Jump to content

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

We gotta get the ball over the hoop line if we’re ever going to be able to steal home without getting called for icing. Touchdown. 

You idiot, it's called a basketball ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This shit. Pete was kind of cool when he was talking about recognizing that old politics aren't working any more and that we need to recognize that, requiring younger perspectives and new tactics, etc. It was pretty out there when he originally proposed packing the court. That was good. But there's basically no reason to affirmatively support him now that he's heel-turned into younger Biden but lacks Biden's appeal to black communities. 

Nailed it. I gave money to his campaign very shortly after he announced. Now I absolutely loathe the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 406W30th said:

Nailed it. I gave money to his campaign very shortly after he announced. Now I absolutely loathe the guy.

lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 406W30th said:

Nailed it. I gave money to his campaign very shortly after he announced. Now I absolutely loathe the guy.

This (to both).  He doesn't need to be the most progressive to ever progressive or anything, but there is nothing particularly novel about his views or approaches. Hell, Yang (and I can't stand him) appears to bring more to the table than he does. Pete is an inexperienced, but smart guy with pretty rhetoric and standard dem party views, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 12:32 PM, Hank Scorpio said:

nope nope nope can't use the insane horse man to support any argument. I now like Mayor Pete. Fuck. 

That's the kind of petty I can get behind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bonnieblue said:

This (to both).  He doesn't need to be the most progressive to ever progressive or anything, but there is nothing particularly novel about his views or approaches. Hell, Yang (and I can't stand him) appears to bring more to the table than he does. Pete is an inexperienced, but smart guy with pretty rhetoric and standard dem party views, nothing more.

Pete and Kamala are/were two major candidates who were almost entirely free of notable substance. They are/were replacement level Democrats.

Candidates of substance (agree or disagree with the merits of that substance):
- Warren
- Sanders
- Yang
- Gabbard
- Williamson (is she still running?)
- Booker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 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?"

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

wages_2.png

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 source.gif

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

RPCICN5X3I5G7BNIJCSHQNFFRQ.jpg

prisoners-1024x646.png

 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by BradInATX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by bad_teammate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!!!!!!!

lis-smith-pete-buttigieg-1571777092.png

to

vhp2cz10zjd31.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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*

 

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...