Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I knew very little about Pete and had very little exposure to him prior to watching his CNN townhall a couple of weeks ago. The last time I remember going from 0-100 on my give-a-shit meter about a politician was after I watched Obama's 2004 DNC Keynote address. 

Since then, I've gone down the youtube rabbit hole watching his interview videos and am currently reading his book. He is my pick, not even close. Absolutely perfect politician in my book. Off the charts smarts, curious, practical, modest. Sadly, we are living in Idiocracy, so his chances are slim, and likely all we will be left with are right-wing twitter trolls tweeting memes about "Pete Butt Fucker".

 sOkUC9n.jpg?2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I knew very little about Pete and had very little exposure to him prior to watching his CNN townhall a couple of weeks ago. The last time I remember going from 0-100 on my give-a-shit meter about a politician was after I watched Obama's 2004 DNC Keynote address. 

Since then, I've gone down the youtube rabbit hole watching his interview videos and am currently reading his book. He is my pick, not even close. Absolutely perfect politician in my book. Off the charts smarts, curious, practical, modest. Sadly, we are living in Idiocracy, so his chances are slim, and likely all we will be left with are right-wing twitter trolls tweeting memes about "Pete Butt Fucker".

 sOkUC9n.jpg?2

Meh those same morons wouldn’t vote for a democrat no matter what, so who gives a shit. Pete 2020!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Pete’s schedule the rest of this week:

Thursday - interview with Mehdi Hasan 

Friday - 2nd appearance as guest on The View

Saturday - interview with Van Jones

 

Buttimentum. 

Edited by Hank Kingsley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good shows for visibility.  I doubt we gain much substance from the interviews but hopefully it will get his name in front of more people

Hassan asks good, tough questions. That's the one ill be paying close attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If he makes it to the Texas ballot on Super Tuesday then he'll get mine too.
Right here as well, and this is coming from one who has never voted for a democratic Presidential nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Imagine how useful it could be for a POTUS to speak arabic and persian.  

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

and English. 

 

Well fucking done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have absolutely no problem voting for Pete for President after watching him on TV.  But I would go gay for an hour to see him debate Pence as VP.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

likely all we will be left with are right-wing twitter trolls tweeting memes about "Pete Butt Fucker".

 sOkUC9n.jpg?2

If they run with those type of nicknames it will galvanize all those who aren't rubes in the country, against all that is wrong, ie orange shitstain.  So I welcome all those memes.  We'll also have plenty to laugh at because when conservatives try to be comedians...shit gets funny, fast.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TDunk said:

I would have absolutely no problem voting for Pete for President after watching him on TV.  But I would go gay for an hour to see him debate Pence as VP.  

Pitching or catching?

Edited by WhatTheBuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Pitching or catching?

I think he means just beating off to gay porn.  Right?  Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think he means just beating off to gay porn.  Right?  Right?

Boot-edge-edging 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's up to the mayor.

I'll bet Pete's a top. 

Assume the position, TDunk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I'll bet Pete's a top. 

Assume the position, TDunk. 

To get rid of Trump: I'll just ask WhatTheBuck... And yell O-H I-Hurt

 

Edited by TDunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked about this impressive guy over a year ago here. Even if he's not successful this go around, he will have made a Obama like impression on America before he's through. Would love to see him as president at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talked with a few work friends that are all democrats this evening. We are all Beto supporters but I am spreading the word about mayor Pete as well. They were all very impressed with the videos they saw and will look more into him. This guy just needs to keep at it and get his exposure level up. If not for this election then the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You know who else is a polyglot?  RDCanecutter, that's who. That's a crazy ability.

James Garfield could write Greek with his left hand and Latin with his right...AT THE SAME TIME.

And then he got shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at this point, there are two distinct groups of dem voters - those who love pete and those who haven’t heard of him yet. give it some time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could rapidly become everyone's second choice, which leads to the nomination in a crowded field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Hasan podcast was a little disappointing. More of an introduction interview w/ Buttigieg instead of any in-depth discussion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Well, the Hasan podcast was a little disappointing. More of an introduction interview w/ Buttigieg instead of any in-depth discussion. 

 

Disappointing to Buttheads, probably, but perhaps better for general exposure to the uninitiated?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete’s schedule the rest of this week:
Thursday - interview with Mehdi Hasan 
Friday - 2nd appearance as guest on The View
Saturday - interview with Van Jones
 
Buttimentum. 


Butt-chugging. All aboard the train!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him hammering about climate change impacting the midwest, far far away from oceans and coastal cities, may be the thing I like about him the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 11:07 AM, Hank Kingsley said:

He's gone from 160k Twitter followers on March 10th to 366k followers as we speak. The social media circle is still insulated, but his TV appearances will reach the people he needs soon enough. 

24 hours later, he's now at 408k followers. It's happening. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a bunch of YouTube videos on him last night.  He is right up there with Beto for me.  In fact I think he has articulated his policy positions much better to date though it’s early.

Some of his best work is answering the question “What about those whom say you don’t have enough experience?”  His response is he has more government experience than Trump, more executive experience than Pence, and more military experience than anyone to hold the office since George H.W.

Very curious if he can get similar traction to the way Beto did in 2018. I think debates will be big for him simply because many people have never heard him let alone the fact I think he will crush them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Pete's great. 

Seriously needs to stay away from bullshit issues like court packing.

Respectfully disagree. He wants to depoliticize the Supreme Court, and if they can create a system that works they should absolutely do it. The Garland/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh situation was a fucking disaster. 

His Day 1 pitch as POTUS will be democratic reform. Won't happen right away, but it's arguably the most important issue. 

He tries to talk in more detail about it at 12:20 mark, but Geist cuts him off. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Pete's great. 

Seriously needs to stay away from bullshit issues like court packing.

People need to stop referring to it as "court packing" because that is not at all what he is suggesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Very curious if he can get similar traction to the way Beto did in 2018. I think debates will be big for him simply because many people have never heard him let alone the fact I think he will crush them.

beto campaign was aided by running against someone a lot of people hated.  if only we could get mayor pete in a similar scenario...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Pete is for broadening the bench for SCOTUS and he gains traction, my guess is the Republicans will beat him to the punch before 2020 and rush to get a few more of theirs in.  Would this scenario be possible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

People need to stop referring to it as "court packing" because that is not at all what he is suggesting.

It's absolutely court packing -- just court packing by each party.  It's a bad idea that would make it even less likely that a smart third party candidate could become President.  It in fact enhances the political nature of the decision.

More importantly, it would turn off moderates like me who are don't like these side issues. Garland was a fiasco.  Fix it with a procedural rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He likes the idea of 5 Republican judges, 5 Democratic Judges, and 5 appointed with only a unanimous vote from the other 10.  He's not married to it, but stresses that we need to depoliticize the court and is open to all ideas. 

You're right. Garland WAS a fiasco. It was basically Republican court packing. 

The fact is we NEED to have these ideas/discussion presented and debated. The current system is super fucked. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

If Pete is for broadening the bench for SCOTUS and he gains traction, my guess is the Republicans will beat him to the punch before 2020 and rush to get a few more of theirs in.  Would this scenario be possible? 

In fairness there are a bunch of different ideas about what can or should be done.  The 1/20/21 project guys want four more Supremes and many more lower court folks.  I am sure PB would have his own suggestions.

Still think it is a distraction.  Win.  Appoint justices. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

In fairness there are a bunch of different ideas about what can or should be done.  The 1/20/21 project guys want four more Supremes and many more lower court folks.  I am sure PB would have his own suggestions.

Still think it is a distraction.  Win.  Appoint justices. 

 

Unless the other party controls the senate. In which case its win, nominate judges, stand there with your dick in your hand until your term is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Unless the other party controls the senate. In which case its win, nominate judges, stand there with your dick in your hand until your term is up.

This is our concern Dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's either something like Pete's idea or they are going to have to revamp the appointment process so that what Mitch McConnell has done can never happen again.  Set the process in stone for every conceivable scenario where a Justice has to be replaced.

Edited by kevwun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The fact is we NEED to have these ideas/discussion presented and debated. The current system is super fucked. 

I would love to debate it once we attack global warming, educational opportunity, economic displacement due to technology,  reasonable attempt to get our budget in line, and a realistic and clearly defined approach to foreign policy in place.

I don't define this issue as a "progressive issue", but this party is going to test the folks who gave the Dems the House -- suburbanites, with at least some cocktail of progressive ideas.  Not all of those folks are younger.  A good number of them are willing to try new progressive ideas, but if you overwhelm us with over the top progressive ideas and these side issues, we may not have the same enthusiasm as we had the last election cycle. 

I walked and precinct watched last cycle because fuck Trump lackies. 

I'm not going to walk as far for a ticket that is pure identity politics or one that isn't clear that we need to focus on practical solutions to immediate issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Unless the other party controls the senate. In which case its win, nominate judges, stand there with your dick in your hand until your term is up.

Well then that means you didn't win the Senate, doesn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You can't fix important problems when the Supreme Court overturns every other solution you come up with.  Everyone remembers that FDR tried to pack the court.  Not as many remember he did it out of desperation because a Republican majority on the Court was overturning New Deal programs left and right.  He had both branches of Congress and the will of the people behind him and it still didn't matter because some old assholes on the Supreme Court didn't like his politics.

Edited by kevwun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think you are overestimating the power of the Supremes to overturn legitimate and well thought out federal laws.

They can often be a roadblock. Not having control of Congress is when you can't do anything.  

 

 

Edited by tantric superman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tantric superman said:

I think you are overestimating the power of the Supremes to overturn legimate and well thought out federal laws. 

But he's not overestimating the ability of the Supremes to sustain really, horrifically bad and unconstitutional executive actions because of public/political mood -- Korematsu says hello.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right -- and I resolve that by getting my judges in place. 

Just because I disagree with the outcomes that this court is reaching doesn't mean I have to change the rules.

I think the easiest and fastest way to change things is to pick up performance on election day. 

I think focusing on changing the rules gives the Republicans ammo they don't need to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I would love to debate it once we attack global warming, educational opportunity, economic displacement due to technology,  reasonable attempt to get our budget in line, and a realistic and clearly defined approach to foreign policy in place.

Buttigieg’s argument is that you can’t properly tackle those issues without democratic reform first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Right -- and I resolve that by getting my judges in place. 

Just because I disagree with the outcomes that this court is reaching doesn't mean I have to change the rules.

I think the easiest and fastest way to change things is to pick up performance on election day. 

I think focusing on changing the rules gives the Republicans ammo they don't need to have.

When those outcomes are being reached because the normal appointment process was ignored, I disagree.  You can't win when the rules of the game are rigged against you.  You either fix the rules or you keep losing.  Roberts is maintaining a balance right now.  That balance currently rests on the health of an 86 year old women.  If Ginsburg dies before 2020, Roberts vote doesn't do that anymore.

Edited by kevwun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think there should also be a distinction between platforming and positioning this (rethinking supreme court structure) as a candidate and simply being able to discuss it in an educated way as one of many constitutional systems he considers outdated.

we should want our candidates/elected officials to be able to answer all our questions, not just the 4 they've memorized for soundbytes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...