Jump to content

Buttigieg 2020


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

49 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.

It's very common, especially in the consulting industry. I have a couple of consulting clients whose boilerplate NDA included sections that prevent vendors from using their logo, referencing them in marketing material, or even mentioning to anyone that they're a client. I've tried to fight it on three occasions, and only one company let me take it out.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would think the bigger concern would be outing the companies and their ties to mckinsey.  (concern for the companies, not for pete)

i'm assuming once the names of the clients are disclosed, the twitter outrage will redirect itself with proper swiftness.

also, i don't really buy the "no one believes mckinsey would sue pete" line.  mckinsey seems like just the type of petty place that would sue (or at least threaten a suit) anytime they get the itch.  i don't see it going anywhere, or preventing pete from disclosing information, but i think that sweeping statement is inherently false.  i'm sure they'll put out some statement, then magically "come to an agreement" that avoids legal action, or some crap.

it's getting pretty dumb that this gets lumped into "transparency" or "trump's tax returns" territory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete’s entire candidacy is weird AF now.  It would be one thing if he was an AOC type visionary but he’s moved about as far away from that as possible.  

I really want to hear a persuasive case for Pete to be President of the United States other than he gives never-Trumpers the warm and fuzzies.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i would think the bigger concern would be outing the companies and their ties to mckinsey.  (concern for the companies, not for pete)

i'm assuming once the names of the clients are disclosed, the twitter outrage will redirect itself with proper swiftness.

also, i don't really buy the "no one believes mckinsey would sue pete" line.  mckinsey seems like just the type of petty place that would sue (or at least threaten a suit) anytime they get the itch.  i don't see it going anywhere, or preventing pete from disclosing information, but i think that sweeping statement is inherently false.  i'm sure they'll put out some statement, then magically "come to an agreement" that avoids legal action, or some crap.

it's getting pretty dumb that this gets lumped into "transparency" or "trump's tax returns" territory.  

Not at all. He's running for President of the United States and McKinsey is literally his only work experience outside of being mayor of a town smaller than League City for a few years. He's trying to convince us that he should be fucking President and we have every right to know what he did for McKinsey. If he was worried they might sue him for talking about that work, he shouldn't have decided to run for President.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What is the case for Pete?  

Against my better judgement here are a few reasons. And save all your time and energy trying to counter each reason.  It’s politics and the same reasoning behind your responses and severe dislike of Pete applies to folks like Bernie and his policies. 

Intelligence.  Imagine a President speaking with a foreign leader in their native language.  Hell imagine just speaking in English compared whatever the fuck trump speaks.

He clearly connects with voters whether you like it or not and that provides a sense of trust that he will make decisions to the best of his ability in the best interest of the country.

Military experience.

Reasonable policy positions (believe it or not most of the population falls in the middle on most policy issues and not the extremes).

His youth is a strength to a lot of people when considering that the other candidates will be damn near 80 when inaugurated and will not have to live 50 years with their decisions.

You can bitch and moan that you don’t like his policies which is fine.  It also doesn’t mean everyone will miraculously fall in love with Bernie or whoever your candidate is just because you spent a whole bunch of time yelling at Internet forum clouds. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Not at all. He's running for President of the United States and McKinsey is literally his only work experience outside of being mayor of a town smaller than League City for a few years. He's trying to convince us that he should be fucking President and we have every right to know what he did for McKinsey. If he was worried they might sue him for talking about that work, he shouldn't have decided to run for President.

i agree that we have a right to know, and i think we will soon.  this has become a "thing" very recently, and i don't think it's outrageous for pete to open with "i have a legal document i signed, and once i get that worked out, we will disclose the information."  pete is fairly disciplined and deliberate, and this is the exact response i would've expected.  if it drags on, it will definitely be something i will give him shit for.  judging from the clips, i don't see that happening.

trump hasn't released his financials or tax returns, and likely never will.  bernie took a minute to release his returns, and then he did.  those were voluntary disclosures, not covered by a signed agreement.  i would assume his legal people are clearing it - more likely with the companies, not mckinsey - then we'll hear details.

also lulz at what has to be the 3rd league city reference i've seen in the past 48 hours.  gotta stay on message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

His youth is a strength to a lot of people when considering that the other candidates will be damn near 80 when inaugurated and will not have to live 50 years with their decisions.

i agree with this, although a 45 year old pete would likely be the perfect version of him as a candidate.

i like that he's still evolving, learning, growing into who he is.  i like the way he processes information, issues, problems, conflict, opportunity.  you can see it in interviews, debates, town halls.  i like that he's willing to listen and entertain ideas, even if they're not his ideas.  this isn't an attack on bernie, but i like that pete is not completely "set in his ways" yet.  (note, i believe this to be bernie's greatest strength, but if you were like that at 37, it would be scary and off-putting)

kinda like you said, he communicates with people and speaks in a way that resonates.  that's a fact shown in the polls, even if not on here or on twitter echo chambers.  i think he can take complex ideas and sum them up in an understandable way to explain his position (i wish i had video of his 3-4 minute middle east tangent from when i saw him in person).

he's also the polar opposite of donald trump in every single possible imaginable way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In light of Pete's lack of transparency, Twitter is giving itself brain disease trying to connect dots lol

Summary:

- In 2009 Pete worked for McKinsey and "a gov agency" in Iraq & Afghanistan to increase entrepreneurship and employment
- In 2008/9, Blackwater fell out of favor, requiring finding new paramilitary brands to hire to murder/oppress/torture brown people
- In 2009, Patriot Group exploded from nothing to a fast-growing paramilitary with help from unnamed private investors
- Patriot Group stopped running campaign security in 2012 after an assault on a Ron Paul supporter
- Pete hires Patriot Group in 2019 and pays them (relatively) insane amounts of money for campaign security

tin-foil-hat.png?itok=9wPDRig2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While at McKinsey, did Pete work in Michigan to get insurers to slash jobs and hike premiums?

- BCBS is a "non-profit" (lol) insurer that hired McKinsey while Pete was there
- Pete says he worked for a non-profit insurer in Michigan while he was at McKinsey
- Pete says he was working on helping them find "savings" in "administration"
- BCBS laid off hundreds of workers and jacked up premiums to increase profits at that time
- Laying off workers and jacking up prices is what consultants tell you to do when they come to consult

If this is the case, good luck in the Rust Belt, little buddy!

 

 

Edited by bad_teammate
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...