitur. Making the children of "the wealthy" pay public college tuition doesn't take away the stigma on those without a 4-year degree. To take away the need to go to college to succeed in America, which is a real thing, you'd have to fundamentally change the way our capital economy works.

All charging the child of two schoolteachers for public tuition does is make it LESS accessible to those kids.

So how is Pete going to eliminate the need to go to college to succeed? Elucidate.

[Js1 84938]

32 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

he has other policy plans designed around "it being ok to choose to not go to college".  he's often spoke of promoting rights of gig workers, how healthcare ties in and should be able to follow you from job to job, how career paths have evolved over the past couple decades.  you can hate his plans, but they overlap with each other.  he didn't just throw darts at a board.

he's obviously speaking from a personal place, and speaking about people in south bend.  he isn't going hard in the paint on free college, and that's probably part of the reason why.

Meh. Until employers stop justifying a degree requirement for every job in the market, college is sadly going to be required.

[henrygandorf 29168]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How does means testing college tuition help accomplish this in any way at all? (Please answer)

(ok)

it doesn't.  one thing has nothing to do with the other.  he said 3/4 kids in his city don't have a degree, and he's trying to make it better for those without a degree moving forward.

it also doesn't seem like you have a problem with pete's college plan (otherwise known as bernie's "i can play well with others" plan), i think you object to the way he's framing it.  which is totally fair.  it's not my favorite either.

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

All charging the child of two schoolteachers for public tuition does is make it LESS accessible to those kids.

you know there's more to the plan than the 100k cutoff.  there's gradual assistance for those 100-150k and on up.  you also know that i don't prioritize any of the free college plans, so i'm not going to argue passionately or personally about it.  like i said, i think the millionaire/billionaire talk is silly.  he has governors on all his policies, so he chooses how he wants to justify them.  if he can save a few bucks and put it towards something else worthy, then cool.

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So how is Pete going to eliminate the need to go to college to succeed? Elucidate.

i don't think it's about eliminating the need, i think it's about providing a better path for those who don't go to college.  writing policy that only benefits you if you want to go to college is narrow in his eyes, so he's not solely concentrating on free tuition.  but hey, maybe someone will make college free-for-all, and degrees will gradually lose their value, and it won't matter anymore as society breaks down into thunderdome-style post-apocalyptic mayhem.

[henrygandorf 29168]

17 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Meh. Until employers stop justifying a degree requirement for every job in the market, college is sadly going to be required.

plenty of gig-type jobs don't, and that's why he's fighting for these types of workers to get better treatment.

he comes from a place where a lot of people don't want to go to college.  is it because of affordability?  maybe.  but i'm sure there are plenty that just aren't interested.

[bad_teammate 13080]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

(ok)it doesn't.  one thing has nothing to do with the other. 

Ah so then you agree with me that it's extremely disingenuous that he tries to conflate the two things by bringing up this "no college stigma" thing when asked about his college plan? Awesome, so nice to have you on board!

Quote

it also doesn't seem like you have a problem with pete's college plan

I do. I am against means testing it. I am against means testing in general. It is a purposefully divisive tool used to entrench the power and influence of the wealthy.

Quote

he comes from a place where a lot of people don't want to go to college. 

 

That's what this is, in your mind? The children of privilege want to go to college and the children of the poor and working classes don't want to?

Quote

but hey, maybe someone will make college free-for-all, and degrees will gradually lose their value, and it won't matter anymore as society breaks down into thunderdome-style post-apocalyptic mayhem.

This is very telling of your worldview and why you like Pete so much.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Wait. Only 25% of South Bend (home of Notre Dame) citizens have college degrees?

I find it hard to believe the home of one America’s most famous universities has a lower percentage of degree holders than my mid-sized fairly blue collar town in Alabama.

And the problem of too many jobs requiring college degrees and the affordability of college are two completely separate issues.

Why is Pete using the first to defend his bad plan for the second?

[henrygandorf 29168]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah so then you agree with me that it's extremely disingenuous that he tries to conflate the two things by bringing up this "no college stigma" thing when asked about his college plan? Awesome, so nice to have you on board!

when he's asked questions, he pivots towards his own plans and policies, just like every single other politician.  yes.  it's all part of the same program, i'm sure there's some sort of website that can fill you in.  good effort though.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I do. I am against means testing it. I am against means testing in general. It is a purposefully divisive tool used to entrench the power and influence of the wealthy.

but you were ok when bernie proposed the exact same plan in 2017?  so it's pete's negotiating tactics that bother you?  if pete thinks he can pass a bill to help lower-income families afford college, then who the f cares about divisiveness or entrenching?  you're missing the forest for the trees because of your personal opinion about a candidate.

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's what this is, in your mind? The children of privilege want to go to college and the children of the poor and working classes don't want to?

no, that's just what pete has said, and he's only talking about people in his city.  for as often as you use the word "conflate" you should stop doing it so often.

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is very telling of your worldview and why you like Pete so much.

10 months later and you still can't tell when i'm having fun with you.  i can't help you, sundance.

[henrygandorf 29168]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Wait. Only 25% of South Bend (home of Notre Dame) citizens have college degrees?

were you under the impression that everyone who goes to nd settles down and lives their lives in south bend?

5 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And the problem of too many jobs requiring college degrees and the affordability of college are two completely separate issues.

Why is Pete using the first to defend his bad plan for the second?

how is he doing that?  i haven't ever seen him say that too many jobs require college degrees.  he's just trying to make things better for those who choose not to go to college.

[bad_teammate 13080]

25 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

but you were ok when bernie proposed the exact same plan in 2017?

During a Republican presidential administration with a Republican Senate? Absolutely.

Quote

so it's pete's negotiating tactics that bother you? if pete thinks he can pass a bill to help lower-income families afford college, then who the f cares about divisiveness or entrenching?

Who is Pete negotiating with?

Quote

no, that's just what pete has said, and he's only talking about people in his city.

Do you feel like Pete is a reliable voice for the disadvantaged communities in his city?

Do they?

lol

[henrygandorf 29168]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

During a Republican presidential administration with a Republican Senate? Absolutely.

still confused why he didn't go all the way, since the bill wasn't going to be passed anyway.  oh well, don't explain it.

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is Pete negotiating with?

i was told that going in with a "pre-compromised position" was shitty negotiating.  but if he has the house and god-willing, the senate, then it's just trying to pass something that he's in favor of, that also happens to be palatable.  we have no idea what a president bernie would have to compromise down to in order to pass legislation, and we have no idea if president pete would have to compromise at all.  everything is conjecture at this point, since there's a really really good chance that neither of them will become president.

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you feel like Pete is a reliable voice for the disadvantaged communities in his city?

Do they?

lol

do you feel like pete is the type of guy who says things without thinking?  without research, polling, or interaction?  he's a calculating politi-tron 4000, and those are pretty reliable models.  again, he's just using examples from his city.  but under his plan, the lower income families would have free college anyway, so it's not an either/or scenario.

[bad_teammate 13080]

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i was told that going in with a "pre-compromised position" was shitty negotiating.  but if he has the house and god-willing, the senate, then it's just trying to pass something that he's in favor of, that also happens to be palatable. 

Palatable... to whom? If he has the House and Senate, why not just do universal public tuition?

Quote

do you feel like pete is the type of guy who says things without thinking?  without research, polling, or interaction?  he's a calculating politi-tron 4000, and those are pretty reliable models.  again, he's just using examples from his city.  but under his plan, the lower income families would have free college anyway, so it's not an either/or scenario.

I feel like Pete is someone who thinks he knows more than he does. For instance, his city was under federal order to integrate its schools since he was born and it took him multiple years into his mayorship to realize his city's schools weren't actually integrated.

When people think they are way smarter than they are, they are more likely to just assume they know the realities of voices they don't actually have access (or want access) to.

Until they're running for president, of course.

[henrygandorf 29168]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When people think they are way smarter than they are...

i am 100% positive you are an expert in this arena.  or at least think you are.

[bad_teammate 13080]

I, for one, love to think of a beautiful future in which children of poverty get a sweet "I'm Poor" card they can swipe at school to get a specially-marked free lunch but only if their parents reliably fill out the "You Still Poor?" forms quarterly.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Wait. Only 25% of South Bend (home of Notre Dame) citizens have college degrees?

I find it hard to believe the home of one America’s most famous universities has a lower percentage of degree holders than my mid-sized fairly blue collar town in Alabama.

And the problem of too many jobs requiring college degrees and the affordability of college are two completely separate issues.

Why is Pete using the first to defend his bad plan for the second?

I don’t see why you insist on pretending that you don’t love Pete Butt-edge-edge. The longer this goes on the more embarrassing it will be when you do publicly avow your support for the good mayor. 

[bad_teammate 13080]

powerful shit

[Fozzz 152]

The world needs ditch diggers, too. 

[henrygandorf 29168]

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I, for one, love to think of a beautiful future in which children of poverty get a sweet "I'm Poor" card they can swipe at school to get a specially-marked free lunch but only if their parents reliably fill out the "You Still Poor?" forms quarterly.

this seems a little crude and insensitive.

i prefer the "broke af" tank top. 

[LABEVO 928]

[InkaUtexas 25223]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

this seems a little crude and insensitive.

i prefer the "broke af" tank top. 

 

[bad_teammate 13080]

7 hours ago, Fozzz said:

The world needs ditch diggers, too. 

Some people just like digging ditches, and it's elitist of you to imply that they should want to move up the economic ladder.

Wait, why am I surrounded by nothing but nodding old people and conservatives?

[DixonHur 10958]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

 

powerful shit

 

I'm missing the connection. As BT pointed out, no one is talking about forced college, so how is "not everyone wants to go to college" a valid argument against providing free tuition for those who do?

An educated populace Is in the National interest...unless you're a GOP pol.

[bad_teammate 13080]

Pete and Lis are trying to use the working poor as a shield for their corporatist agenda. They are scum. The same scum that has been in charge of the Democratic Party since the early 1990s.

 

Is there any such thing as someone who genuinely and honestly beleives that Pete cares more about the non-college working classes than Bernie does? Than Liz does?

@henrygandorf, do you? Do you think Pete is better studied with those groups? Better experienced? More personally concerned? It's an argument you guys are making, but do you actually believe your own argument?

Bernie:

Moving forward, our legislation will also make every public college and university, historically black college and university, trade school, and apprenticeship program in America tuition-free and debt-free, because we understand that education must be an economic right for all, not a privilege for the few.

Of course, doing all of this will take resources—and that is where Wall Street comes in. We will pay for this initiative by imposing a tax on Wall Street speculators, similar to what exists in dozens of other advanced economies. Ten years ago, the working class bailed out Wall Street. Now, it’s Wall Street’s turn to pay them back.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

Pete has a great schtick he’s been using for at least five years to sound really good but then advocates for nothing, so as to not alienate anyone.  He’s the perfect establishment do nothing democrat. 

 

[bad_teammate 13080]

I'm sick of elitists trying to erase the positive experiences of the underclass.

The sign hung in the detached kitchen for an exhibit “Slave Life at Rosedown.”

About 850 enslaved people worked at what was one of the antebellum South’s richest plantations. The slaves, according to the exhibit, were awoken at 4 a.m. in their “prettily built and very comfortable” cabins to begin work by dawn.

“The slaves were well taken care of and happy,” the exhibit sign continues. At Christmas, the slaves gathered because they “have a natural musical instinct. It was wonderful how well they succeeded in their melodies.”

Some people are happy in their lot, and how DARE you risk that peace and tranquility with undue thoughts of social and economic betterment.

[tantric superman 4667]

Okay, so no one is responding to my attempts to make Booker happen on these boards, why don't I make is simpler. 

Why Buttigieg over Booker.  Both Rhodes, Booker with a slightly better list of schools on his resume, Pete fought the whirling dervishes, Booker fought the Trojans. 

From a policy standpoint, where is Booker just terrible?

[BradInATX 9208]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Okay, so no one is responding to my attempts to make Booker happen on these boards, why don't I make is simpler. 

Why Buttigieg over Booker.  Both Rhodes, Booker with a slightly better list of schools on his resume, Pete fought the whirling dervishes, Booker fought the Trojans. 

From a policy standpoint, where is Booker just terrible?

Hard to say. I like Booker a lot and wish he had gained more traction in this primary. My guess, and this is purely speculative, is that with the 24/7 news cycle and just constant bombardment of information, there's only so much room for new, "upstart" candidates. And there's value in being the "new face". It's the same reason Bernie's polling numbers are basically stuck while Warren's are (or were) rising, despite Warren's newfound positions being what Bernie has been saying for decades.

Edited December 4, 2019 by BradInATX

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

So this is a disgrace to negative attack ads.  It’s more of a pro-Booker message than anti-Pete.  There’s nothing really presented as a negative about Pete.

 

[bad_teammate 13080]

51 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Why Buttigieg over Booker.  Both Rhodes, Booker with a slightly better list of schools on his resume, Pete fought the whirling dervishes, Booker fought the Trojans. 

From a policy standpoint, where is Booker just terrible?

<insert Thujone cartoon of gump angrily tapping headshot of Kevin Sumlin with an Ole Miss klansmen saying "oooooh!">

45 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Hard to say. I like Booker a lot and wish he had gained more traction in this primary. My guess, and this is purely speculative, is that with the 24/7 news cycle and just constant bombardment of information, there's only so much room for new, "upstart" candidates. And there's value in being the "new face". It's the same reason Bernie's polling numbers are basically stuck while Warren's are (or were) rising, despite Warren's newfound positions being what Bernie has been saying for decades.

Booker was a far more known quantity than Buttigieg going into this contest.

[edit - after looking at some crosstabs]

Booker and Buttigieg are basically equal in terms of being known even after 6+ of the media trying to foist Pete on us.

Edited December 4, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Js1 84938]

17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So this is a disgrace to negative attack ads.  It’s more of a pro-Booker message than anti-Pete.  There’s nothing really presented as a negative about Pete.

 

Well any potential criticism, real or imagined, of Pete is an ATTACK! 

[TexEx15 17398]

All these people bitching about why Pete is doing better than Booker.  Just because someone supports Pete doesn’t mean that hate Booker.  I imagine a lot of folks support both and would be happy to vote for both (I would).  But the fact is campaigning is about connecting with people and for whatever reason it seems that Pete is connecting better than Booker.  He is running a better campaign. Stop fucking whining.

[wildcat09 29132]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Okay, so no one is responding to my attempts to make Booker happen on these boards, why don't I make is simpler. 

Why Buttigieg over Booker.  Both Rhodes, Booker with a slightly better list of schools on his resume, Pete fought the whirling dervishes, Booker fought the Trojans. 

From a policy standpoint, where is Booker just terrible?

Booker is better than Pete in pretty much every metric but he does come across as a giant fucking dork, and somehow not really as an endearing way. Maybe I'm just mad at him for dating Rosario Dawson.

[henrygandorf 29168]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Is there any such thing as someone who genuinely and honestly beleives that Pete cares more about the non-college working classes than Bernie does? Than Liz does?

so it's a caring contest?  i don't think anyone here is challenging bernie's credentials as a top-notch lifetime activist and advocate for these groups. 

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think Pete is better studied with those groups? Better experienced? More personally concerned? It's an argument you guys are making, but do you actually believe your own argument?  

where am i making that argument?  where is anyone?

this is what you do.  you tweak someone else's point, then use that new point as a target to argue against.  you made a comment about a pete soundbyte, and i tried to provide some context, seeing as how this is the pete thread.  a mistake i will try my hardest not to repeat.  i don't think any of us need more incoherent ramblings about slave-life, in some sort of attempt to correlate the two things. 

[henrygandorf 29168]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

So this is a disgrace to negative attack ads.  It’s more of a pro-Booker message than anti-Pete.  There’s nothing really presented as a negative about Pete.

 

was that produced by snl?

[wildcat09 29132]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:44 PM, bad_teammate said:

YES PETE GOOD PETE YESSSSS

 

From 4/1, when Pete was cool. Now he's got Dan Crenshaw tweeting in support of him.

[bad_teammate 13080]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

so it's a caring contest?  i don't think anyone here is challenging bernie's credentials as a top-notch lifetime activist and advocate for these groups. 

Read

- Is it correct that Bernie doesn't understand that not everyone needs" to go to college?

- Is it correct that Bernie is an elitist?

The height of elitism!!!!!!!!

to

[henrygandorf 29168]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- Is it correct that Bernie doesn't understand that not everyone needs" to go to college?

- Is it correct that Bernie is an elitist?

The height of elitism!!!!!!!!

i'm sure bernie understands plenty.  i don't think bernie is an elitist.  i don't love the framing of their college/non-college plan, and have said so numerous times.  lis is trying to spin this a certain way, and i don't think she's accomplishing her goal.

pete and his staffers will continue to do whatever they think they need to do to show why their ideas are better.  some arguments are better than others.  this is not how i would argue this one, but once again, this is not a high priority to me.

"you're an elitist!", "no, you're the elitist!" "calling me an elitist is classic elitist!" is moronic, and is an exchange perfectly suited for twitter.

[bad_teammate 13080]

"People shouldn't feel like they have to get a degree to succeed."

- "But the statistics over the last 40+ years show that they do, in fact, need to get a degree to succeed. So what are you going to do to make sure that non-college-grads are as financially successful and secure as college grads."

"Well first we have to start a national conversation that involves all stakeholders..."

*Trump wins re-election*

 

[henrygandorf 29168]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*Trump wins re-election*

thanks, in no small part, to the votes of non-degree holding voters.

ironies abound.

[bad_teammate 13080]

Point of respect for Pete: He isn't apologizing for things.

I am on the record of being tired of candidates apologizing for shit. It's a sucker's move. It's a loser's bet. No apologies.

You caught me using scam e-mails to fake black support for my agenda? Fuck you, I'm not saying shit and everyone will forget 20 minutes from now.

[mchookem 15792]

just saw the clip of bt interrupting the Pete event last night 🤣

but seriously...the optics of a white guy in a BLM tshirt disrupting a room of POC discussing their support of Pete... talk about bizarro world 😐

 

[bad_teammate 13080]

11 minutes ago, mchookem said:

just saw the clip of bt interrupting the Pete event last night 🤣

but seriously...the optics of a white guy in a BLM tshirt disrupting a room of POC discussing their support of Pete... talk about bizarro world 😐

Igor Rodriguez isn't a white guy. He was rude, for sure, as were his fellow BLM activists.

BLM is known for being very impolite to candidates and their surrogates at events.

[mchookem 15792]

is that him on the left? the guy in the clip looked different, younger and heavier...

anyway, it's one thing to disrupt the candidates, i would think it's different to disrupt, you know, actual black folks trying to speak. weirdos. 

[bad_teammate 13080]

7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

is that him on the left? the guy in the clip looked different, younger and heavier...

No that's from the Bernie event a few years back where the two BLM ladies yelled at him (in Chicago?) so he let them speak.

Igor is this blurry guy.

Quote

anyway, it's one thing to disrupt the candidates, i would think it's different to disrupt, you know, actual black folks trying to speak. weirdos. 

It was rude, but that's about as far as I'll take it when being critical of BLM. It's dicey ground, as Lis Smith found on Twitter when she tried to blow this up (and it didn't go so well for her).

These different campaigns and loyalists have this weird belief that Bernie and his minions are secretly racists and they're going to be exposed any minute now but it keeps exploding in their faces like Wile E. Coyote and a stick of ACME dynamite. Better to just chill and see how it plays out than to slam face-first into the painted wall.

Anyone who thinks BLM disrupted this event because of Bernie is purposefully ignoring South Bend's political environment.

[mchookem 15792]

yeah ^that guy.

anyway, don't know anything about blaming Bernie, i just saw the clip which i admit reminded me of you 🤣

[bad_teammate 13080]

These people make me tired down to my bones.

 

[Rougarou 594]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

These people make me tired down to my bones.

 

Lis and Pete went through weird teenage phases where they were Donnie Darko weirdos and read every book written by Chuck Palahniuk then went to college where they studied hard and used academic success as a cover to never have to think of their crippling sexual identity issues except that one time they shamefully cruised in a bathroom or hooked up with a bro, respectively, and I promise you neither has ever finished Infinite Jest. They are the worst.

[bad_teammate 13080]

"I honestly don't think Proust hit his stride until Guermantes Way," I say, somehow pronouncing the italics and adjusting my hardhat while driving a bulldozer through a homeless encampment.