Jump to content

Buttigieg 2020


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

She's weaseling.

But what is your actual point in this BUT KAMALA tangent? That if people criticize Pete for something they need to list literally every single other person who holds the same beliefs otherwise Pete is being unfairly criticized? Do you think Matt Bruenig is Team Kamala? What are you even saying?

(And, as is your habit, you can't deal with the content and constantly cry about the intentions of people on Twitter, which is even lamer than Tweeting)

Quote

i think the parole release conditions on violent and sexual criminals as set by the state should cover it.  i have absolutely no issue with preventing these types of felons from voting as part of their parole agreement if/when they are set free.  and i know for a fact they would happily make that concession.

Wait, so you don't even advocate suffrage for released prisoners?

Good god

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

She's weaseling.

But what is your actual point in this BUT KAMALA tangent? That if people criticize Pete for something they need to list literally every single other person who holds the same beliefs otherwise Pete is being unfairly criticized? Do you think Matt Bruenig is Team Kamala? What are you even saying?

(And, as is your habit, you can't deal with the content and constantly cry about the intentions of people on Twitter, which is even lamer than Tweeting)

and as your habit, you try to change the facts around to (sorta) support what you're trying to say.  i'm not crying about anything on twitter, i'm shitting on this one actual tweet.  you can't engage me on a conversation about a tweet, then bemoan the fact that i'm bringing up the content of the tweet.  once it gets posted on the pete thread, its content is fair game.

my "but kamala" is not a tangent.  he specifically brought up pete in his tweet.  this leads people to believe that pete is also supporting legislation like what's happening in florida.  that was his intention.  my response was that he shouldn't have singled out pete, because his opinion is the majority opinion, so he could've just left it general and said "dems" or whatever.  the fact that kamala was on the same stage on the same night makes it a pretty easy comp, since she solidified her stance the following morning, a full day before his misleading tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Wait, so you don't even advocate suffrage for released prisoners?

Good god

if it was up to me, violent sexual offenders would never ever regain the right to vote.

why do you hate women so much? 

why do you think it's ok to rape people?

 

(this was my first post trying to act like you.  how did it go?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CapturewefeqF.jpg

Just now, henrygandorf said:

if it was up to me, violent sexual offenders would never ever regain the right to vote.

why do you hate women so much? 

why do you think it's ok to rape people?

 

(this was my first post trying to act like you.  how did it go?)

Do you think people should have the right to vote once they leave prison?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Do you think people should have the right to vote once they leave prison?

depends on what they were in for and the terms of their release.  are we assuming that a violent murderer or sexual offender has "paid his debt" to society if/when they are paroled or released?  is it the rehabilitation vs revenge argument?

like i said, if the parole terms state that as part of their release, violent and sexual (and terrorist) felons are forever giving up the right to vote, then i'm totally ok with that.  and so are they.  (i only add that last part because you give zero shits about them, you just think it's a bold political stance).

if voting is that important to you, don't rape or kill, and you won't have any issue.  not a tough call for most.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Jacob Wohl is being accused of attempting to recruit young Republican men to level false allegations of sexual assault against Buttigieg.

How the fuck is Wohl not in jail yet?

Supposedly there is film or audio of Wohl trying to pull this stunt.  If so, that will make for a nice lawsuit that he won’t be able to run from.  

Wohl’s 15 minutes are probably just about up anyways.  Amazing he lasted this long with that voice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Location available upon RSVP?
Yeah. I don't know why they're doing that. I'm not sure where it is. If someone registers, let us know. If no one is planning on rsvp'ing until they know location, let me know, and I can try and find out.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ozzman said:

Yeah. I don't know why they're doing that. I'm not sure where it is. If someone registers, let us know. If no one is planning on rsvp'ing until they know location, let me know, and I can try and find out.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

Maybe they're just waiting to see how many reservations they get before booking a venue. Fair or not, my first thought was that maybe they're being cautious and don't want to invite any, um, "protesters."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Pete's a gold bug, 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pete-buttigieg-releases-tax-returns-11556653629

In 2018, the couple sold about four shares of Google parent Alphabet Inc. for a $4,017 gain but that was offset by a larger loss in a precious metals fund. That same year, Mr. Buttigieg checked the box that allows $3 of his tax payments to go to presidential campaigns; his husband didn’t check that box.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And giving Beto a run for his money with charitable giving. 

In 2018, any charitable deductions don’t appear on the federal tax return because the couple took the new, larger standard deduction instead of itemizing. Mr. Buttigieg donated $765 in 2017, $489 in 2016 and $1,442 in 2015, according to his returns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

489 is one trip to goodwill to drop off junk and keeps you under the limit for ease of reporting. Has anyone seen the detail breakdown cause I don’t see it in the report. Sorry, but warren is the only candidate with any credibility in terms of charitable giving this cycle. And she falls far short of Romney and Obama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the focal point of releasing tax returns turn into nitpicking charitable donations? 

Trump doesn't want to release his because he's a cheat and a conman. And the "both sides" reaction to every D candidate releasing 10 years of returns is to complain they aren't monetarily charitable enough?  What fucking planet am I on?

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

When did the focal point of releasing tax returns turn into nitpicking charitable donations? 

As long as such releases have existed.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/romneys-ungenerous-donations/

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/09/romney-gives-more-to-charity-than-obama-biden-081529

 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2019 at 8:06 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Jacob Wohl is being accused of attempting to recruit young Republican men to level false allegations of sexual assault against Buttigieg.

How the fuck is Wohl not in jail yet?

What a piece of shit.  It would suck if a drunk driver ran over Wohl, or a stray bullet lodged in his spinal cord.  Well, it wouldn't totally suck because we'd have some hard evidence that God was real. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, it's exactly the same.  pete's the poorest candidate maybe in history, and he married a middle-school teacher.

Pete’s rent or mortgage was less than $500 a month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

When did the focal point of releasing tax returns turn into nitpicking charitable donations? 

Trump doesn't want to release his because he's a cheat and a conman. And the "both sides" reaction to every D candidate releasing 10 years of returns is to complain they aren't monetarily charitable enough?  What fucking planet am I on?

 

 

You’re on Planet Anastasis 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey.  that's a 3br/2ba condo with a sick view in south bend.

No. It's an old house from the early 1900s that was in disrepair and needed a ton of work.

 

But it does have a nice view. Right in the river.

 

He talks about the house in his book.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ozzman said:

No. It's an old house from the early 1900s that was in disrepair and needed a ton of work.

 

But it does have a nice view. Right in the river.

 

He talks about the house in his book.

 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

i know, i was just poking fun at the cheap rent/south bend situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah we're going to need a little more than that, Mr. Buttigieg.

This is disturbing. The idea of some robotic technocrat Dem who has to learn about the human impact of his spreadsheet decisions after the negative effects have happened is terrifying enough as it is; he really needs to be 100% lock-down certain and clear about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

yeah, it's exactly the same.  pete's the poorest candidate maybe in history, and he married a middle-school teacher.

“Truly I tell you, this poor widow gave more than all the others. They gave out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty, put in everything; all she had to live on” 

I don’t really care what’s in their tax returns as long as it isn’t criminal. I wouldn’t even know if it weren’t posted here because, why should I go search out that information? It’s a silly exercise.

But, he’s not just running as the super smart mind behind Ice Town, he’s the anti-Trump calling out the Christian hypocrisy of Trump and Pence. He’s speaking as a person of faith about the importance of how we treat the poor vs focusing so much on sexuality. In this case at least, his words are a bit hollow. He’s the Eagle Scout who never learned to tie a knot.

For most campaigns it really, really shouldn’t and doesn’t matter. For Pete’s message, it still doesn’t matter, but it almost does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yeah we're going to need a little more than that, Mr. Buttigieg.

This is disturbing. The idea of some robotic technocrat Dem who has to learn about the human impact of his spreadsheet decisions after the negative effects have happened is terrifying enough as it is; he really needs to be 100% lock-down certain and clear about this.

The simplest and most sensible answer here is that the spokesperson incorrectly outlined Pete's position and it was corrected within what, 12 hours? 

But keep on concern trolling. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

The simplest and most sensible answer here is that the spokesperson incorrectly outlined Pete's position and it was corrected within what, 12 hours? 

But keep on concern trolling.

Why would "herd immunity" even be mentioned?

If it was, "Pete believes people should have freedom" then fine, that's some boilerplate language you can use to paper over a lack of specific talking points that might accidentally get you in trouble, but "herd immunity" is a very specific anti-vax talking point. Where did that come from?

You need to learn what concern trolling means. I, and many others, are very concerned about this subject and are well-aware of how much worse it is being made by wealthy white liberals who are so open-minded their brains are falling out and now causing children to die for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Buttigieg held a fundraiser event in Somerville, MA. Instead of just doing a typical monologue, he was interviewed by Brandon Victor Dixon who didn't take it that easy on Pete. Discussion ranges from communities of color, his 1k homes/1k days initiative, mass incarceration, democratic reform, gun control, drone warfare, etc.  Great discussion. Starts around the 12 minute mark. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Make Republicans Great Again" is not a thoughtful point.

It's just the typical, "Have you no shame, sir!?" monologue BS in a quieter tone of voice. It's the same blind liberal call for a return to a past of respectful bipartisan work... a past that never existed and never can exist.

Why are liberals so concerned with the heart and soul of the Republican Party? Why are they so desirous of a vigorous and forthright opposition?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Make Republicans Great Again" is not a thoughtful point.

It's just the typical, "Have you no shame, sir!?" monologue BS in a quieter tone of voice. It's the same blind liberal call for a return to a past of respectful bipartisan work... a past that never existed and never can exist.

Why are liberals so concerned with the heart and soul of the Republican Party? Why are they so desirous of a vigorous and forthright opposition?

This.  There is nothing like that on the other side.  The other side wants to murder the Democratic Party, cremate it, bury the ashes on a deserted island, salt the earth, nuke the island and then sink it.   STOP BEING PUSSIES. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's virtue signalling. It's showing how big and above-it-all you are to openly call for strong opposition to advancing solutions to the problems that face the people you are pretending to care about.

The target of the signalling is the wealthy white liberal who is having an awkward time with their families at Thanksgiving and want a calmer political situation so their social and familial lives are more stable. Fewer upsetting Facebook arguments. Fewer fights with grandma cleaning up the wrapping paper after Christmas morning. They are comfortable, safe, and don't really need much of anything other than decorum and a return to a bland, uncontroversial normalcy.

Just be nice! Even if it means the poor don't get access to quality healthcare.

Just be nice! Even if it means that blacks are locked up at insane rates and stripped of their rights.

Just be nice! Even if the planet dies.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...