Buttigieg 2020

[David Dennison 18603]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I did.

It's well-written and detailed.

Which makes it a well-written and detailed standard progressive purity-test piece.

My favorite part: "Pete Buttigieg is about Pete Buttigieg."

That is some political insight right there. Pete Buttigieg is a politician. Man, Nathan J. Robinson cracked the case.

[henrygandorf 29174]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I'm going to say this once just because I think it's relevant.But I also think saying anything about it more than once, is dangerous because it shouldn't be relevant.

My mom hates Trump enough that getting him out of the White House is maybe the one thing in the world she would be willing to sell her hard core Catholic soul to the devil for.

She also indicated that she likes Mayor Pete.

"But I wonder who he is going to bring into the White House.  (Long pause).  His (pause).  Boyfriend?"  

In all honesty, I trust her to overcome those concerns in the face of four more years of Trump.  But other olds?

If Pete's the Dem's choice and it's the olds who keep him from becoming President, then I can live with four more years of Trump.  But goddammit.  The idea that there are people out there who would allow one innocuous, irrelevant trait to outweigh the utter vileness that is Trump?  Sad!

 

That's all I have to say about that.

i understand and i agree (that this is a possibility).  i understand there are those out there who think certain lifestyles are 'wrong' and just can't get over it in time to get out the vote.

what's astonishing to me, is that these same people (presumably), who can't handle pete's situation, will instead pull the handle for a guy who has documented (with check stubs) affairs with pornstars, and promotes sexual assault with a live mic recording.

i'm also not going to continue this line of conversation (trump vs pete) but it's interesting to note that if pete was the sitting president, you'd think you'd find a "high-values" religious right guy on the rep side to combat his way of life.  in short, pete might be immune to these types of attacks because of our current president, who already has everyone so fucking desensitized by now.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

You should bother reading the piece. 

I did. It was a terrible ridiculous hit job of zero worth. 

Did you like it though? 

[bad_teammate 13125]

57 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I did.

It's well-written and detailed.

Which makes it a well-written and detailed standard progressive purity-test piece.

Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!

Values are bad! Issues-focused thinking is bad! Thinking is bad!

HILLARY!

50 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

If B_T and Fozzz are against Mayor Pete, that makes me think he's probably a good choice.

I'm not against Pete. I'm critically analyzing his words and actions.

His life story is impressive in a way that looks designed to be impressive. It's all so smooth.

48 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I''m happy to read dissenting opinions, and appreciate writers like Nathan Robinson that challenge people's thought processes. 

But in the end, it's just a bitter hit piece with a lot of pessimistic assumptions from a Bernie/Warren guy that has noticed Pete's momentum.

I've read The Shortest Way Home. It's fine. It's not meant to be anything more than an easily digestible peek into his life story.  Why Robinson chose to dissect it like it was Mein Kampf or something is curious. 

1) It doesn't matter what the author intends. The author is dead.

2) How are we supposed to read these books? Let them wash over us uncritically and do no further thinking? Consume them passively then put them neatly on a shelf without reflection?

It would be way more useful to actually deal with the matters being discussed then approach this with the idea of character-assassinating everyone who speaks a critical word.

He's trying to become the most powerful man in the world. Toughen up, buttercups.

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

My mom hates Trump enough that getting him out of the White House is maybe the one thing in the world she would be willing to sell her hard core Catholic soul to the devil for.

She also indicated that she likes Mayor Pete.

"But I wonder who he is going to bring into the White House.  (Long pause).  His (pause).  Boyfriend?"  

His husband. They were married last year. 

Tell your mom to pick up her bible and read the teachings of Jesus. Tell her to ask herself who Jesus would approve of more, a man in a loving, committed relationship or a serial adulterer and pathological liar like Trump? Would Jesus support the man who's interested in helping the poor and vulnerable or the one who brags about making the rich richer? Jesus never said a word about homosexuals. He said a lot of things that are in direct opposition to Trump's character, lifestyle, and policies. 

If your mom votes for Trump because Pete is gay, it won't be because of her religious beliefs. She'll just be using that as an excuse to cover for her personal prejudice. Nobody ever said, "I think gay people are perfectly normal and should be treated with freedom and equality but the church says they're immoral and dangerous so I'm forced to discriminate against them."

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It would be way more useful to actually deal with the matters being discussed then approach this with the idea of character-assassinating everyone who speaks a critical word.

He's trying to become the most powerful man in the world. Toughen up, buttercups.

I have zero problem with Buttigieg criticism, and if anything, Robinson is the one doing the character-assassinating.  The people that love Current Affairs will eat up that article, and it won't make a dent with anyone else because it's so one-sided and overly long.  He makes some fair observations but they're diluted by the incessant bitching about every single aspect of Mayor Pete. 

Nathan Robinson doesn't trust Buttigieg's motives. Cool. Why should I trust Nathan Robinson's motives after reading that piece?

 

 

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Haven’t looked much at mayor Pete but decided to do so today. 

In my opinion, this guy is gonna be president someday, just not in this next election cycle. 

Even though he’s gay, the hard left is not gonna like him much. But this is as meaningfull to me as the hard right shitting on John Kasich for being a RINO. Fuck the extremes of both sides. 

As for McKinsey, his brief three year employment there means two things to me, (1) he’s Uber smart, and (2) he’s in fact even more Uber smart to leave that place after a few years. It’s always a good thing to know how one of the most influential firms in the country operates that most people are oblivious to. 

Edited March 30, 2019 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have zero problem with Buttigieg criticism, and if anything, Robinson is the one doing the character-assassinating.  The people that love Current Affairs will eat up that article, and it won't make a dent with anyone else because it's so one-sided and overly long.  He makes some fair observations but they're diluted by the incessant bitching about every single aspect of Mayor Pete. 

Nathan Robinson doesn't trust Buttigieg's motives. Cool. Why should I trust Nathan Robinson's motives after reading that piece?

 

 

 

It was so ridiculously long I kept waiting for the other side to come out. I mean is mayor Pete another hitler or Satan or what?  Did he shoot that guys dog and posted the video on the net?  

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

He makes some fair observations but they're diluted by the incessant bitching about every single aspect of Mayor Pete. 

What is it supposed to be? Fair & Balanced ™?

That's not how criticism works. 

Quote

Nathan Robinson doesn't trust Buttigieg's motives. Cool. Why should I trust Nathan Robinson's motives after reading that piece?

No, but Nathan Robinson isn't trying to become the most powerful man in the world. He read a book and wrote a critical piece about it.

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

As for McKinsey, his brief three year employment there means two things to me, (1) he’s Uber smart, and (2) he’s in fact even more Uber smart to leave that place after a few years. It’s always a good thing to know how one of the most influential firms in the country operates that most people are oblivious to. 

But what if you have a history of going through extremely powerful institutions and, every time you leave them, your takeaway is, "Wow, these places are great!"?

Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey -> U.S. Military

How polished smooth is your mind and moral judgement that you walk out of every single one of those like a well-read Forrest Gump?

Sure, I can see a story where a bright kid follows the track he was told to and, upon seeing the truth of the ugliness of wealth and power from inside the belly of the beast, comes out to rescue the masses from their masters, but... that's not what this is.

Quote

It was so ridiculously long I kept waiting for the other side to come out. I mean is mayor Pete another hitler or Satan or what?  Did he shoot that guys dog and posted the video on the net?  

Angel or demon are the two choices we have with human beings? Weird.

[bad_teammate 13125]

"I'm a socialist, and here are the problems I have with <CANDIDATE X> based on my values and beliefs as a socialist."

- "HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!?"
 

[Brisketexan 104462]

I have zero problem with Buttigieg criticism, and if anything, Robinson is the one doing the character-assassinating.  The people that love Current Affairs will eat up that article, and it won't make a dent with anyone else because it's so one-sided and overly long.  He makes some fair observations but they're diluted by the incessant bitching about every single aspect of Mayor Pete. 
Nathan Robinson doesn't trust Buttigieg's motives. Cool. Why should I trust Nathan Robinson's motives after reading that piece?
 
 
 

Yep. There’s plenty of room to critically examine every candidate in the race.

What’s quite interesting is how the Bernie Bros are veritable Trumpkins - read BT’s reply above shouting Hillary. They share a singular obsession, and are intent on re-running the same race, against the same candidate. Dudes. Hillary is gone. And even for those folks who voted for her, most didn’t like her and aren’t pining for her.

Bernie bros are devoted to the One True Vision of Bernie, and anything else fails the purity test. There can be no other candidate who can pass their test - it’s a test built to only accept one result. And the outcome will be the same - in a close race, their combination of destructive petulance and outright defections in a fit of anger will give us a second Trump term. Shit, I called it when he won the first time, I stand by it. He’s a two-term President, and Bernie bros are a key part of that.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it supposed to be? Fair & Balanced ™?

That's not how criticism works. 

No, but Nathan Robinson isn't trying to become the most powerful man in the world. He read a book and wrote a critical piece about it.

But what if you have a history of going through extremely powerful institutions and, every time you leave them, your takeaway is, "Wow, these places are great!"?

Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey -> U.S. Military

How polished smooth is your mind and moral judgement that you walk out of every single one of those like a well-read Forrest Gump?

Sure, I can see a story where a bright kid follows the track he was told to and, upon seeing the truth of the ugliness of wealth and power from inside the belly of the beast, comes out to rescue the masses from their masters, but... that's not what this is.

Angel or demon are the two choices we have with human beings? Weird.

Of course I was exaggerating but it was definitely a hit piece without much, if anything, positive to say about the guy.

And yes he has been with some of the most powerful institutions in the world. I fail to see that as a negative because not all people that are a part of those institutions are inherently bad, it just means he’s extremely smart. Whether the institutions themselves are good or bad is an argument for another day. I don’t like McKinsey though. 

Whether he’s good or evil or something in between has to be judged based on other actions. What I’ve seen so far I find positive. I suppose time will tell. 

[Brisketexan 104462]

Of course I was exaggerating but it was definitely a hit piece without much, if anything, positive to say about the guy.
And yes he has been with some of the most powerful institutions in the world. I fail to see that as a negative because not all people that are a part of those institutions are inherently bad, it just means he’s extremely smart. Whether the institutions themselves are good or bad is an argument for another day. I don’t like McKinsey though. 
Whether he’s good or evil or something in between has to be judged based on other actions. What I’ve seen so far I find positive. I suppose time will tell. 

No. He associated with wealth and power. The only acceptable reaction to those things is hatred and enmity, and wanting to destroy everything and everyone associated with them. Seriously, read BT’s reply. There can be no good in them. The only good is in the proletariat, the more downtrodden the better.

This purity test idiocy is Trumpian. Trumpkins think that Trump is a qualified stable genius because he’s rich (I mean, he’s not really, but whatever). Thinking that people and institutions are entirely and inherently evil because they are associated with wealth and power is as foolish as thinking that only people associated with such things can lead us.

There’s good and bad at Harvard and Oxford. There’s good and bad among the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Heaven forbid we have something other than a one-dimensional thinker leading a crew of one-dimensional thinkers in the White House. Nope, there can be only one answer: FEEL THE BERN!

[Fozzz 152]

There isn't much positive in the article because there isn't much positive in his record with respect to social and economic justice.  At lest someone like Biden is open in his contempt of those issues and doesn't pretend otherwise.  While some here would be perfectly happy with a Trumpian admin headed by someone of the opposing party with more genteel manners, I'm surprised others who appear to really care about working class issues have been taken in by this obvious fraud.  

 

 

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Fozzz said:

There isn't much positive in the article because there isn't much positive in his record with respect to social and economic justice.  At lest someone like Biden is open in his contempt of those issues and doesn't pretend otherwise.  While some here would be perfectly happy with a Trumpian admin headed by someone of the opposing party with more genteel manners, I'm surprised others who appear to really care about working class issues have been taken in by this obvious fraud.  

What is Tulsi Gabbard's record on social and economic justice?

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

What is Tulsi Gabbard's record on social and economic justice?

Is anti-imperialism not a matter of social justice?  

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Fozzz said:

Is anti-imperialism not a matter of social justice?  

Where does cozying up to dictators fall on the scale of anti-imperialism?

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Where does cozying up to dictators fall on the scale of anti-imperialism?

This is libelous, David.  

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Fozzz said:

This is libelous, David.  

Oh. OK.

[bad_teammate 13125]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

And yes he has been with some of the most powerful institutions in the world. I fail to see that as a negative because not all people that are a part of those institutions are inherently bad, it just means he’s extremely smart. Whether the institutions themselves are good or bad is an argument for another day. I don’t like McKinsey though. 

You're not addressing the points being made at all, which is fine, but don't pretend they're invalid because you don't want to deal with them.

He went from Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey (which is inarguably bad, come on) -> US Military

Literally every single one of those is an institution of monied/white supremacy. Literally every single one is an institution of oppressive power. I agree that it doesn't disqualify people who were there or even went to all of them.

However, it IS extremely troubling if someone just passed through all of them with such a laser-like focus on his own achievements and his own goals that he paid no attention to the injustice that was constantly surrounding him there or the negative impacts of those powerful institutions on the world at large. Not a malevolent force, perhaps, but perhaps a technocrat who would blithely step over a homeless woman while lost in cost-benefit analysis computations.

Has Pete Buttigieg shown us that he cares about people? If so... how? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I'd like to know what it is.

Since you guys are determined to make this about Bernie Bros, then let's go there. I'd rather not, I haven't talked about him, but y'all gettin' froggy so let's jump...

- When Bernie left Brooklyn to go to the University of Chicago, he saw that they had segregated housing. Did he ignore it and carry on merrily making sure his grades looked good for later use in climbing the social and power ladders? Nope, he became the campus chairman of CORE and organized the first sit-in in the campus's history to protest segregated housing.

- When Bernie saw segregated schooling in the community around his college, did he ignore it? Nope, he chained himself to black women and was arrested in the fight against injustice.

Maybe Pete took action? Maybe he DID notice the homelessness crisis around Harvard and did something.

At this point, I doubt it. I'd like to know, as would the author of the "hit piece".

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No. He associated with wealth and power. The only acceptable reaction to those things is hatred and enmity, and wanting to destroy everything and everyone associated with them. Seriously, read BT’s reply. There can be no good in them. The only good is in the proletariat, the more downtrodden the better.

I mean, yeah, sure, but you're being melodramatic.

Do we have to pretend that institutions with great power and wealth are only either GOOD or EVIL? Can we not discuss the differing merits? The positives and negatives? Would a reasonable man not come home from a war and both honor his comrades and bemoan the unnecessary killing and cruel policy that sent them there?

Someone who walks through all of those hallways and comes out the other side with nothing but a patient, kind smile seems kind of oblivious to humanity, no?

Quote

Heaven forbid we have something other than a one-dimensional thinker leading a crew of one-dimensional thinkers in the White House. Nope, there can be only one answer: FEEL THE BERN!

Why are you here? Isn't there a Howard Schultz thread you can haunt?

[henrygandorf 29174]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is it supposed to be? Fair & Balanced ™?

That's not how criticism works. 

No, but Nathan Robinson isn't trying to become the most powerful man in the world. He read a book and wrote a critical piece about it.

But what if you have a history of going through extremely powerful institutions and, every time you leave them, your takeaway is, "Wow, these places are great!"?

Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey -> U.S. Military

How polished smooth is your mind and moral judgement that you walk out of every single one of those like a well-read Forrest Gump?

Sure, I can see a story where a bright kid follows the track he was told to and, upon seeing the truth of the ugliness of wealth and power from inside the belly of the beast, comes out to rescue the masses from their masters, but... that's not what this is.

Angel or demon are the two choices we have with human beings? Weird.

ironic final statement is ironic.

the problem you keep making is that you're determined to love or hate him (and everyone else) right fucking now, so every piece you read is swinging your pendulum the widest way possible.  i understand we live in the twitter generation, but we have plenty of time to acquire knowledge and absorb personality traits of people before we pass snap judgments and tell everyone else they're wrong.

that's why i attacked your post last night when you said "ugh fuck off pete wtf is this bullshit" reacting to his harmless acknowledgment of a lesser known memorial day via tweet.  i understand this is a message board and on the internet, a certain amount of hyperbole is expected and accepted, but it would be wonderful if you allowed others the normal amount of time it takes to process and form educated opinions about people.

i promise, in the coming months, there will be plenty of mud for you to sling.

 

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

38 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey -> U.S. Military

How polished smooth is your mind and moral judgement that you walk out of every single one of those like a well-read Forrest Gump?

Sure, I can see a story where a bright kid follows the track he was told to and, upon seeing the truth of the ugliness of wealth and power from inside the belly of the beast, comes out to rescue the masses from their masters, but... that's not what this is.

He left McKinsey and ran for Indiana state treasurer in 2010 at the age of 27. 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

The tendency of Bernie supporters to browbeat and froth at the mouth over every candidate that seems to slightly threaten their anointed one is just fucking exhausting.

Every candidate has faults and they should be discussed and debated.

But I have zero tolerance for people who refuse to listen to criticism of their god and shout down and dismiss others with condescension and sarcasm yet latch on to one issue of his opponents as disqualifying.

I’ve just decided to not engage because they aren’t interested in having any kind of good faith discussion. They only care about browbeating the opponent into submission to declare victory.

And if you think I’m talking about you then chances are I’ve just hit an uncomfortable nerve of self recognition.

[bad_teammate 13125]

11 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the problem you keep making is that you're determined to love or hate him (and everyone else) right fucking now, so every piece you read is swinging your pendulum the widest way possible. 

I'm saying critical things, but that means I hate him?

I'm skeptical. I like him, but I'm skeptical. There are things I want to see.

Quote

... but it would be wonderful if you allowed others the normal amount of time it takes to process and form educated opinions about people.

I don't know what this means. What does this mean?

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He left McKinsey and ran for Indiana state treasurer in 2010 at the age of 27. 

Cool, I'd like to read about why he left McKinsey and what he learned from it. I mean, other than the uncritical stuff he's said publicly.

Just now, Bama Chick said:

The tendency of Bernie supporters to browbeat and froth at the mouth over every candidate that seems to slightly threaten their anointed one is just fucking exhausting.
...
And if you think I’m talking about you then chances are I’ve just hit an uncomfortable nerve of self recognition.

If you wanted to make this appear clever then you shouldn't have shown your hand with your first sentence.

[henrygandorf 29174]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Has Pete Buttigieg shown us that he cares about people? If so... how? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I'd like to know what it is.

i don't think he's handcuffed himself to anyone yet, but i'll admit, my research is limited.

i think staying the mayor multiple terms until he felt he had made a difference, when many tried to get him to move up the political chain could be thrown into this category.  being a mayor in a small town would hardly seem glamorous, and his people seem to love him as if he cares and has a personal relationship with the town.

as a rising star, he easily could've sought to run for congress or senate and begin a 40 year career in washington, but for some reason, he didn't.  he also took time off from being the mayor to go back and serve again.  does this mean he cares about people?  i'm not sure.

your repeated statements that harvard-oxford-blah-blah implies that he saw bad things and did nothing.  most people on that trajectory go on to a career in the business world and make a ton of money, often times banding with their acquired cronies and doing less than desirable things.  he decided instead to run for mayor (an unusual way to leverage that chain i would think).

if you think this was all by design so that he could be president someday, fine.  if you think it's so smooth and polished that he knew at 37, this would be his ideal time, then maybe you're right.  or, maybe he's just one of many that has watched what's happened in dc the past 2+ years and realized it's no longer ok to sit on the local sidelines.

[Bama Chick 28596]

If you wanted to make this appear clever then you shouldn't have shown your hand with your first sentence.

I didn’t realize you are the only Bernie supporter on the entire internet or in real life.

If you didn’t want to acknowledge your behavior maybe you should have read my post more closely as I didn’t specify I was only describing people who post here.

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

25 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're not addressing the points being made at all, which is fine, but don't pretend they're invalid because you don't want to deal with them.

He went from Harvard -> Oxford -> McKinsey (which is inarguably bad, come on) -> US Military

Literally every single one of those is an institution of monied/white supremacy. Literally every single one is an institution of oppressive power. I agree that it doesn't disqualify people who were there or even went to all of them.

However, it IS extremely troubling if someone just passed through all of them with such a laser-like focus on his own achievements and his own goals that he paid no attention to the injustice that was constantly surrounding him there or the negative impacts of those powerful institutions on the world at large. Not a malevolent force, perhaps, but perhaps a technocrat who would blithely step over a homeless woman while lost in cost-benefit analysis computations.

Has Pete Buttigieg shown us that he cares about people? If so... how? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I'd like to know what it is.

Since you guys are determined to make this about Bernie Bros, then let's go there. I'd rather not, I haven't talked about him, but y'all gettin' froggy so let's jump...

- When Bernie left Brooklyn to go to the University of Chicago, he saw that they had segregated housing. Did he ignore it and carry on merrily making sure his grades looked good for later use in climbing the social and power ladders? Nope, he became the campus chairman of CORE and organized the first sit-in in the campus's history to protest segregated housing.

- When Bernie saw segregated schooling in the community around his college, did he ignore it? Nope, he chained himself to black women and was arrested in the fight against injustice.

Maybe Pete took action? Maybe he DID notice the homelessness crisis around Harvard and did something.

At this point, I doubt it. I'd like to know, as would the author of the "hit piece".

I mean, yeah, sure, but you're being melodramatic.

Do we have to pretend that institutions with great power and wealth are only either GOOD or EVIL? Can we not discuss the differing merits? The positives and negatives? Would a reasonable man not come home from a war and both honor his comrades and bemoan the unnecessary killing and cruel policy that sent them there?

Someone who walks through all of those hallways and comes out the other side with nothing but a patient, kind smile seems kind of oblivious to humanity, no?

Why are you here? Isn't there a Howard Schultz thread you can haunt?

I love how you tell everyone to toughen up but the minute someone goes after Bernie you freak out. 

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

12 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The tendency of Bernie supporters to browbeat and froth at the mouth over every candidate that seems to slightly threaten their anointed one is just fucking exhausting.

in their defense, it is #histurn.

[bad_teammate 13125]

3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I love how you tell everyone to toughen up but the minute someone goes after Bernie you freak out.

Did someone go after Bernie? I'll cut a motherfucker.

Show me where they are!

[Fozzz 152]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Did someone go after Bernie? I'll cut a motherfucker.

Show me where they are!

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Cool, I'd like to read about why he left McKinsey and what he learned from it. I mean, other than the uncritical stuff he's said publicly.

Well, clearly he learned their evil ways and has been in bed with power and money ever since. His first sneaky plan was to leave McKinsey after 3 years, or at least make it look like he voluntarily left, so he could infiltrate the world renown and flashy Indiana State Treasury. When he lost that election, he and McKinsey were not deterred.  The next genius step was to run for mayor of his hometown of South Bend, named one of America's top 10 dying cities. It's where the elitists go, so everything makes sense at this point. 

There he helped develop a smart sewer system, using sensors and technology to save the taxpayers over $100 million. Or at least that's what they thought. The reality is Mayor Pete and McKinsey were funneling dirty money though South Bend's sanitation the entire time. 

 

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Has Pete Buttigieg shown us that he cares about people? If so... how? I'm not saying it isn't there, but I'd like to know what it is.

 

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Crazy seeing the knives come out for Buttigieg. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Crazy seeing the knives come out for Buttigieg. 

Is it though?  This country is broken.  On BOTH SIDES.  But mostly the R side.  But both sides also.  I'm pretty much at fuck everyone and go meteor at this point.

[Brisketexan 104462]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Crazy seeing the knives come out for Buttigieg. 

It's really not.

You know how many of us (well, most of us) have observed the GOP become "the party of Trump?"  If a GOP politician is not in 100% lockstep with the deranged xenophobia of Trumpism (you know, GOP officials who have been historically against tariffs suddenly being a-ok with them, etc. etc. ad infinitum), they are RINOs and need to be destroyed?  Seriously, look at Jerry Patterson, a Texas GOP veteran - he's about as solidly Republican as they come....and is loathed by the current GOP as a RINO because he doesn't slurp the orange dick, and he might as well be Hillary.

Well, that's what you're seeing here.  That counter-movement has mostly coalesced around Bernie, but it's still not the singularity that Trumpism is.  That said, it's a similar counter-movement.  And ultimately, either you're fully and religiously committed to Bernie-ism, or you are an apostate DINO who might as well be Trump.  

"Let's watch what is destroying the other political party, turning it into a complete shitpile beyond saving.....and let's do THAT!"

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

There’s also a strong anti-Bernie/outsider faction. I see them going at Pete a little now.  

I’m not going to call them establishment dems because that’s too cliche but they clearly have their favorites in Biden/Harris/Beto. 

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

The "Bernie=Trump" analysis is one of the laziest and dumbest things I can imagine.

Fuck off back to the ledge and stop pretending to know anything about leftism or Democratic politics.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The "Bernie=Trump" analysis is one of the laziest and dumbest things I can imagine.

Fuck off back to the ledge and stop pretending to know anything about leftism or Democratic politics.

I'm tempted to agree with this, however, when you have people who APPARENTLY voted for trump because Bernie wasn't the D nominee in 2016 it freaks me the fuck out.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

The Bernie cult is a real thing.  The demographics aren’t too far off from Trump’s except younger and not as racist.  Pretty much the audience of a phish concert except more abrasive.

/perhaps irresponsible stereotyping 

[Dropout 355]

Bringing up all the old hits tonight. None of which are actual solid critiques of Bernie Sanders. Y’all will get hit over the head with facts. Instead of objectively looking at these facts you will be more concerned with the curse words exchanged resulting in hurt feelings. Then Bernie supporters hate everyone and are meanies never  ever ever to support another nominee.

I like Pete. He’s probably moved up to second in my book. So in an effort to get the Pete thread back on topic I’ll offer this phenomenal piece written by a young Pete.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

Edited March 31, 2019 by Dropout

[GSU&UT 1798]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm tempted to agree with this, however, when you have people who APPARENTLY voted for trump because Bernie wasn't the D nominee in 2016 it freaks me the fuck out.

I love me some Pete, but the amount of people who voted for Trump after Bernie is fewer than the number of people who voted for Hillary then McCain in 2008. I don't know why this continues to be brought up.

[bad_teammate 13125]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm tempted to agree with this, however, when you have people who APPARENTLY voted for trump because Bernie wasn't the D nominee in 2016 it freaks me the fuck out.

That happens literally every single election. There are thousands of people who voted for Obama in the '08 primary then McCain in the '08 general. Their same candidate was there, they just switched for whatever reason. 10-12% of Bernie primary voters went to Trump in the general. 17-25% of Hillary '08 primary voters went to McCain.

It happens.

Meanwhile...

Sanders campaigned so hard for Hillary that Hillary's staffers attacked him for flying on too many airplanes while he was campaigning for her.

In the final three months before Election Day 2016, Sanders held 39 rallies in 13 states on behalf of Clinton’s campaign, according to Jones, including 17 events in 11 states in the last week alone.

Would Donald Trump have flown all across the country to help Ted Cruz? Be serious.

It's a joke.

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Bernie cult is a real thing.  The demographics aren’t too far off from Trump’s except younger and not as racist.  Pretty much the audience of a phish concert except more abrasive.

/perhaps irresponsible stereotyping 

You're a stupid, racist liar and should shut the fuck up.

White libs are a fucking cancer.

In the University of Chicago study, which asked more than 1,750 people between the ages of 18 and 30 which of the three candidates they support, 60 percent of young African-Americans, 69 percent of young Asian-Americans, 68 percent of the young Latino vote, and 59 percent of young whites said they support Sanders.

The survey, conducted in June 2016, also states that among young African-Americans who said they voted in the primaries, 54 percent reported voting for Sanders, but the study does not provide additional information explaining how many said they voted for Clinton or Trump.

"Our data indicate that in contrast to the overwhelming support Hillary Clinton received from older African American voters, the majority of African American young adult voters supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Party primary," the study says.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That happens literally every single election. There are thousands of people who voted for Obama in the '08 primary then McCain in the '08 general. Their same candidate was there, they just switched for whatever reason. 10-12% of Bernie primary voters went to Trump in the general. 17-25% of Hillary '08 primary voters went to McCain.

It happens.

You can't treat 2016 like a normal fucking election.  Yes, I can imagine Hillary primary voters going to McCain in 08.  They were both centrist-ish politicians.  Going from Bernie to Trump in 2016 is like supporting first the Israelis and then the Palenstinians.  /highfidelity

[Brisketexan 104462]

I like Pete. He’s probably moved up to second in my book. So in an effort to get the Pete thread back on topic I’ll offer this phenomenal piece written by a young Pete.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

Well, I mean, it’s no

“Wax my ass,
Scrub my balls.
The Cow has risen,
Provide Milk.”

I guess we can’t all be poets.

[bad_teammate 13125]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

You can't treat 2016 like a normal fucking election.  Yes, I can imagine Hillary primary voters going to McCain in 08.  They were both centrist-ish politicians.  Going from Bernie to Trump in 2016 is like supporting first the Israelis and then the Palenstinians.  /highfidelity

John McCain was openly calling for war with Iran and a Republican president had just spent 8 years setting the entire Middle East on fire and threw trillions of our dollars and thousands of our lives into the middle of the inferno. Also, what the hell was Obama if not a centrist-ish politician? A radical leftist?

Nah bud, the PUMA rage was lib bitterness, much of it racial in nature.

[Anastasis 23375]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Crazy seeing the knives come out for Buttigieg. 

This is how death spirals work. 

[Anastasis 23375]

45 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The "Bernie=Trump" analysis is one of the laziest and dumbest things I can imagine.

Fuck off back to the ledge and stop pretending to know anything about leftism or Democratic politics.

This is the fun dynamic to watch in 2020. 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Just now, Anastasis said:

This is the fun dynamic to watch in 2020. 

Conservatives like Brisket and leftists like me are fighting to pull the Democratic party to move our direction.

[Message Board User 12389]

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

love to own the libs by calling them "social justice warriors" who made no impact