Buttigieg 2020

[Rougarou 594]

Lisa at 15 reading "The Bell Jar" when Sylvia Plath puts her head in an oven "I think I'll go by Lis, pronounced "Leese" to commemorate becoming complex and multi-faceted today."
 

This is kinda fun; I see why you enjoy it BT.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Rougarou

[bad_teammate 13125]

"The footnotes that David Foster Wallace relies on are fascinatingly unconventional," I remark while watching white officers play keep-away with a black officer's badge, "but by the end of the book they are overused and actually begin to detract from the metanarrative."

Actually, someone already did this way better than me...

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

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.

wait, i'm out of the loop on what happened here.

a non-black (latino i assume?) man, who "represents" black lives matter interrupted a room full of black voters supporting pete? 

i know you're not directly comparing the two, but that sounds slightly different than bernie stepping aside to let two black women speak.

[bad_teammate 13125]

1 minute ago, Rougarou said:

This is kinda fun; I see why you enjoy it BT.

You should do Trump sometime, it's a blast.

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"The footnotes that David Foster Wallace relies on are fascinatingly unconventional," I remark while watching white officers play keep-away with a black officer's badge, "but by the end of the book they are overused and actually begin to detract from the metanarrative."

Actually, someone already did this way better than me...

 

why would ivana trump be at texarkana?

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

a non-black (latino i assume?) man, who "represents" black lives matter interrupted a room full of black voters supporting pete?

"room full of black voters supporting pete"?

no

Video.

Maybe 35 people total, including press and BLM protesters. Looks like less than 20 sitting down, not all of them black, not all of them endorsing Pete.

It was advertised by the Buttigieg campaign as an event where black leaders would announce their support for Pete...

but it wasn't.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"room full of black voters supporting pete"?

no

Video.

Maybe 35 people total, including press and BLM protesters. Looks like less than 20 sitting down, not all of them black, not all of them endorsing Pete.

It was advertised by the Buttigieg campaign as an event where black leaders would announce their support for Pete...

but it wasn't.

 

gotcha.  i wasn't arguing one way or the other, the extent of my knowledge came from mchookem's post ^^

thanks for showing your work.

[GSU&UT 1798]

58 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

These people make me tired down to my bones.

 

The weird Ulysses flex in this absolutely kills me, crazy and hilarious.

[Bama Chick 28596]

The Republican talking points are really getting old.

Let’s please perpetuate the myth of financially irresponsible democrats when all the evidence from the last six presidents show the exact opposite.

He’s so fucking annoying.

[bad_teammate 13125]

In 1990, Congress passed (and HW signed) PAYGO. Someone check my facts, but MOST Democrats voted Yea. (Which they shouldn't have.) That is the last Republican president who has done anything at all about the deficit/debt. Democrats are the ONLY party that worries about the deficit. Republican presidents, from W to Trump, cut taxes and raise spending.

Absolutely pathetic. What a snake.

[henrygandorf 29174]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In 1990, Congress passed (and HW signed) PAYGO. Someone check my facts, but MOST Democrats voted Yea. (Which they shouldn't have.) That is the last Republican president who has done anything at all about the deficit/debt. Democrats are the ONLY party that worries about the deficit. Republican presidents, from W to Trump, cut taxes and raise spending.

Absolutely pathetic. What a snake.

i'm too lazy to look it up (and i'll trust your knowledge on the subject) but what are bernie, liz, and biden's policies concerning the debt and getting shit under control?  i honestly don't know what any of them are, because it's not something anyone seems to campaign on.

[henrygandorf 29174]

**and before you start in on some long dissertation, i'm just looking for general thoughts and attitudes, i'm not asking you to do a bunch of work.

[bad_teammate 13125]

What does "getting shit under control" mean?

Both Liz and Bernie release funding plans for all their stuff. They suffer from the brain disease of budget neutrality and are obsessed with making sure all the dollars are accounted for. It's one of their many flaws and I love grandma and grandpa anyway as much as I want them to come out and say, "The budget deficit and debt don't actually matter that much and focusing on it is just a way to get us to starve and humiliate the poor."

Bernie too often does the Dem thing of, "Well actually, Mr. Republican Sir, YOU are the irresponsible one!" which is always lame and never convinces anyone.

[wildcat09 29178]

41 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The Republican talking points are really getting old.

Let’s please perpetuate the myth of financially irresponsible democrats when all the evidence from the last six presidents show the exact opposite.

He’s so fucking annoying.

 

Pete's a Republican now. Interesting strategy, lets see if it helps him get the Dem nomination.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "getting shit under control" mean?

just the general act of caring about the deficit.  was trying to paint with a broad brush and not ask for anything too specific.  pete's answer was vague as hell, which tells me he thinks it's somewhat important, but has no idea what his plan is to get shit under control.

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Both Liz and Bernie release funding plans for all their stuff. They suffer from the brain disease of budget neutrality and are obsessed with making sure all the dollars are accounted for. It's one of their many flaws and I love grandma and grandpa anyway as much as I want them to come out and say, "The budget deficit and debt don't actually matter that much and focusing on it is just a way to get us to starve and humiliate the poor."

i agree, and i think releasing specific details is part of what's hurt liz recently.

considering the myth starting decades ago was "republicans are the smart spending deficit hawk types" has been debunked over and over again, i would think more dems would point this out as a flat-out lie and an attack on trump, and the right in general.

i guess when you're on the far left, every comment is a republican talking point or an attack from the right.  i'm sure there's plenty of "outrage" on twitter.  pete's lane is to appeal to moderates.  not sure why this is so shocking time and time again.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

think releasing specific details is part of what's hurt liz recently.

Nah, they were coming after Liz regardless of what she did.  If it wasn’t her releasing specific details it would have been her lack of details being too problematic.   She put all her cards on the table and took the hit that was coming anyway.  

And by they, I mean the money men behind the urgency to keep the status quo. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13125]

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

just the general act of caring about the deficit.  was trying to paint with a broad brush and not ask for anything too specific.  pete's answer was vague as hell, which tells me he thinks it's somewhat important, but has no idea what his plan is to get shit under control.

The only difference between what he said there and what basically every Democrat says is the "my party's not known for worrying about the deficit", because the usual Dem line is "we care about the deficit, but the Republicans don't!"

Yet again Pete is using right-wing talking points.

Quote

considering the myth starting decades ago was "republicans are the smart spending deficit hawk types" has been debunked over and over again, i would think more dems would point this out as a flat-out lie and an attack on trump, and the right in general.

They do, constantly.

Quote

i guess when you're on the far left, every comment is a republican talking point or an attack from the right.

Nope, "Democrats don't care about the deficit" is literally a Republican talking point and has been for decades. It's a lie, but it's what they lean on.

Quote

pete's lane is to appeal to moderates.  not sure why this is so shocking time and time again.

It's not shocking, it's disgusting.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The only difference between what he said there and what basically every Democrat says is the "my party's not known for worrying about the deficit", because the usual Dem line is "we care about the deficit, but the Republicans don't!"

Yet again Pete is using right-wing talking points.

They do, constantly.

Nope, "Democrats don't care about the deficit" is literally a Republican talking point and has been for decades. It's a lie, but it's what they lean on.

It's not shocking, it's disgusting.

fair enough.  i guess i just haven't seen/heard much of dems attacking on this, nor do i pay attention to much of what comes from the gop anyway.

deficit reduction doesn't seem to be a high priority for any of the candidates, which i think is fine, because i don't think it's a high priority to voters either. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Yep

 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The Republican talking points are really getting old.

Let’s please perpetuate the myth of financially irresponsible democrats when all the evidence from the last six presidents show the exact opposite.

He’s so fucking annoying.

 

 

Most of the things that you and Hugo whine about re:Pete seem a bit silly and pedantic to me, but this one actually pisses me off. No Democrat should ever be perpetuating the myth that the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible. The Democrats have proven to be more fiscally responsible and better with the economy than the Republicans, and it baffles me on a daily basis why this isn't a huge part of their messaging. 

Bad Pete. I know why you did it, but still. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by BradInATX

[henrygandorf 29174]

49 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

and it baffles me on a daily basis why this isn't a huge part of their messaging. 

i was told that it is.  constantly.

[B00M 6268]

42 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Most of the things that you and Hugo whine about re:Pete seem a bit silly and pedantic to me, but this one actually pisses me off. No Democrat should ever be perpetuating the myth that the Democrats are fiscally irresponsible...

Sure. He said this though: My party’s not known for worrying about the deficit or the debt too much

 

Which is true. When the national debt is mentioned, the dems nearly unanimously argue that it doesn't matter, it's just a number. The pubs are outspoken that it does matter (except when they control the white house), but their spending decisions prove that's just lip service. Any president for either party today and the near future will oversee $800B++ deficits. The revolutionary ideas from those left of Pete certainly won't reduce that number. 

Shrug. Still seems silly and pedantic to me.

 

[LABEVO 928]

[henrygandorf 29174]

30 minutes ago, B00M said:

Sure. He said this though: My party’s not known for worrying about the deficit or the debt too much

well pete's a republican, so when he said 'my' party, he meant the gop.  and he's right, they don't worry about the deficit or the debt too much.

[BradInATX 9208]

Sure. He said this though: My party’s not known for worrying about the deficit or the debt too much
 
Which is true. When the national debt is mentioned, the dems nearly unanimously argue that it doesn't matter, it's just a number. The pubs are outspoken that it does matter (except when they control the white house), but their spending decisions prove that's just lip service. Any president for either party today and the near future will oversee $800B++ deficits. The revolutionary ideas from those left of Pete certainly won't reduce that number. 
Shrug. Still seems silly and pedantic to me.
 

Yeah, but I think it's pretty clear that was a shot at Warren and Bernie and they're "free stuff for everyone" platforms. He should have mentioned them by name instead of perpetuating the myth that Democrats are the fiscally irresponsible party. And I like Pete a lot. Just not a fan of this particular statement.

[BradInATX 9208]

well pete's a republican, so when he said 'my' party, he meant the gop.  and he's right, they don't worry about the deficit or the debt too much.

That's true. We don't.

[LABEVO 928]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

2 hours ago, B00M said:

Sure. He said this though: My party’s not known for worrying about the deficit or the debt too much
 
Which is true. When the national debt is mentioned, the dems nearly unanimously argue that it doesn't matter, it's just a number. The pubs are outspoken that it does matter (except when they control the white house), but their spending decisions prove that's just lip service. Any president for either party today and the near future will oversee $800B++ deficits. The revolutionary ideas from those left of Pete certainly won't reduce that number. 
Shrug. Still seems silly and pedantic to me.
 

Read more  

Yeah, but I think it's pretty clear that was a shot at Warren and Bernie and they're "free stuff for everyone" platforms. He should have mentioned them by name instead of perpetuating the myth that Democrats are the fiscally irresponsible party. And I like Pete a lot. Just not a fan of this particular statement.

Because you are also a closeted Republican?

[BradInATX 9208]

Because you are also a closeted Republican?

I've been called that by one of our more prolific posters a time or two, but in this context you make absolutely no sense.

[Bama Chick 28596]

GET HIM JADE

[washparkhorn 9931]

Frankly, no one believes the Pete Peterson lie about the deficit anymore. Billionaires focused on growing their wealth preach austerity for the masses and subsidies for the billionaires. That's ending.

The Fed does not know how to inflate anymore. Goldman Sachs uses MMT theories to grow wealth. MMT is coming for the United States when people finally understand if we can bail out the bankers with $17T, we can do bigr things, like genuine full employment and a green new deal. Inflation is not a problem (we have a lot of room there) and printing money is merely putting more money into the economy where it is needed most (i.e., Main Street, not Wall Street). 

Federal government spending is not financed with taxes. It is a siphon that draws dollars out of the economy to keep inflation at bay (something that is not a risk in the foreseeable future). Those facts have the billionaires fearful of losing control of their power. They like the gap between their outrageous fortunes and the rest of the 99.1% and austerity has widened the gap. It is not about punishing the wealthy, it is about lifting all boats (as promised but not delivered  in 2008). 

MMT explains how money works in the United States far greater than neoclassical economics. 

[washparkhorn 9931]

Buttiegieg is supposed to slow the MMT transformation. Bloomberg doesn't think he can do it if Biden fails to do it.  

Who has the most billionaires and consultant (McKinsey) donors?  Yep - Buttigieg. He is preaching austerity to protect his patrons. Bloomberg is protecting his billions. They would be great Reagan era Republicans. Or Third Way Democrats. Anyone making under $100m a year who votes for either is ignorant or sees some need to kiss up to billionaires. Pete does it because that is where his main support is.

Choose wisely.

[washparkhorn 9931]

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What does "getting shit under control" mean?

Both Liz and Bernie release funding plans for all their stuff. They suffer from the brain disease of budget neutrality and are obsessed with making sure all the dollars are accounted for. It's one of their many flaws and I love grandma and grandpa anyway as much as I want them to come out and say, "The budget deficit and debt don't actually matter that much and focusing on it is just a way to get us to starve and humiliate the poor."

Bernie too often does the Dem thing of, "Well actually, Mr. Republican Sir, YOU are the irresponsible one!" which is always lame and never convinces anyone.

Sanders has a fine economic advisor. Prof. Stephanie Kelton is worth reading for anyone inclined to look at economic issues surrounding spending. Pete is just using Republican deficit scaremongering to aid his patrons.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Full exchange:

 

 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[bad_teammate 13125]

If I had a bot network I'd start circulating the hashtag #LetPeteBePete and have them start pointing out how Pete's advisors have let him down and turned him into a tool of the right. Pete fans are only fans because they like him as a personality, so you can't attack Pete himself and win them (because he can offer any policy idea or critique and they'll say, "Oh he's a good boy he's just saying that to win, it's OK"), but you CAN sow division in his team by (truthfully) pointing out that his instincts and messages were better before these hired guns got in his ear.

It's probably good that I'm not Koch-rich because I'd be a menace instead of just bad poster.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Not an NYC political-scene knower myself. We got any here? @FondrenRoad?

[Rougarou 594]

32 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If I had a bot network I'd start circulating the hashtag #LetPeteBePete and have them start pointing out how Pete's advisors have let him down and turned him into a tool of the right. Pete fans are only fans because they like him as a personality, so you can't attack Pete himself and win them (because he can offer any policy idea or critique and they'll say, "Oh he's a good boy he's just saying that to win, it's OK"), but you CAN sow division in his team by (truthfully) pointing out that his instincts and messages were better before these hired guns got in his ear.

It's probably good that I'm not Koch-rich because I'd be a menace instead of just bad poster.

Probably good I don’t know a lot about Great Apes or else I’d be a politician too

[bad_teammate 13125]

RNC Spokesman & Jeb comms man: "LEAVE PETE ALONE!"

Pete campaign runner: "PREACH!"

 

[Fozzz 152]

Isn't The Bulwark basically a rebranded version of The Weekly Standard?  

[bad_teammate 13125]

Looks like Pete is respect on Both Sides.

Checkmate, liberals.

[bad_teammate 13125]

Eliot Spitzer was (1) married and (2) a frequent customer of sex workers.

lol what a world Small Town Pete has gotten himself mixed up in

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Going to reuse an old GIF to trigger henry here....

[Anastasis 23353]

I've kinda lost the theme on this thread, but am enjoying where it seems to be heading. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Pete is the politician Zuckerberg wish he could be.  Dude is smooth AF. 

[wildcat09 29178]

Pete's people have had a great week on twitter:

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yikes!

We’re expected to believe he won’t stand up to them in court or the court of public opinion but he will stand up to them as president?

[DixonHur 11034]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Pete's people have had a great week on twitter:

 

 

Seems odd that his NDA would cover divulging the names of the companies he consulted for.  I did consulting for years and the NDAs I've ever signed only covered the work I was doing for them, not who they were.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Going to reuse an old GIF to trigger henry here....

my morning is slammed, but i'm free to get caught up and triggered around 2, maybe 230.  does that work?

[bad_teammate 13125]

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

my morning is slammed, but i'm free to get caught up and triggered around 2, maybe 230.  does that work?

I'll have my people call your people

[bad_teammate 13125]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Seems odd that his NDA would cover divulging the names of the companies he consulted for.  I did consulting for years and the NDAs I've ever signed only covered the work I was doing for them, not who they were.

Did you ever do work for the CIA? Saudis?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

I want to know Pete’s bundlers more than the McKinsey stuff.  He should release the McKinsey stuff too but it’s most likely harmless shit.  His financial backers hiding is a bigger concern.