Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13,115]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

It's clear that a portion of the left feels this way.

No, that's not clear at all. That's complete BS.

There is absolutely "a portion of the left" that sees him as a flawed candidate, but no one on the left thinks he's worse than Trump.

Don't be hysterical.

[Winona's Big Orange Bevo 197]

18 hours ago, Ozzman said:

What are you talking about? Doesn't every candidate speak 8 languages, listen to the police scanner so they can help translate in the ER, marry couples heading to the hospital on their way to have a baby, and adopt one eyed geriatric dogs?

It's completely insane the life he's living.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

No wife. No kids. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3,550]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There are things in this world that should NEVER be understimated.

How much Donald Trump can lie.

How much Donald Trump can get away with.

How much Vic likes chubby girls.

How much OU sucks.

And....the ability of the Dems to shoot themselves in the dick.

So true, that could be a new line from Bull Durham

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,394]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, that's not clear at all. That's complete BS.

There is absolutely "a portion of the left" that sees him as a flawed candidate, but no one on the left thinks he's worse than Trump.

Don't be hysterical.

Of course I don't actually think anyone on the left thinks he's worse than Trump.  But that portion of the left will, in the process of making the argument that he's flawed, drag him far enough into the mud to damage his candidacy to the point that we end up with 4 more years of Trump.  Because they were so focused on pointing out his (extremely minor) flaws.  It's not seeing the forest for the trees, and it's endemic in left wing America. 

As recently pointed out, the Dems are absolutely the shittiest campaigners ever.  2004 and 2016 were both completely in the bag at various points in time and completely fucked up.  Buttigieg can beat Trump, but I expect he won't get that chance.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Al_4_ISU

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

Buttigieg needs to be vetted just like any other candidate.  I welcome the hit jobs. 

[henrygandorf 29,169]

30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Of course I don't actually think anyone on the left thinks he's worse than Trump.  But that portion of the left will, in the process of making the argument that he's flawed, drag him far enough into the mud to damage his candidacy to the point that we end up with 4 more years of Trump.  Because they were so focused on pointing out his (extremely minor) flaws.  It's not seeing the forest for the trees, and it's endemic in left wing America. 

As recently pointed out, the Dems are absolutely the shittiest campaigners ever.  2004 and 2016 were both completely in the bag at various points in time and completely fucked up.  Buttigieg can beat Trump, but I expect he won't get that chance.

the 2020 election will come down to one fucking thing: the democrats willingness to put their differences aside once a candidate is chosen, and go to work for them - especially (obviously) if it's not the candidate they were originally backing.  and i'm not talking about the losing candidates - i'm talking about citizens.  back-stabbing, bitterness, in-fighting will get us trump until 2024, while he tries to get the law changed to run for a 3rd term.

maybe i'm being naive, but pete seems to be pretty low on the scale of polarizing options, so you would think he could rally the troops.  i still feel like the hrc/bernie bad blood will play a role if/when bernie wins the nomination.  not looking forward to that.

[Al_4_ISU 12,394]

the 2020 election will come down to one fucking thing: the democrats willingness to put their differences aside once a candidate is chosen, and go to work for them - especially (obviously) if it's not the candidate they were originally backing.  and i'm not talking about the losing candidates - i'm talking about citizens.  back-stabbing, bitterness, in-fighting will get us trump until 2024, while he tries to get the law changed to run for a 3rd term.
maybe i'm being naive, but pete seems to be pretty low on the scale of polarizing options, so you would think he could rally the troops.  i still feel like the hrc/bernie bad blood will play a role if/when bernie wins the nomination.  not looking forward to that.

Couldn’t agree more

[atomheartbevo 89,304]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Buttigieg needs to be vetted just like any other candidate.  I welcome the hit jobs. 

There's vetting and there are political hit jobs meant to never let them get traction.

A lot of what's going on is the latter.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

There's vetting and there are political hit jobs meant to never let them get traction.

A lot of what's going on is the latter.

The hit jobs just give him more exposure at this point.  He’s still unknown to the majority of the population that aren’t political junkies.

[elfenix 34,161]

19 hours ago, Ozzman said:

What are you talking about? Doesn't every candidate speak 8 languages, listen to the police scanner so they can help translate in the ER, marry couples heading to the hospital on their way to have a baby, and adopt one eyed geriatric dogs?

It's completely insane the life he's living.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

i have a one eyed geriatric dog so this hits close to home

Edited April 4, 2019 by elfenix

[bad_teammate 13,115]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

But that portion of the left will, in the process of making the argument that he's flawed, drag him far enough into the mud to damage his candidacy to the point that we end up with 4 more years of Trump.

This sentence could apply to literally every single candidate as a reaction to criticism.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

maybe i'm being naive, but pete seems to be pretty low on the scale of polarizing options, so you would think he could rally the troops.

Sure, but there's no clean way to get anywhere.

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

There's vetting and there are political hit jobs meant to never let them get traction.

Show me one "political hit job" against Pete, good lord.

Jared Kushner's father hiring a prostitute to sleep with Chris Christie's brother-in-law is a political hit job. Roger Stone organized political hit jobs.

Nathan Robinson wrote a review of Pete's book that paints Pete in an unflattering light and shines an unimpressed light on Pete's supposedly-impressive resume.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Buttigieg needs to be vetted just like any other candidate.  I welcome the hit jobs. 

Hit jobs in the post trump world do not matter. The media can pretend they still do but they don’t.

[bad_teammate 13,115]

[Fozzz 152]

This guy is to the right of Obama on foreign policy.  Might as well be Hilldawg.

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,592]

Maybe an intelligence offer who served in Afghanistan 5 years ago has a better understanding of the best way to end that war.

 

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13,115]

Maybe an intelligence offer who served in Afghanistan 5 years ago has a better understanding of the best way to end that war.
 
 
 
 
 

No. No.

If anything, the opposite.

[Hank Kingsley 20,592]

I'm not sure how you can watch that 2 minute video and consider his stance unreasonable. 

 

 

 

 

[Fozzz 152]

Well, for one it completely misunderstands why we were attacked on 9/11, and it also places a condition on our removal that is unlikely ever to be met (ensuring that our removal will not result in a future terrorist attack - how can that ever be known?).

[wildcat09 29,146]

I think Pete taking this stance is due to the fact that he (like pretty much every Democratic candidate in modern American history) thinks Democrats can't successfully run an actually anti-war campaign and win because the media will tear them to pieces for it. This seems to me to be similar to Obama's "opposition" to gay marriage but without the realistic hope for social evolution that will allow his views to "evolve." It's the kind of bullshit they have to spin to compete.

It's the same reason only Nixon could go to China and why Trump can negotiate with Kim Jong Un. It's bullshit and everyone with multiple neurons working in their brains knows its bullshit, but that doesn't change the reality.

 

[Fozzz 152]

There's virtually zero evidence to support that contention.  

[David Dennison 18,487]

15 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Well, for one it completely misunderstands why we were attacked on 9/11, and it also places a condition on our removal that is unlikely ever to be met (ensuring that our removal will not result in a future terrorist attack - how can that ever be known?).

By pointing out that Afghanistan was a base of operations for the individuals who carried out 9/11?

 

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, David Dennison said:

By pointing out that Afghanistan was a base of operations for the individuals who carried out 9/11?

 

That is not why the attacks were purported.  If not in Afghanistan then the training could have all been done in Pakistan, where there already were AQ training camps.  Should we have also invaded Pakistan and liquidated their government as well?  

[Fozzz 152]

The "safe haven" concept is a fucking joke.  For being such a grave concern, Obama and Hilldawg voluntarily turned Libya into a "safe haven" for Islamic extremists.  We knowingly armed Islamic extremists in the hope of overthrowing the Syrian government.  No one actually cares about that stuff.

[David Dennison 18,487]

34 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

That is not why the attacks were purported.  If not in Afghanistan then the training could have all been done in Pakistan, where there already were AQ training camps.  Should we have also invaded Pakistan and liquidated their government as well?  

He never said one word about why the attacks were purported. He talked about Afghanistan as the base from which the attacks were conceived and its members were trained. He's right about that. 

[Fozzz 152]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

He never said one word about why the attacks were purported. He talked about Afghanistan as the base from which the attacks were conceived and its members were trained. He's right about that. 

AQ's presence in Afghanistan was not why, and was not necessary for, the 9/11 attacks.  He is arguing that we must continue our military intervention in Afghanistan until we can ensure that Afghanistan will not become a "failed state" that will leave us at risk of a future terrorist attack.  This is wrong and continues to provide political cover (we gotta fight them over there if we don't want to fight them over here) for continued military intervention.  

[David Dennison 18,487]

Just now, Fozzz said:

AQ's presence in Afghanistan was not why, and was not necessary for, the 9/11 attacks.  He is arguing that we must continue our military intervention in Afghanistan until we can ensure that Afghanistan will not become a "failed state" that will leave us at risk of a future terrorist attack.  This is wrong and continues to provide political cover (we gotta fight them over there if we don't want to fight them over here) for continued military intervention.  

He doesn't talk about why 9/11 happened in that clip. He talks about what Afghanistan was used for prior to 9/11.

He also says we need to end the war in Afghanistan.

It was a good answer.

[bad_teammate 13,115]

We must maintain war in a country until we can be sure that literally zero humans in that country will do bad things we don't want to happen.

I am very reasonable. Also, sane.

[David Dennison 18,487]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

We must maintain war in a country until we can be sure that literally zero humans in that country will do bad things we don't want to happen.

I am very reasonable. Also, sane.

Yes. That is American foreign policy. It has been since the end of World War II.

Sucks, but that's empire.

[bad_teammate 13,115]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. That is American foreign policy. It has been since the end of World War II.

Sucks, but that's empire.

And anyone who purports to represent progressive values yet wants to perpetuate that empire should be viewed skeptically, especially when they're supposed to be some fresh-faced, clear-eyed man with new, smart ideas. And double especially when their entire life's conduct has seemingly followed a perfect track designed by a pleasant suburban mother who is building a son out of Lego pieces.

[henrygandorf 29,169]

so wait, are you skeptical because his life looks to be built and perfectly tracked to run for office?  or are you skeptical because his opinions about the war don't match what someone "who purports to represent progressive values" should say?

you can't have it both ways.  maybe he's just offering up his perspective, whether it's made from lego pieces or not.

[henrygandorf 29,169]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. That is American foreign policy. It has been since the end of World War II.

Sucks, but that's empire.

yep, this shit isn't new.

 

[bad_teammate 13,115]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

so wait, are you skeptical because his life looks to be built and perfectly tracked to run for office?  or are you skeptical because his opinions about the war don't match what someone "who purports to represent progressive values" should say?

That's not an either/or.

Just so I'm clear here, because I don't want to be misleading or disingenuous.

"Liberal" and "Progressive" are different things in how I'm talking. I'm not using them as synonyms.

In terms of foreign policy, the Liberal establishment is pro-war and pro-intervention. The base Liberal thought about American foreign policy is that it is our job to kill a lot of people overseas if they don't act right. The Liberal feels bad about it, but he is sadly compelled to invade, drone, and otherwise intervene even when the vast majority of the world tells us not to. Israel has to maintain an open-air concentration camp in Gaza. We have to drone strike weddings. These things, sadly, just have to happen.

A Progressive view of American foreign policy thinks America should operate in conjunction with International will and in concordance with international law. It opposes Israel's occupation of Palestinian land according to UN Resolutions, etc...

-----------

So, to Pete...

There is a tension between some level of Progressive rhetoric and Liberal rhetoric. This is an especially stark distinction (between Pete & Generic Progressive) in terms of foreign policy; less so in terms of domestic economic policy; and least so in terms of domestic social policy.

My concern is that he's a Liberal in Progressive clothing, because that doesn't match my values. It might match yours, and that's cool. But we all have differing value systems and belief sets.

His resume is part of the concern because it is an absolutely perfect template for a Nice Liberal. It's indicative of someone who embraces and respects Nice Liberal Values and Norms and wants to be in line with them, seeing them as legitimately good and necessary things.

- Going to the ivy leagues with perfect grades (later to compare Zuckerberg favorably against living wage protesters)
- Working for the big firm (and walking away from that demonstrably evil institution with seemingly no substantive critique)
- Going overseas with a gun and a smile (and returning to soberly affirm the motivations behind that pointless war that's killed millions all told)

These are not things Progressives care about. These are things Liberals adore.

It's really not anymore sinister than this: I'm not sure this guy shares my values.

[F250 28,623]

Pete's comment about having an issue with Chelsea Manning being pardoned and now his comments about Afghanistan should set off some alarms unless you support those kind of things.

[henrygandorf 29,169]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's really not anymore sinister than this: I'm not sure this guy shares my values.

dude.  this is totally fair.

not everyone's opinions or perspectives are going to line up with yours.  but i respect pete's opinion and perspective of what's going on over there and for speaking his mind about it.  the fact that it may not line up with exactly "what someone like him is supposed to say" is a good thing in my eyes.  i don't want a robot who neatly fits in every box.  pete is an anomaly.  

We have to drone strike weddings.

i'm in favor of drone striking all destination weddings.  those are the worst.

[Fozzz 152]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

He doesn't talk about why 9/11 happened in that clip. He talks about what Afghanistan was used for prior to 9/11.

He also says we need to end the war in Afghanistan.

It was a good answer.

It's a dodge.  If was serious about leaving Afghanistan then, as I stated earlier, he would not condition leaving on satisfying a myth (permitting the existence of terrorist safe-havens) that is used to justify continued intervention.  If he was serous, he would simply say our goal is to leave.  That's it.  Not to leave once we satisfy some murky objective to which, after over a decade in the country, we have not come close to achieving.  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,333]

So I guess I'm voting for Buttigieg:


 

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

Okay, in honor of B Dub Edge, I'm going to give Ulysses one last shot. The third time I tried I actually got into a rhythm and made it about 100 pages in.  Finnegan's Wake?  Not going to happen.

[bad_teammate 13,115]

"My fellow Americans, as Hans Castorp foresaw his demise in Thomas Mann's intellectual classic 'The Magic Mountain', so shall thousands of Palestinians forsee the regrettable but necessary expansion of Israel's settlements and borders for its own security..."

Edited April 5, 2019 by bad_teammate

[tantric superman 4,667]

That's it. I'm all in.  Everything he says is great, and even though he himself brings up reparations, I like the way he frames it -- as kind of an inevitable generational issue.

I think one reason this guy is appealing is that you get the same feeling you get (and some of you younger folks won't get this), when you are at a high school or college graduation and the valedictorian isn't a jerk but rather someone who is impressive and funny and makes you feel optimistic about the future.  If he can be stave off the ugliness of the campaign trail, he can do this.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/mayor-pete-aims-history-books

 

[henrygandorf 29,169]

the reaction to pete consistently reminds me of the scene in primary colors (yes, i make everything about tv or movies) when henry is asked why he's interested in joining the campaign:

Okay, Well...I wondered how it would be to work with someone...who actually cared about... It couldn't always have been the way it is now. It must have been different in my grandfather's time. I mean, You were there. You had Kennedy, I didn't. I've never heard a president use words like "destiny" and "sacrifice" without thinking, "bullshit." Okay, maybe it was bullshit with Kennedy, too, but, people believed it. and I guess, that's what I want. I want to believe it. I want to be part of something that's history.

so far he seems like the real deal.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

 

[bad_teammate 13,115]

33 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the reaction to pete consistently reminds me of the scene in primary colors (yes, i make everything about tv or movies) when henry is asked why he's interested in joining the campaign:

 

 

so far he seems like the real deal.

It's a good feeling. Obama '07/'08 campaign was fantastic for that. I wasn't young then, but it was a young movement and the hope and aspirations definitely had cracks in the veneer, but god damnit it felt good and it felt just. And it was, I love Obama and I think that '07/'08 Obama movement was pivotal and important.

Buttigieg is fresh in a way that established politicians aren't, and that's engaging and vital. He hasn't been in Congress selling his soul one piece at a time for a decade.

An ideal Democrat primary, in my mind, involves Mayor Pete gaining a lot of strength and traction. If the other candidates have to chase him that'll be good for everyone.

[Fozzz 152]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The media in this country is so embarrassing.  

[David Dennison 18,487]

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

The media in this country is so embarrassing.  

Where isn't it embarrassing?

[henrygandorf 29,169]

pretty sure i just heard chasten buttigieg will be on erin burnett in an hour on cnn.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,355]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,439]

Well that wasn't very nice.

[bad_teammate 13,115]

50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

pfft, get your own gimmick Pete!!

[The People’s Elbow 707]

Fozz’s fear is damn near palpable. 

[henrygandorf 29,169]

3 hours ago, The People’s Elbow said:

Fozz’s fear is damn near palpable. 

it'll get worse before it gets better.