Buttigieg 2020

[bad_teammate 13018]

Just now, henrygandorf said:

yes.  clearly i'm the one here arguing in bad faith.

History has shown us that "I'm a veteran!" isn't a winning message from a Democratic candidate. I'm asking you what Pete's connections/appeal are to enlisted/veteran voters.

You can try to dismiss every critique of Pete's campaign as bad faith Berniebro conspiracy, but at some point you have to analyze why the only people who support Pete are white liberals who make over $100k/year. At some point it moves beyond a conspiracy and into the realm of something you can critically analyze without hurt feelings.

So if Pete is not only going to improve on Hillary's numbers, but outright WIN veterans and enlisted voters... how does he do it? What's his pitch? What connections and organizations does he draw support from? What's his history as a leader within those communities? What is he offering them?

This matters. In 2003/4, we moved robotically to John Kerry (who we didn't really like or care about) largely because we thought his decorated military service would matter in the face of an extremely unpopular and poorly-handled war in Iraq.

What's different about Pete?

[TexEx15 16784]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I'll have to see evidence before I believe this, because that hasn't borne out basically at all in any major election I've seen with Democrats with combat experience.

You act like this election will be like others you have seen before.  That’s your first problem.

[Gil Bang 25504]

36 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Two people saying Pete would beat Trump among enlisted/veteran and I'm the crazy one? lol fuck

henry, what is Pete's appeal to enlisted/veteran voters? Is it something beyond "I served in the Naval Reserves in Afghanistan as an officer 10 years after the war was over and Donald Trump dodged the Vietnam draft"?

fuck you cocksucker.  54 Americans were killed in Afghanistan in 2014.  

[henrygandorf 28609]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

History has shown us that "I'm a veteran!" isn't a winning message from a Democratic candidate. I'm asking you what Pete's connections/appeal are to enlisted/veteran voters.

trump made it clear that "history" no longer has anything to do with anything.  this is all brand new.  we've already dismissed your idiotic dukakis comp, but as for kerry, if pete mirrors his numbers, that's 45,000 votes, which is not nothing.  i can't remember which you're arguing for anymore, but i would call that appreciable, especially against a candidate that won by 75,000 votes 3 years ago.

as for his "connection/appeal" - he served.  and whether you think it was politically motivated, or "oh no the war was over so it doesn't count" or whatever your opinions are - it's a fact.  he served in afghanistan.  will that matter?  so far, people seem to be responding to it (only basing on personal experience, watching interviews, no polling).  when you contrast it with trump's current situation - yes, i think there's a huge contrast.  i think trump is going to see a decrease across the board in 2020, including military.  and yeah, as someone else suggested, there's not much you can do about the olds, but whatever.

if there are numbers out there suggesting that military (vets + enlisted) love trump and what he's doing, then i'll be happy to look them over.

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You can try to dismiss every critique of Pete's campaign as bad faith Berniebro conspiracy

you're talking to other people.  i don't do this.  i'm sure i've dismissed you, but not because you're a bro.

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

but at some point you have to analyze why the only people who support Pete are white liberals who make over $100k/year. At some point it moves beyond a conspiracy and into the realm of something you can critically analyze without hurt feelings.

i don't have to analyze shit.  i don't work for pete.  i'm not running polling or rapid response or designing mailers.  i've formed my opinion based on someone who shares my values, and thinks and evaluates the way i want my leaders to, not based on someone favored to win.  i agree, those numbers are troubling if they hold up for the next 11 months (this seems like another pivot, but whatevs).  his likability numbers are very high among those who know him, and i've seen it mentioned by poc that there are certain demographics that are more proactive in sharing and discovering candidates than others.  white liberals top that list. 

so if the numbers hold, but his awareness levels continue to climb, he can make a move.  regardless, he's going to be a force in the future of the party.  as a democrat, i would think that would appeal to you.

i've never described anything that's happening as a conspiracy, and you'll have to do a lot more to "hurt my feelings" sorry to say.

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So if Pete is not only going to improve on Hillary's numbers, but outright WIN veterans and enlisted voters... how does he do it? What's his pitch? What connections and organizations does he draw support from? What's his history as a leader within those communities? What is he offering them?

he'll improve on hillary's numbers simply by showing up.  i would expect a 5+ point bump from hillary from any dem candidate.  and once again, i have no idea what his strategy is to "court the military vote", but i'm sure we'll see some appearances out on the trail.  he hasn't had a lot of missteps, and i'll continue to have faith in him to plan accordingly.

as for connections or "what he's offering", he served.  it's been pretty well established that servicemen prefer someone who's sending them far away to fight, feel a little better if the person making the call has actually spent some time in their shoes.  i know you think it's all bullshit and nonsense, but they don't.  that's for current military.  i don't know the breakdown of vets, but after the last 3 years, i can't imagine trump is their favorite person.  i can see a depressed block here for sure.

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What's different about Pete?

his opponent.

[GRHorn 105]

On 5/21/2019 at 6:31 PM, Hank Kingsley said:

He is not fucking around. Get’em Pete!

Great point Pete. What about the states with the most homeless people and inequality? Who runs those Pete? What about cities?  Have you ever been to San Francisco Mayor Pete?

[GRHorn 105]

But in all seriousness, Pete is doing well. At least Trump is paying attention to him and gave him a nickname. Beto hasn’t even earned that.

[Gil Bang 25504]

I have.  What's your fucking point?

[GRHorn 105]

12 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I have.  What's your fucking point?

“These things are connected”

[Gil Bang 25504]

I can't wait to hear all about it.  Please proceed. 

[BradInATX 9208]

History has shown us that "I'm a veteran!" isn't a winning message from a Democratic candidate.

Wrong.

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

 

Wrong.

Then you say "Kerry and Dukakis lost!"

 

Then I show you hard evidence that Democrats with military experience get more votes from the military than those without did.

 

Then you twist and turn and deflect and make some point about only middle class whites like Pete. Maybe you call some people Republicans and shitlibs.

 

Saved you the trouble

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

trump made it clear that "history" no longer has anything to do with anything.  this is all brand new. 

How about the history that involves Donald Trump getting the military vote by a huge margin and the data that shows that veterans still love him? Fake news?

Pete might unveil a swath of veteran/active duty-specific policy proposals to appeal to those populations and become a powerhouse. He might start speaking to those groups and organizing for their benefit and gain traction among them specifically. It would be a great idea for him to do that if his goal is to win the military vote.

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

fuck you cocksucker.  54 Americans were killed in Afghanistan in 2014.  

And more than 45,000 Americans died in Vietnam from '67 to '70. What point are you trying to make here?

Pete showed tremendous courage going into 2014 Afghanistan for a tour during which 21 were KIA and Donald should've shown the same courage by going to 1969 Vietnam? Fuck off with that BS.

My position on Trump's draft dodging is exactly the same as my position on Clinton's (or anyone else's). Trump is a piece of shit, but dodging that draft was a smart call.

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

Wrong.

Hard to contend with argumentation and reasoning this powerful.

Quote

Then I show you hard evidence that Democrats with military experience get more votes from the military than those without did.

"more impressive losing" != "winning"

Quote

Then you twist and turn and deflect and make some point about only middle class whites like Pete. 

Upper/upper-middle class liberals, specifically.

A demographic that doesn't fit military veterans.

[BradInATX 9208]

Upper/upper-middle class liberals, specifically.
A demographic that doesn't fit military veterans.

Your contention is that we shouldn't attempt to peel votes off of any demographic that Trump will win in 2020.

Yes or no.

[bad_teammate 13018]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Your contention is that we shouldn't attempt to peel votes off of any demographic that Trump will win in 2020.

Yes or no.

Obviously "no".

lol 

My contention is pretty obvious and I've stated it plainly multiple times: Pete Buttigieg saying "I'm a veteran!" is not going to peel away an appreciable or relevant number of military voters to have a meaningful impact on the 2020 general election.

This is based on military voting trends over the last few decades, current Trump polling among military voters, and Pete's current polling.

[bad_teammate 13018]

OH SO YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD ALL BE NAZIS AND EAT BABIES IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SIR!?!?

[BradInATX 9208]

 

 

 

This is based on military voting trends over the last few decades

 

Source?

 

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

Name the Democratic candidate who won the military vote in a presidential election from the 1984 presidential election to today.

Mondale? Dukakis? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Obama? Hillary?

[BradInATX 9208]

Name the Democratic candidate who won the military vote in a presidential election from the 1984 presidential election to today.
Mondale? Dukakis? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Obama? Hillary?

So your contention is that if you can't win a specific demographic, you shouldn't try to at least lose by less in said demographic.

Right?

[Celery Man 20535]

Is it possible that winning some but not a majority of the votes of a group of people could help a person win an election?

[Irwin F Fletcher 3534]

Stop feeding the troll. You'll never change his opinion and he's only going to continue to work to ruffle everyone's feathers. He obviously has a spur up his ass regarding those who have served our country. 

 

My my advice is to either ignore completely or say yep you're right and don't further engage. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Irwin F Fletcher

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

Name the Democratic candidate who won the military vote in a presidential election from the 1984 presidential election to today.
Mondale? Dukakis? Clinton? Gore? Kerry? Obama? Hillary?

Name the last veteran Democrat presidential candidate who ran against someone who never served.

[Chuckie Finster 22252]

Name the last Jew who won the Presidency? Name the last woman? The last person over 75? The last person named Kamala? EVERYONE IS CANCELED BECAUSE HISTORY

[bad_teammate 13018]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

So your contention is that if you can't win a specific demographic, you shouldn't try to at least lose by less in said demographic.

No, of course not.

We should absolutely try to win veterans by doing things that might actually win veterans, like appealing to them in some way.

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Is it possible that winning some but not a majority of the votes of a group of people could help a person win an election?

Absolutely!

When making this determination, it's smart to consider some things:
1 - How low-hanging is the fruit?
2 - Am I using the right messaging to get them?
3 - Are the votes in the right states?
4 - Will my efforts there hurt other vote-getting efforts elsewhere?

henry's numbers put us at 45k more votes for Pete if he matches Kerry's performance. Trump lost by 75k, sure, but that was isolated to a small number of states, none of which are in the Top 5 for military recruitment. California, New York, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Only one of those 5 is a swing state.

Of the states with the highest concentration of veterans, only one is swingy (New Mexico).

[BradInATX 9208]

So like what Pete is trying to do?

[bad_teammate 13018]

Just now, BradInATX said:

So like what Pete is trying to do?

What is Pete doing to appeal to veterans?

Saying he's a veteran? Revealing the brand new information to the voting public that Trump dodged the draft?

[BradInATX 9208]

Absolutely!
When making this determination, it's smart to consider some things:
1 - How low-hanging is the fruit?
2 - Am I using the right messaging to get them?
3 - Are the votes in the right states?
4 - Will my efforts there hurt other vote-getting efforts elsewhere?
henry's numbers put us at 45k more votes for Pete if he matches Kerry's performance. Trump lost by 75k, sure, but that was isolated to a small number of states, none of which are in the Top 5 for military recruitment. California, New York, Texas, Georgia, and Florida. Only one of those 5 is a swing state.
Of the states with the highest concentration of veterans, only one is swingy (New Mexico).

Lol and there you have it. Exactly what gandorf said you would say.

"Okay fine, he can win some votes but what I was talking about is 45,001 and higher!!!"

Jesus dude. You are a disaster.

[BradInATX 9208]

What is Pete doing to appeal to veterans?
Saying he's a veteran? Revealing the brand new information to the voting public that Trump dodged the draft?

Yep.

Kerry played up his vet card against a candidate who didn't serve and it net him 7% in that demo.

Facts are hard.

[Anastasis 23191]

It's a shame that we spend this much time angling people with HS level educations who decide the political fate our of nation. 

[Brisketexan 103139]

It's a shame that we spend this much time angling people with HS level educations who decide the political fate our of nation. 

Like that many of our voters even graduated high school. We have a DOTUS who speaks at a 3rd grade level, and that’s the bullseye for our population.

[bad_teammate 13018]

What is the electoral impact of 45,000 more military votes spread primarily in non-swing states?

Multiply that by 5 and you might find enough in the Blue Wall states to swing it.

[Anastasis 23191]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Like that many of our voters even graduated high school. We have a DOTUS who speaks at a 3rd grade level, and that’s the bullseye for our population.

I was being generous in deference to our troops. Broadly we probably average out at 6-7th grade level. 

[Brisketexan 103139]

I was being generous in deference to our troops. Broadly we probably average out at 6-7th grade level. 

I wanna take your class - you have a generous curve.

[Anastasis 23191]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I wanna take your class - you have a generous curve.

Education inflation. 

[Celery Man 20535]

What is the electoral impact of 45,000 more military votes spread primarily in non-swing states?
Multiply that by 5 and you might find enough in the Blue Wall states to swing it.

Possibly some.

[henrygandorf 28609]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

How about the history that involves Donald Trump getting the military vote by a huge margin and the data that shows that veterans still love him? Fake news?

did you read the article you linked?

i guess in the age of trump bragging about his 42% approval rating, this equals love:

Overall, 56 percent of veterans — both current and former service members — said they approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 43 percent disapproved. Voters who have not served in the military were more likely to disapprove (58 percent) than approve (42 percent) of the president's job performance.

so let's take a look at these numbers, shall we?  trump got 61% of military vote in 2016, when he ran against a woman.

US military voters still favor Trump and Johnson, but only because most soldiers are men

https://qz.com/813862/2016-election-us-military-voters-still-favor-donald-trump-and-gary-johnson-but-only-because-most-soldiers-are-men/

but now, he's "polling" at 56%.  so at his peak, vs a woman, he was at 61.  against "nobody" he's dropped 5 points, but "veterans still love him".  ok.

put him against pete, and yeah, he'd be looking at even a lower number, likely closer to ~50 (or half, for the math-challenged like mrs g).  see, you went and used your "fake news" moment and you spilled it all over your lap.

as for the 45,000, yes, i think that's a minimum, and i don't really care what states they're in (damn goal posts moved again!).  military votes is just one of the blocks up for grabs.  there will be tens of thousands (hundreds more like) of votes getting peeled away on his way to getting his clock cleaned.  by pete or one of 5-6 other candidates.

have a good evening.

[henrygandorf 28609]

couple quick things to add...

-pointing out your service vs trump’s situation doesn’t just appeal to military. or former military. or military families. lots of americans care about that stuff. they think it’s important, but it’s probably tougher to track it through polls. 

-in 2012, 58% of military voted. in 2016, that number went down to 46%. without knowing, i’m going to assume it wasn’t because of some ongoing love affair with trump. or hillary.

but good news, troops, one of those candidates is back on the ballot!  something tells me trump hasn’t earned himself any of those that took the year off. it also tells me those votes are there for the taking.

so i don’t know if pete is courting the military vote, but i think it’s something he should strongly consider. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20299]

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

Lol and there you have it. Exactly what gandorf said you would say.

"Okay fine, he can win some votes but what I was talking about is 45,001 and higher!!!"

Jesus dude. You are a disaster.

 

No shit. Gandorf took the gun away from BT, stuck it up his ass, and pulled the trigger til it went click, click.   

BT is too dense to realize it and he's too dense to realize that he's too dense to realize it.   That's a dangerous concentration of denseness. 

[bad_teammate 13018]

8 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

And now is the point in the thread where we go through the exercise of Nate Silveresque county by county made up number crunching to compare the Presidential chances of the crazy old hippie crank and the mayor of a small to mid size city with an airport served exclusively by American Eagle turboprops, both of whom are running 20 points behind the former Vice President of a popular administration.

It's sad when emotions lead someone into howling "FAKE NEWS".

Vote totals matter, as do where those votes come from.

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

but now, he's "polling" at 56%.  so at his peak, vs a woman, he was at 61.  against "nobody" he's dropped 5 points, but "veterans still love him".  ok.

 

Your link is about active duty, not veterans. Also, it includes Gary Johnson, who wildly outperformed which should tell you something. Also, both active and veteran populations are still primarily male, a population of people that is still very Republican (relative to the rest of the nation).

Quote

as for the 45,000, yes, i think that's a minimum, and i don't really care what states they're in (damn goal posts moved again!). 

The electoral college does, unfortunately.

But this goes back to what I said earlier. My talk about numbers and history is only relevant if you care about Pete actually beating Donald Trump. If the goal is simply to feel morally superior then my arguments don't apply.

I definitely think Pete will do better among military voters than Hillary. I don't see a specific path for him to flip the last 30+ years of electoral history and actually win the category outright and I don't see a specific path to him winning an electorally significant number of them in general.

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

-pointing out your service vs trump’s situation doesn’t just appeal to military. or former military. or military families. lots of americans care about that stuff. they think it’s important, but it’s probably tougher to track it through polls. 

It's way more important for Republicans (25+%). Republicans, of course, approve of Trump ~90%.

We haven't had the most decorated vet win a race since 1988. Clinton beat HW. W beat Gore. W beat Kerry. Obama destroyed (WITH LOGIC) McCain. Trump (STD-free king of 1983) beat Clinton (runway sniper fire medal of honor).

It's like having a candidate of high moral character, we say we care but we don't actually care. It sounds very good to say and it establishes a vague, normalizing credibility, but it doesn't really matter to voters, but that'll crumble under the weight of things voters actually care about. We libs happily voted for the rapist Bill Clinton twice, then, when Obama came around, he luxuriated in how scandal-free he was.

Edited May 24, 2019 by bad_teammate

[Jograves 357]

12 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

fuck you cocksucker.  54 Americans were killed in Afghanistan in 2014.  

Thank you. It's just a fucking bullshit statement. 

[Turkleton 145]

Just another lefty zombie. If the GOP doesn't highlight this shit, then they deserve to lose.

Freedom

• Health care: "Medicare for All Who Want It” as a pathway to Medicare for All
• Racial equality: Create a commission to propose reparations policies for Black Americans and close the racial wealth gap
• LGBTQ rights: Pass the Equality Act; reverse the ban on transgender military service; enforce the nondiscrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act and key federal civil rights laws

Security

• Climate change: Implement a Green New Deal with all available tools including a carbon tax-and-dividend for Americans, and major direct investment to build a 100% clean energy society
• Gun control: Raise the standard of gun protection and ownership to make all Americans safer
• Extremism: Increase federal resources for countering domestic terrorism and white supremacist violence

Democracy

• Gerrymandering: Establish independent, statewide redistricting commissions
• Electoral college: A national popular vote to replace the Electoral College
• Political representation: True political representation for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico

 

https://www.axios.com/pete-buttigieg-2020-policy-proposals-90d48307-12bc-4bb1-873e-c6a6c670deac.html

 

[achooloco 961]

Nix the EC one or force states to stop neutering the EC, tweak or delete only the reparations part (due to practicality), and figure out what the heck the gun control one means, but otherwise all sounds good to me. Do you really consider the others “left” platforms instead of normal? I guess I’m in the bubble cause they seem like easy issues to find compromise on for both sides. 

You support gerrymandering?! Unless your post was fatuous, in which case my bad, I’ll adjust my sarcasm meter. 

[Hank Kingsley 19819]

Lulz Turkleton. 

The horror, the horror!

Edited May 24, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Celery Man 20535]

You can peel off some of a group and have it contribute to a victory that carries electoral votes. It doesn’t cost Pete anything to point out Trump’s hypocrisy and how he differs when it comes to the military.

[henrygandorf 28609]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Your link is about active duty, not veterans. Also, it includes Gary Johnson, who wildly outperformed which should tell you something. Also, both active and veteran populations are still primarily male, a population of people that is still very Republican (relative to the rest of the nation).

this reply ^^ was in response to my 56% number.  that figure was from your link.  my link (which included johnson) was just pointing out the wide splits on men/women voting.

saying gary johnson outperformed is about the 5th different thing that's been pointed out to suggest that the troops don't necessarily love trump.

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It's sad when emotions lead someone into howling "FAKE NEWS".

now i can't tell if you're being funny or not.

[Biff Tannen 44917]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Lulz Turkleton. 

The horror, the horror!

Beat me to it.  Astounding.  They are brain stems.

[henrygandorf 28609]

i don't know where else to start this discussion, so why not here.

nadler just passed out in public.  he's 71.

trump is 72, and he keeps having to remind everyone how much of a stable genius he is.

pelosi is 79, and while the doctored videos are atrocious, some of the real ones don't paint the most flattering of pictures (as far as her public persona goes.  i do think she's still sharp as ever).

joe biden is 76, and will be turning 78 around election day, and most videos of him show him bumbling incoherently.

bernie is 77, and will be 79 by election day, and actually may be the sharpest of them all, but i don't even want to know what two election cycles are doing to him, as "real age" gets adjusted.

warren is 69, will be 71 by election day, and as awesome as she is, the polls show people just won't elect older women.

the congress is as old as it's been in a while, especially in respect to "our age vs our rep's age".

https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is-among-the-oldest-in-history/175/

 

if the polls hold, i'm afraid the debate between trump and biden is just gonna look like "two old white guys fussing at each other" to most of america.  that's bad for us and bad for biden.  i'm not saying we need an immediate shift to pete and aoc and someone matt gaetz's age, but seriously. 

we have 2/3 most powerful people in the country exchanging twitter pokes, and their combined age is over 150.  this is getting embarrassing.  we need to get younger.

[Rougarou 594]

Trump should turn over his taxes and I want to see Buttigieg's case interviews from McKinsey.

He's clearly super smart and I trust him to run the government when thinking about a holistic model-- inputs and outputs-- to maximize the value the government is giving to it's shareholders (read: all of us). I almost think that's not the job of a President though; it's more the job of a Senate majority leader or something, right?

I actually think someone like AoC, who would just do things willy-nilly based on emotion and notions of ethics/right-and-wrong-values without much understanding of how things work at even a basic framework level would be a better President. She would be selling the vision, the hopes and the dream.

Essentially: AoC would be client-facing and not much more than a good salesperson; Pete would be doing the heavy-lifting quant back-office work that is the actual value and deliverable.

Joe Biden is like a senior partner who needs to retire because he doesn't know anything and isn't relevant to the 2019 cases but once was a big-time rainmaker and has a dorm named after him at a target school.

Edited May 29, 2019 by Rougarou

[NWBuck 8511]

7 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Joe Biden is like a senior partner who needs to retire because he doesn't know anything and isn't relevant to the 2019 cases but once was a big-time rainmaker and has a dorm named after him at a target school.

So... Roger Sterling? I can see it...

[Biff Tannen 44917]

1 hour ago, Rougarou said:

Trump should turn over his taxes and I want to see Buttigieg's case interviews from McKinsey.

He's clearly super smart and I trust him to run the government when thinking about a holistic model-- inputs and outputs-- to maximize the value the government is giving to it's shareholders (read: all of us). I almost think that's not the job of a President though; it's more the job of a Senate majority leader or something, right?

I actually think someone like AoC, who would just do things willy-nilly based on emotion and notions of ethics/right-and-wrong-values without much understanding of how things work at even a basic framework level would be a better President. She would be selling the vision, the hopes and the dream.

Essentially: AoC would be client-facing and not much more than a good salesperson; Pete would be doing the heavy-lifting quant back-office work that is the actual value and deliverable.

Joe Biden is like a senior partner who needs to retire because he doesn't know anything and isn't relevant to the 2019 cases but once was a big-time rainmaker and has a dorm named after him at a target school.

I pretty much agree with this.  I want people with real policy ideas and knowledge of how to implement them in the Senate or a cabinet position, not so much President.  That said, Warren and/or Mayor Pete are my first choices for the primary right now.  So maybe I just don't know what I want.  Other than out of this nightmarish simulation.

[Message Board User 12382]