Buttigieg 2020

[tantric superman 4667]

On 5/29/2019 at 10:41 AM, Rougarou said:

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.

Jesus Fucking Christ. 

(I'd like to think that not having much understanding of how things work would be at least a mild strike against the qualifications, but I know that's not really the case.)

[Bama Chick 28595]

I mean, she IS a Latina so of course she does everything “willy nilly based on emotion” and not based on hard work and ya know, using her brain.

All those questions she asked pharmaceutical and banking executives with facts and figures and based on research? Totally fell out of her vagina with her period on a flow of emotions.

That’s how women work. It’s just science.

Just look at Trump! Everything that is spewed out of his oleaginous face is NEVER driven by emotions and willy nilly reasons! And he doesn’t even READ!

[ChickenSandwich 9749]

1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

I mean, she IS a Latina so of course she does everything “willy nilly based on emotion” and not based on hard work and ya know, using her brain.

All those questions she asked pharmaceutical and banking executives with facts and figures and based on research? Totally fell out of her vagina with her period on a flow of emotions.

That’s how women work. It’s just science.

Just look at Trump! Everything that is spewed out of his oleaginous face is NEVER driven by emotions and willy nilly reasons! And he doesn’t even READ!

Bless your heart for thinking she wrote that script. Kudos to her handlers though. 

AOC is two different politicians. Watch her PBS Firing Line interview from 2018 to see why she doesn’t do u scripted interviews anymore.   There is a reason she was chosen at an audition to play a congresswoman.

 

https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/

 

[henrygandorf 28610]

there’s an aoc thread. this is not it. 

[bad_teammate 13018]

How is formally enshrining the power of the parties a good idea? Why the fuck would be make political parties too big to fail?

This is so stupid.

 

[Gil Bang 25507]

20 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

Bless your heart for thinking she wrote that script. Kudos to her handlers though. 

AOC is two different politicians. Watch her PBS Firing Line interview from 2018 to see why she doesn’t do u scripted interviews anymore.   There is a reason she was chosen at an audition to play a congresswoman.

 

https://www.pbs.org/video/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-barhhq/

 

"handlers" is such a dickhead thing to say.  Perhaps you meant "staff"...the people she interviewed, selected, hired, and pays more than the rest of congress pays their people (paid by the taxpayers of course, but out of her budget).

[Fozzz 152]

That Mayor Pete proposal is incredibly stupid.  I can't believe some on here were conned by this guy.

[henrygandorf 28610]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How is formally enshrining the power of the parties a good idea? Why the fuck would be make political parties too big to fail?

This is so stupid.

i wouldn't characterize this as "formally enshrining the power of the parties" as much as just acknowledgement of the current and longstanding problem with the supreme court (and its obvious need to be de-politicized).

unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying, which is always possible.

[bad_teammate 13018]

Let's say the people are so disgusted with Republicans that they lose huge multiple cycles in a row. Democrats have the Senate and the presidency for 12 years straight and the SC is 5 Dem-appointed/5 Rep-appointed/5 SC-appointed.

A Republican justice retires/dies, and even though the people have been voting in Democrats and rebuking the Republicans, the Republicans get to pick the next SC justice. And no matter how marginalized or unpopular that Republican party gets, it always has that power no matter how much it loses.

It's stupid.

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

In an NBC News interview in front of the Supreme Court, Buttigieg said he would support “whatever Supreme Court reform will depoliticize this body” and stop the court from being viewed as “an almost nakedly political institution.”

“The reform of not just expanding the number of members but doing it in a way where some of them are selected on a consensus, nonpartisan basis, it’s a very promising way to do it,” Buttigieg said. “There may be others. But the point is, we've got to get out of where we are now, where any time there is an opening, there is an apocalyptic, ideological firefight. It harms the court, it harms the country and it leads to outcomes like we have right now.”

[henrygandorf 28610]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Let's say the people are so disgusted with Republicans that they lose huge multiple cycles in a row. Democrats have the Senate and the presidency for 12 years straight and the SC is 5 Dem-appointed/5 Rep-appointed/5 SC-appointed.

A Republican justice retires/dies, and even though the people have been voting in Democrats and rebuking the Republicans, the Republicans get to pick the next SC justice. And no matter how marginalized or unpopular that Republican party gets, it always has that power no matter how much it loses.

It's stupid.

i get that angle, but i think the point of it (if it were to ever be fulfilled - which it won't) is that that one conservative justice won't have the power it used to - and certainly not the "swing" ability that brought on so much of the bullshit strategy moves.

to me - a lot of the progressive arguments are valid, but the specific policy ideas are not ideal - although that could be a factor of negotiation, and intentionally proposing something far left for the purpose of emphasis.

the environment needs attention.  more people need healthcare.  college needs to be cheaper (or the loan process needs revamping).  the supreme court needs to be de-politicized.

i think a lot of these candidates are doing a great job of presenting the issue and explaining why it's important.  i think deep down most everyone is realistic about the ability to institute real change at a reasonable pace.

[tantric superman 4667]

33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Let's say the people are so disgusted with Republicans that they lose huge multiple cycles in a row. Democrats have the Senate and the presidency for 12 years straight and the SC is 5 Dem-appointed/5 Rep-appointed/5 SC-appointed.

A Republican justice retires/dies, and even though the people have been voting in Democrats and rebuking the Republicans, the Republicans get to pick the next SC justice. And no matter how marginalized or unpopular that Republican party gets, it always has that power no matter how much it loses.

It's stupid.

Agree.  Short term bullshit.

[henrygandorf 28610]

so is the counter-argument that if the president/senate is liberal/dem for 15 years then the supreme court should reflect this in a liberal slanted way, possibly indefinitely?

isn't that type of vindictive pettiness the reason the govt/country is so fucked right now?

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

Just for clarification, the 15 judge court is not his plan, it's a plan offered by someone else that he finds intriguing. And he's open to other ideas.  Pete's  been talking about democratic reform for months, leading with getting rid of the electoral college and gerrymandering issues. SC reform is included, but NBC is acting like this proposed plan is his main talking point.  It's not. 

 

[atomheartbevo 88750]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The cocaine in the office at 10:39 AM and minute man sex in a chicken joint bathroom were just so aggy perfect.

Fixed.  

[tantric superman 4667]

40 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

so is the counter-argument that if the president/senate is liberal/dem for 15 years then the supreme court should reflect this in a liberal slanted way, possibly indefinitely?

isn't that type of vindictive pettiness the reason the govt/country is so fucked right now?

The counter argument is that you vote good legislators who pass good laws.  You affirm justices who have a moral and educated view of the constitution.

As always, you focus on electing good people.  We have bad government because we have bad legislators. 

The kind of legislators who would think reforming the court to ironically lock partisan politics into the court in name as well as practice is a good idea.

We are losing focus on getting shitty people out of office and instead wasting time on coming up with shitty ideas.  First things first.

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

so is the counter-argument that if the president/senate is liberal/dem for 15 years then the supreme court should reflect this in a liberal slanted way, possibly indefinitely?

isn't that type of vindictive pettiness the reason the govt/country is so fucked right now?

The argument (it's not really a 'counter' since it's the way the system was designed) is that the will of the people is expressed democratically by choosing representatives who make appointments.

I don't even know what you mean by "slanted". I guess it's that West Wing view of America that we are 50% Republican and 50% Democrat and, by god sir, America works best with compromise and both sides reaching across the aisle, sir!

52 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Just for clarification, the 15 judge court is not his plan, it's a plan offered by someone else that he finds intriguing. And he's open to other ideas.

He finds an extremely stupid idea to be the "most intriguing". That's nice, I guess.

[henrygandorf 28610]

45 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

The counter argument is that you vote good legislators who pass good laws.  You affirm justices who have a moral and educated view of the constitution.

As always, you focus on electing good people.  We have bad government because we have bad legislators. 

The kind of legislators who would think reforming the court to ironically lock partisan politics into the court in name as well as practice is a good idea.

We are losing focus on getting shitty people out of office and instead wasting time on coming up with shitty ideas.  First things first.

 

all good points.  i think it comes down to a defeatist view from the dem side that instead of removing, we're forced to dilute the bad legislators.

[henrygandorf 28610]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't even know what you mean by "slanted". I guess it's that West Wing view of America that we are 50% Republican and 50% Democrat and, by god sir, America works best with compromise and both sides reaching across the aisle, sir!

nope, i didn't mean slanted in a negative way, but i can see that it came off that way.  i guess i meant "weighted".

i think/hope the country is slowly moving into a more progressive state of mind, but maybe i'm being overly optimistic and naive.  if i'm right, and trumpism is defated in 2020 and moving forward, i think the chances are good that your scenario becomes reality.  in that case, i wonder if a far left leaning supreme court would cause even more divisiveness - although by then, maybe who gives a shit.

i think 18 months from the election, it's good to have broad, optimistic, "pie-in-the-sky" ideas, but deep down, i think most people are ok with the other team being angry as long as their own team wins.  that's the republican way, after all.

as long as the president nominates and the senate confirms, i don't think there's a realistic way to adequately depoliticize the court.  it's good to push the discussion out there though.

 

[henrygandorf 28610]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I guess it's that West Wing view of America that we are 50% Republican and 50% Democrat and, by god sir, America works best with compromise and both sides reaching across the aisle, sir!

i understand that you don't like the west wing and haven't watched the west wing, but it spent 7 seasons showing democrats trying to push their smug, "smart" agendas while republicans (who always played the game better) strategically thwarted anything meaningful from ever getting passed (or at least having dems get credit for it).

it's pretty relevant and accurate in today's climate, and definitely doesn't paint a "kumbaya" portrait of how the right and left work together in govt.  a lot of the issues brought up in the show 15 years ago are still brought up today.  not sure why you have such a warped view of it.

also, you can retire the "sir" at the end of your sentences.  we get it.

[bad_teammate 13018]

You absolutely did mean it in a negative way, which is why you followed with "isn't that type of vindictive pettiness the reason the govt/country is so fucked right now?"

My intention here isn't merely a gotcha, but you need to think about your own presuppositions about how democracy works and what you actually believe about democracy.

I posted this in another thread, but it's instructive: Centrists are the Most Opposed to Democracy

 

[henrygandorf 28610]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You absolutely did mean it in a negative way, which is why you followed with "isn't that type of vindictive pettiness the reason the govt/country is so fucked right now?"

My intention here isn't merely a gotcha, but you need to think about your own presuppositions about how democracy works and what you actually believe about democracy.

I posted this in another thread, but it's instructive: Centrists are the Most Opposed to Democracy

 

 

well negative in the sense that you'd like the supreme court to not be heavily slanted/weighted in either direction, sure. 

if the idea is "i can't wait until we have dems in power for the next 8-12 years so that we can stack the deck" then yeah, i think that's the kind of attitude that got us here.  but i realize there's no use fighting it, this is who we are.

[bad_teammate 13018]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

well negative in the sense that you'd like the supreme court to not be heavily slanted/weighted in either direction, sure. 

I'd like the Supreme Court to be chosen/confirmed by democratically-elected representatives as outlined in the Constitution. The process for selecting the SC justices obviously needs work, but the solution is not to make the system less democratic.

Unless democracy itself is something you don't value, of course.

16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if the idea is "i can't wait until we have dems in power for the next 8-12 years so that we can stack the deck" then yeah, i think that's the kind of attitude that got us here.

What's the alternative attitude? What's the vision of a better future?

[henrygandorf 28610]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'd like the Supreme Court to be chosen/confirmed by democratically-elected representatives as outlined in the Constitution. The process for selecting the SC justices obviously needs work, but the solution is not to make the system less democratic.

agreed.

 

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What's the alternative attitude? What's the vision of a better future?

the alternative is that elected officials act responsibly and put their own selfish agendas aside and do what's best for the nation.

 

lulz.

[Celery Man 20535]

democratically electing the president would do a lot to fix the problem with the supreme court

if the legislative branch was more representative the line between the parties would shift a lot closer to 50/50 per side

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

 

[Message Board User 12382]

 

[bad_teammate 13018]

Al Franken, huh?

Man, Chris Matthews making sure all the important issues are covered!

[bad_teammate 13018]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

the alternative is that elected officials act responsibly and put their own selfish agendas aside and do what's best for the nation.

And how does wanting to push hard left and "stack the deck" for a strong, lasting progressive agenda conflict with this?

It doesn't, of course. In fact, wanting to "stack the deck" and "slant" every level of government to the left is precisely "what's best for the nation".

[UpperWestside 5990]

On 5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM, henrygandorf said:

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.

I would hope the Democrats nominate a younger man or woman for president. However, in light of Dotard Mussolini being the current president, I would vote for Jimmy Carter if his name was on the ballot. 

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

12 hours ago, Message Board User said:

 

I don't why, but I'm continuously amazed at how shitty MSM media has become.  Here is the full exchange: 

Chris Matthews: Al Franken. Should he have been pushed to resign from the U.S. Senate by the Democratic caucus, his fellow caucus members? 

Pete Buttigieg: I think it was his decision to make. But I think the way that we basically held him to a higher standard than the GOP does their people has been used against us. 

CM: Do you think he should have been pushed to leave? 

PB: Again, it was his decision. Uh, I think..

CM: I'm not asking about his decision. Should the other members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, starting at the top, Chuck Schumer down, and the other people that pushed him to get out. They put a lot of pressure on him to leave - were they right or wrong? 

PB: I think it's not a bad thing that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. 

CM: I know. Were they right to do that? To push him out of the Senate? Because they did. 

PB: I would not have applied that pressure at that time before we knew more.

 

1. Why would Dylan Byers cut off his quote in the tweet above? 

2. Why is this an important question for a South Bend mayor running for President? Is this what voters need to hear about? 

3. Why is the media focusing on this exchange from the Town Hall? I mean, look at these fucking tweet headlines from liberal media outlets. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

15 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

if the idea is "i can't wait until we have dems in power for the next 8-12 years so that we can stack the deck" then yeah, i think that's the kind of attitude that got us here.  but i realize there's no use fighting it, this is who we are.

Again, it's supposed to work fine that way IF the people are electing folks who do the right thing and aren't just interested in liberal/conservative tears.

I think the real issue is is that we don't have enough voters who have a long term outlook. 

The fact that we can survive Trump means our underlying foundations and processes are still okay.  The fact that we elected Trump shows that the people who are running for office and voting for elected officials don't make the grade. 

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I don't why, but I'm continuously amazed at how shitty MSM media has become.  Here is the full exchange: 

Chris Matthews: Al Franken. Should he have been pushed to resign from the U.S. Senate by the Democratic caucus, his fellow caucus members? 

Pete Buttigieg: I think it was his decision to make. But I think the way that we basically held him to a higher standard than the GOP does their people has been used against us. 

CM: Do you think he should have been pushed to leave? 

PB: Again, it was his decision. Uh, I think..

CM: I'm not asking about his decision. Should the other members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate, starting at the top, Chuck Schumer down, and the other people that pushed him to get out. They put a lot of pressure on him to leave - were they right or wrong? 

PB: I think it's not a bad thing that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. 

CM: I know. Were they right to do that? To push him out of the Senate? Because they did. 

PB: I would not have applied that pressure at that time before we knew more.

 

1. Why would Dylan Byers cut off his quote in the tweet above? 

2. Why is this an important question for a South Bend mayor running for President? Is this what voters need to hear about? 

3. Why is the media focusing on this exchange from the Town Hall? I mean, look at these fucking tweet headlines from liberal media outlets. 

 

[Bama Chick 28595]

I don't why, but I'm continuously amazed at how shitty MSM media has become. 

Beto says “Howdy”.

Sucks when they do it to your guy doesn’t it?

Gain some traction and it becomes all Twitter hot takes and snark instead of fawning over rescued cats, ER translations, and speaking 16 languages.

I like Twitter as a tool to quickly keep up with news and pop culture and for the humor.

But it’s quite honestly the worst thing to happen to journalism and to the way society consumes news.

[Mole 4265]

 

 

 

3 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Again, it's supposed to work fine that way IF the people are electing folks who do the right thing and aren't just interested in liberal/conservative tears.

I think the real issue is is that we don't have enough voters who have a long term outlook. 

The fact that we can survive Trump means our underlying foundations and processes are still okay.  The fact that we elected Trump shows that the people who are running for office and voting for elected officials don't make the grade. 

I've gone for a while with a three-part litmus test for voting before even considering ideology. These standards should be very high for national elected office.

1. Are they thoughtful/intelligent/intellectually curious - Trump and W failed here

2. Are they mostly not corrupt - Trump fails miserably here; the Clintons fall short of my standard as well.

3. Are they competent - I felt that Obama fell short of this standard after his first term, but it depends on your standard. Trump appears to be failing here too; 3 for 3.

My thought is that if we'd elect people based on these standards before considering if they agree with us about things that might not come up during their term, we'd be much better off. A bunch of thoughtful, ethical, competent representatives would be a huge improvement even if they came to different conclusions than my preferred ones. I just want smart, capable people I can trust who hopefully sometimes agree with me.

As it currently stands, we mostly vote based on some vague approximation of political ideology without much concern for capabilities and ethics. We end up with people who pay lip service to our approximation of political ideology and seem only concerned with maintaining power. We're hopefully seeing the bottom of it with the current GOP, but bars can always be lowered.

Pete's competency as president is, of course, a big question, but it always is for a new president. He appears to knock it out of the park (so far) with the first two, which is why he's my preferred candidate even though I'm well to the right of him

[Fudge Nuggets 18825]

Elizabeth Warren is three for three on those criteria.

[MissingInAction 24262]

Every time i read his name my brain says, "Giggity Butt". 

So he has got my vote.

[NWBuck 8511]

4 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

Every time i read his name my brain says, "Giggity Butt". 

So he has got my vote.

You and Chasten both.

[UTDD 362]

10 hours ago, Mole said:

I've gone for a while with a three-part litmus test for voting before even considering ideology. These standards should be very high for national elected office.

1. Are they thoughtful/intelligent/intellectually curious - Trump and W failed here

2. Are they mostly not corrupt - Trump fails miserably here; the Clintons fall short of my standard as well.

3. Are they competent - I felt that Obama fell short of this standard after his first term, but it depends on your standard. Trump appears to be failing here too; 3 for 3.

My thought is that if we'd elect people based on these standards before considering if they agree with us about things that might not come up during their term, we'd be much better off. A bunch of thoughtful, ethical, competent representatives would be a huge improvement even if they came to different conclusions than my preferred ones. I just want smart, capable people I can trust who hopefully sometimes agree with me.

As it currently stands, we mostly vote based on some vague approximation of political ideology without much concern for capabilities and ethics. We end up with people who pay lip service to our approximation of political ideology and seem only concerned with maintaining power. We're hopefully seeing the bottom of it with the current GOP, but bars can always be lowered.

Pete's competency as president is, of course, a big question, but it always is for a new president. He appears to knock it out of the park (so far) with the first two, which is why he's my preferred candidate even though I'm well to the right of him

I really think subconsciously I have been doing a very similar process to your own and like these factors too.  I have kind of always (before considering any issues/party) applied my own standards which I always felt were wisdom/intelligence, integrity/character, competent/can get results, moral courage beyond just being honorable/non-corrupt (to stand up for the right thing even against their own party/typical polls/trends), and lastly leadership/inspirational gravitas when a true crisis may arise and the country needs a brave/healing leader than can inspire/motivate/heal and move people/country to a better place and partially related to this inspiration trait someone your children can be proud of as the leader of the country.  With this Dem crop, I haven't yet found one meeting all of this, but that's pretty rare as it is, so you take the best you can get and I haven't fully paid attention yet so it could still happen.

[henrygandorf 28610]

5 minutes ago, UTDD said:

I really think subconsciously I have been doing a very similar process to your own and like these factors too.  I have kind of always (before considering any issues/party) applied my own standards which I always felt were wisdom/intelligence, integrity/character, competent/can get results, moral courage beyond just being honorable/non-corrupt (to stand up for the right thing even against their own party/typical polls/trends), and lastly leadership/inspirational gravitas when a true crisis may arise and the country needs a brave/healing leader than can inspire/motivate/heal and move people/country to a better place and partially related to this inspiration trait someone your children can be proud of as the leader of the country.  With this Dem crop, I haven't yet found one meeting all of this, but that's pretty rare as it is, so you take the best you can get and I haven't fully paid attention yet so it could still happen.

if you read through this thread, you'll find a lot of us have gone through a very similar approach to this and come up with a similar result.

i don't need him to have every single possible answer prepared right now.  in fact, it might be troubling if he did, considering you don't know what exactly you'll be dealing with on any given day.  i just need someone who shares my values and is intellectually competent enough to handle it.  i just like the way his brain works.

[UTDD 362]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

if you read through this thread, you'll find a lot of us have gone through a very similar approach to this and come up with a similar result.

i don't need him to have every single possible answer prepared right now.  in fact, it might be troubling if he did, considering you don't know what exactly you'll be dealing with on any given day.  i just need someone who shares my values and is intellectually competent enough to handle it.  i just like the way his brain works.

I don't doubt it, there are plenty of very thoughtful and intelligent people populating these threads (ok maybe not a few of the other forum areas at times) and one person I respect greatly is all in on Pete (and he's definitely not a progressive type) so he's got me curious enough to pay attention down the road when it counts.  I completely admit my own skepticism in wondering out loud if a gay candidate can win the Presidency in 2020 in today's America (Trump's election has really made me wonder about Americans in general and I've voted Republican before so it's not a party issue at all), but that certainly won't impact me personally at all.  

[TheFlyingBoat 906]

13 hours ago, Mole said:

I've gone for a while with a three-part litmus test for voting before even considering ideology. These standards should be very high for national elected office.

1. Are they thoughtful/intelligent/intellectually curious - Trump and W failed here

2. Are they mostly not corrupt - Trump fails miserably here; the Clintons fall short of my standard as well.

3. Are they competent - I felt that Obama fell short of this standard after his first term, but it depends on your standard. Trump appears to be failing here too; 3 for 3.

My thought is that if we'd elect people based on these standards before considering if they agree with us about things that might not come up during their term, we'd be much better off. A bunch of thoughtful, ethical, competent representatives would be a huge improvement even if they came to different conclusions than my preferred ones. I just want smart, capable people I can trust who hopefully sometimes agree with me.

As it currently stands, we mostly vote based on some vague approximation of political ideology without much concern for capabilities and ethics. We end up with people who pay lip service to our approximation of political ideology and seem only concerned with maintaining power. We're hopefully seeing the bottom of it with the current GOP, but bars can always be lowered.

Pete's competency as president is, of course, a big question, but it always is for a new president. He appears to knock it out of the park (so far) with the first two, which is why he's my preferred candidate even though I'm well to the right of him

To begin his first term he walks into a bank panic, an auto death spiral, a housing market meltdown, and a general recession with the bank panic forecasted to do multiples of the damage it did and to last for significantly longer, the auto industry's complete bankruptcy expected (and in many cases called for on the right), the housing market slide + foreclosure issue having no end in sight and with many forecasting the recession to be a double dip recession and/or on par with the Great Depression. After having handled each issue in a way that caused the damage to be far less than what was expected while simultaneously getting some much needed, albeit watered down reforms through, I don't see how you can argue he is incompetent. You can disagree with him politically, but after his first term I don't see how his competence can be called into question at all.

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

 

Looking through the comments on this tweet, I found an interview Frank Bruni did with Buttigieg & Abrams almost 3 years ago (pre-2016 Presidential election). 

It's available here:  

Pretty fascinating to watch in retrospect. 

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

 

[Hank Kingsley 19822]

 

[ChiTownDoc 20839]

This guy is running circles around the field.  

[henrygandorf 28610]

i feel like one of trump's new talking points (blathering about on twitter) is rebuilding the military.  he's not gonna like someone else having an opinion on what is clearly an area of expertise for him.

[Celery Man 20535]

Wouldn’t want him to *sunglasses* run out of steam

[TexEx15 16784]

 

[henrygandorf 28610]

should be a good few weeks for pete.

debates coming up.  q2 fundraising numbers will be released.

there are still huge chunks of people not yet familiar with him.  something tells me they will be soon.

i'm also curious if the q2 fundraising will show who's not really in this for the long haul, which of course will affect the polls, and hopefully start narrowing the field.  it'll be a slow process, but it's gonna start soon.  now that pete has the hollywood gays on his side, he's not running out of money anytime soon.