Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:20 AM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567

Pete Buttigeig stops releasing bundler names and blocks press from fundraising events. S


https://readsludge.com/2019/12/09/he...ete-buttigieg/


He also says he will not stop taking money from billionaires or corporations.
https://twitter.com/amiraminimd/stat...131172869?s=21


Here is his response to not letting the press in for fundraising events.
https://twitter.com/prettygoodphil/s...790590664705?s

Weasel Pete is going to get kneecapped over his corporatists behavior. It should also be brought up that back in his city, the law enforcement used pete's donors to get him to fire that black police chief, and in these same records those people were being racist and imitating ebonics.
https://tyt.com/stories/4vZLCHuQrYE4...ZkbeKfsQZwkvIm





As anyone with a brain expected, Pete is a corporate shill doing the bidding of his donors and continuing the legacy of the corporate democratic party. As you see with many dopers support for him, he's a centrist who appeals to older democratic voters. He had abysmal approval by blacks in SC. He's taking money from organizations that were started up to combat M4A. Support for pete coming from dopers specifically really goes to show how out of touch many democrats are. Thank god we have Sanders who's rallying up support among non-voters, independent voters, and even pulls the largest number of trump voters than any other candidate.

Last edited by Barack Obama; 12-10-2019 at 12:21 AM.
  #2  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:22 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
I never liked the guy.
  #3  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:27 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,400
Oh good, another automated Bernie Bot post from Barack Obama.

ETA: So he's a centrist who wants to raise money to win. OK.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 12-10-2019 at 12:29 AM.
  #4  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:36 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Oh good, another automated Bernie Bot post from Barack Obama.

ETA: So he's a centrist who wants to raise money to win. OK.
But you don't understand: The monies are /evil/.
  #5  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:37 AM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But you don't understand: The monies are /evil/.
You both are completely missing or avoiding the issue here. Money influences people, having an billionaires and multi billion dollars corporations line your pockets when you're running for or are in office is a conflict of interest.

Despite the obvious issues, if we want to ignore all substance and merit... majority of americans want to get money out of politics. And you can't sit here and tell me they absolutely have to take billionaire checks to win an election, there are plenty of candidates who are out fundraising their corp counter parts with small donations per individual alone at the grass roots level.

Weasel Pete can't weasel himself outta this one, and you guys can't defend this trash even if you tried.
  #6  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:48 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You both are completely missing or avoiding the issue here. Money influences people, having an billionaires and multi billion dollars corporations line your pockets when you're running for or are in office is a conflict of interest.
It's also how you win, whether it should be or not.

Booty might be a corrupt sell-out, I don't know. But anyone who wants to change the system to remove these sorts of issues is going to have to get into a position of power in order to do it and that means doing what it takes to get there. Anyone who doesn't do that may be principled but they're also never going to have any effect on anything.

I'd take Booty over Trump and it's worth remembering that before shading the guy. So far as this next election is concerned, they're all beauteous godlings so be they not Trump.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-10-2019 at 01:51 AM.
  #7  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:45 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
I'd take Booty over Trump and it's worth remembering that before shading the guy. So far as this next election is concerned, they're all beauteous godlings so be they not Trump.
Of course. Sometimes we read in these threads, something like "But I'll vote for Biden if he's the nominee." Duuh. Of course you will. Otherwise you'd be like the proverbial restaurant customer:
Waiter: "Sorry, sir. We're out of capers. But we can serve your veal piccata with a delicious olive salad that mimics caper flavor."
Customer: "Veal piccata without capers? Heaven forbid! Bring me your only other menu item then: what was it? Dog-shit sandwich garnished with horse piss."
My only problem with Buttigieg is his electability. Between his lack of experience and homosexuality, I'm afraid a lot of "independent" voters will find reason not to vote for him.
  #8  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:51 AM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,295
"Pete Buttigeig stops releasing bundler names and blocks press from fundraising events."

So why is the Washington Post reporting the exact opposite of this thread?

Pete Buttigieg agrees to more transparency on campaign money
Quote:
Dec. 9, 2019 at 6:10 p.m. EST

Presidential contender Pete Buttigieg announced Monday that he would open his fundraisers to journalists and disclose the names of people raising money for his campaign, the latest step in an ongoing skirmish over transparency with Democratic rival Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Reporters will be allowed into Buttigiegís large-dollar fundraising events starting Tuesday, and the South Bend, Ind., mayor will release a list of his ďbundlersĒ ó those who funnel large sums of money to campaigns ó within a week, according to Buttigieg campaign manager Mike Schmuhl.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #9  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:03 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,305
Because the OP is citing Twitter - arguably a worse source than, well, anything?
  #10  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:20 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 368
It's funny how in the purity test of frowning upon fundraisers and billionaire donors, all it's actually achieved is allow two billionaires to join the race. Because Trump is sitting on a war chest of money so when candidates in the democratic primary are essentially disarming themselves you end up like Beto and Kamala --- good grassroots support but no money to keep competing, the billionaire like Steyer and Bloomberg thinks "I can stop him". Most working people can't afford to constantly chuck in more money on ActBlue for a candidate every other week. But Steyer and Bloomberg aren't dependent on small donors.
  #11  
Old 12-10-2019, 06:57 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
What Pete is doing is fairly standard, but I'm not sure standard politician behavior cuts it in 2020.
  #12  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:31 AM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 51,814
The more I read criticism of Pete that's based on erroneous Twitter statements, the more likely I am to support him.
  #13  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:36 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Mayor Pete is the most charismatic Dem candidate. Therefore, he’s the most likely candidate to beat Trump. Therefore, I don’t care if he takes money from Satan himself. Now get a new schtick.
  #14  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:38 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Mayor Pete is the most charismatic Democratic candidate to white voters. Minority voters seem to be seeing something entirely different. That makes him LESS electable than other Democrats if that holds up.
  #15  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:49 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Mayor Pete is the most charismatic Democratic candidate to white voters. Minority voters seem to be seeing something entirely different. That makes him LESS electable than other Democrats if that holds up.
"If". "Seem to be".

Got a reasonable cite?

Last edited by Gyrate; 12-10-2019 at 07:50 AM.
  #16  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:52 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
It could also be that minority voters won't vote for a gay candidate, but we're not really supposed to talk about that.
  #17  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:01 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Mayor Pete is the most charismatic Democratic candidate to white voters. Minority voters seem to be seeing something entirely different. That makes him LESS electable than other Democrats if that holds up.
That might cost Buttigieg the nomination, but it wouldnít cost him the general. They may not like Buttigieg, but they hate Trump.
  #18  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:11 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 29,043
Maybe. Election polls right now show Buttigieg weak against Trump. That could be name recognition. It could also reflect low turnout if he's the nominee.

I'm positive on Buttigieg so I hope you're right but I've got this nagging feeling that he might have a real minority problem in the general as well as the primaries. Partly due to being gay, partly due to his South Bend record.
  #19  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:10 AM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
"Pete Buttigeig stops releasing bundler names and blocks press from fundraising events."

So why is the Washington Post reporting the exact opposite of this thread?

Pete Buttigieg agrees to more transparency on campaign money
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Because the OP is citing Twitter - arguably a worse source than, well, anything?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/u...isclosure.html

Hey guys, just to let you know I recently turned water into wine. Now, if you're going to sit there and ask me questions about the reality of me turning water into wine, well I got to go, we need to keep the status quo while appearing as if we're going to change something. Oh crap, donors calling, can't say anything else bye!
  #20  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:27 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,400
Messiah comparisons already? This is rich coming from the guy who gushes all over the flawlessness and purity of Bernie in every thread he appears in.

By the way, the NDA that was preventing Pete from talking about his time in corporate America has been lifted. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...le-2020-079636

But please, continue on with your rant disguised as a political discussion.
  #21  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:17 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
But you don't understand: The monies are /evil/.
But they come with a frozen yogurt that I call "Frogurt."
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #22  
Old 12-10-2019, 11:08 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/07/u...isclosure.html

Hey guys, just to let you know I recently turned water into wine. Now, if you're going to sit there and ask me questions about the reality of me turning water into wine, well I got to go, we need to keep the status quo while appearing as if we're going to change something. Oh crap, donors calling, can't say anything else bye!
Yeah, you're really grasping, man.

And I know you don't see this, but Bernie Bros being so aggressive actually costs him votes and it pushes people away. I could introduce you to a phrase concerning flies and honey.

In short, posts like yours actually harm your chosen candidate.
  #23  
Old 12-10-2019, 12:07 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It could also be that minority voters won't vote for a gay candidate, but we're not really supposed to talk about that.
...you shouldn't talk about something that really isn't happening. Minority voters won't vote for Buggigeig because of shit like this and this. Buttigieg obviously appeals to white voters: his focus-tested campaign pivots and charm offenses are aimed squarely at that demographic. But the "Douglass Plan" should have sounded alarm bells. That is hasn't: that his cult-of-personality and lack of actual substance seems to make him even more popular (with white voters) says a lot. We live in a world where the guy who literally steals a reporters phone on camera is likely to get re-elected as Prime Minister, we've got this guy rejecting calls for more bushfire help, saying volunteer firefighters 'want to be there', America has a president who is the stupidest man on the planet, so it shouldn't surprise me that an empty suit like Buttigieg can be so popular. This isn't about homophobia. Buttigieg simply isn't the best candidate that is running.
  #24  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:09 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,951

Moderating


Moved from Elections to The BBQ Pit.

There is serious content in here that could be opened as a new thread in Elections, but the tone of most posts (including the OP) tends toward rans and bickering.
  #25  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:11 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
The more I read criticism of Pete that's based on erroneous Twitter statements, the more likely I am to support him.
I have to wonder how much of it is just lying bullshit (all of it???) from BernieBots, Republican trolls, and Russians.
  #26  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
This time, it looks like the Bernie Bros are having the heart attack.
  #27  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:14 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, you're really grasping, man.

And I know you don't see this, but Bernie Bros being so aggressive actually costs him votes and it pushes people away. I could introduce you to a phrase concerning flies and honey.

In short, posts like yours actually harm your chosen candidate.
I'm going to make a prediction. If Bernie doesn't get nominated, his Bernie Bros are going to throw a fucking tantrum and hand it to Trump again.
  #28  
Old 12-10-2019, 01:58 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,659
It should be noted that Elizabeth Warren, who's been attacking "Mayor Pete" over fundraising, hasn't exactly shut out big-money donors herself.

And even Mr. Purity-Of-Essence himself, Bernie Sanders isn't above courting the large check-writing crowd and being less than open about it.

Anyone who thinks there wouldn't be major rewards for top contributors to a 2020 Democratic winner is delusional.
  #29  
Old 12-10-2019, 04:40 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
It should be noted that Elizabeth Warren, who's been attacking "Mayor Pete" over fundraising, hasn't exactly shut out big-money donors herself.

And even Mr. Purity-Of-Essence himself, Bernie Sanders isn't above courting the large check-writing crowd and being less than open about it.

Anyone who thinks there wouldn't be major rewards for top contributors to a 2020 Democratic winner is delusional.
All that matters, is getting rid of Trump. All the rest of this talk about campaign financing and "purity" is bullshit.

Anyone who votes for Trump because they didn't get their way, spends their vote on some third party troll because they didn't get their way, or stays at home wasting a vote because they didn't get their way, helps Trump and can go get fucked.

All that matters, is getting rid of Trump.
  #30  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:24 PM
slumtrimpet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canukistan
Posts: 662
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
All that matters, is getting rid of Trump. All the rest of this talk about campaign financing and "purity" is bullshit.

Anyone who votes for Trump because they didn't get their way, spends their vote on some third party troll because they didn't get their way, or stays at home wasting a vote because they didn't get their way, helps Trump and can go get fucked.

All that matters, is getting rid of Trump.
And, if I might add; Any Republicans you happen to stumble across as well, please.
  #31  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:33 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
All that matters, is getting rid of Trump.
I still haven't remotely made up my mind who I'll be voting for on March 24 of next year, but on November 3 I'll vote for Bloomberg/Williamson (or Williamson/Bloomberg) over Trump/Pence (although I certainly wouldn't be very god-damned happy on Election Day in that event).
  #32  
Old 12-10-2019, 05:58 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
It should be noted that Elizabeth Warren, who's been attacking "Mayor Pete" over fundraising, hasn't exactly shut out big-money donors herself.
All that says is that people who work at Google, the University of California, Harvard and so forth contributed to her campaign. How is that considered "big-money donors"? The $116,000 from Harvard could have been from 58 faculty members who each gave $2,000.
  #33  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:22 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
All that says is that people who work at Google, the University of California, Harvard and so forth contributed to her campaign. How is that considered "big-money donors"? The $116,000 from Harvard could have been from 58 faculty members who each gave $2,000.
In addition to Alphabet Inc. (Google)'s 200K+ there are also sizable listed contributions to Warren from such entities as Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, Kaiser Permanente and AT&T, which are not exactly the Little People.*

*I have no idea whether major donations from big-time universities represent the sum total of individual prof donations, though I kinda doubt it. It's weird that there are Warren donations on opensecret listed as coming from the "U.S. Government" and "City of New York".
In any case, Warren is not subsisting entirely on $2 PayPal contributions from Bob and Betty Citizen.

Last edited by Jackmannii; 12-10-2019 at 07:23 PM.
  #34  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:37 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Oh good, another automated Bernie Bot post from Barack Obama.
You mean, someone on the Dope who dares to voice the opinions common to US Democratic voters under 40, rather than another rich old Buttigieg donor.

Quote:
ETA: So he's a centrist who wants to raise money to win. OK.
"Centrist" can mean conservative and/or non-ideological, but these days it seems to be a nice way of saying corrupt.

Also, Pete's not going to win the nomination. There was never any hope of him winning. So if he's raising money, I guess it's to raise money?
  #35  
Old 12-10-2019, 07:56 PM
Barack Obama is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Moved from Elections to The BBQ Pit.

There is serious content in here that could be opened as a new thread in Elections, but the tone of most posts (including the OP) tends toward rans and bickering.
I didn't expect this, because you dislike the content of this thread you'll move it?

Okay ill repost it since you said that, we'll see if you move it again.
  #36  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:49 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
I still haven't remotely made up my mind who I'll be voting for on March 24 of next year, but on November 3 I'll vote for Bloomberg/Williamson (or Williamson/Bloomberg) over Trump/Pence (although I certainly wouldn't be very god-damned happy on Election Day in that event).
Same here. I can't stand Bloomberg, but that doesn't match the level of hate and disgust I have for Traitor Trump
  #37  
Old 12-10-2019, 08:55 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,621
If Bernie were the Dem nominee, I'd probably support him and then hope he gets 25th amendment treatment. He'd be a fecking disaster of a president. He'd probably result in a military coup and Democrats would be outlawed.
  #38  
Old 12-10-2019, 09:08 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
I didn't expect this, because you dislike the content of this thread you'll move it?

Okay ill repost it since you said that, we'll see if you move it again.
[MAGA crowd chanting]
Lock that thread!
Lock that thread!
Lock that thread!
  #39  
Old 12-10-2019, 10:36 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
Also, Pete's not going to win the nomination. There was never any hope of him winning. So if he's raising money, I guess it's to raise money?
I think that your prediction is premature, but even if not, I believe that heíd have access to the money in a future political campaign; say, for congress in 2 years.

Speaking of fundraising, Iíve heard it remarked that Buttigieg and Mark Zuckerberg attended Harvard at the same time, and have some acquaintances in common, suggesting that he might have an inside track for Silicon Valley funding.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...ark-zuckerberg

I realize that this infuriates the leftmost wing of the Democratic Party, but it does speak to potential long term viability as a candidate.
  #40  
Old 12-11-2019, 12:55 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG1 View Post
All that matters, is getting rid of Trump. All the rest of this talk about campaign financing and "purity" is bullshit.

Anyone who votes for Trump because they didn't get their way, spends their vote on some third party troll because they didn't get their way, or stays at home wasting a vote because they didn't get their way, helps Trump and can go get fucked.

All that matters, is getting rid of Trump.
...all the more reason to put the candidates through their paces now before the primaries so you can pick the best candidate for President of the United States of America. Posts like yours are all about silencing dissent, and at this stage of the campaign is the real bullshit take. Buttigeig would be a terrible president IMHO. I think he is the absolute worse of the leading contenders. The right time to talk about that is now, not after he gets the nomination, and if you don't like that well tough shit.
  #41  
Old 12-11-2019, 02:26 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...all the more reason to put the candidates through their paces now before the primaries so you can pick the best candidate for President of the United States of America. Posts like yours are all about silencing dissent, and at this stage of the campaign is the real bullshit take. Buttigeig would be a terrible president IMHO. I think he is the absolute worse of the leading contenders. The right time to talk about that is now, not after he gets the nomination, and if you don't like that well tough shit.
What you donít get is that the skills you need to get the job are different from the skills you need to do the job. The skills you need to get the job are likability and charisma. Mayor Pete has those in abundance. Therefore, heís the best candidate. Whether heíll be a good president is a different question, but as long as he gets rid of Trump I donít much care.
  #42  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:00 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
What you donít get is that the skills you need to get the job are different from the skills you need to do the job.
...what makes you think that "I don't get this?"

Quote:
The skills you need to get the job are likability and charisma.
Likeability and charisma are subjective.

Quote:
Mayor Pete has those in abundance.
Bullshit.

White people like Mayor Pete. He's a safe, middle-of-the-road-don't-rock-the-boat-focus-tested candidate.

But he is also full of hot air. He spouts word-salad half-the-time and GOP talking points the other. Black people don't like Mayor Pete. Black people also didn't like Trump and voted overwhelmingly against him last time. One would think that now is the right time to start listening to the people who got it right last time.

Quote:
Therefore, heís the best candidate.
That isn't how it works. That isn't how any any of this works.

Quote:
Whether heíll be a good president is a different question, but as long as he gets rid of Trump I donít much care.
Are you personally guaranteeing a vote for Mayor Pete will defeat Donald Trump? Have you decided the outcome of the next election already? We should just pack it all in and go home?
  #43  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:57 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear
...what makes you think that "I don't get this?"
You’re talking about policy and history. Those things don’t matter. Maybe they should, but they don’t.


Quote:
Likeability and charisma are subjective.
They’re semi-subjective. Most people know it when they see it and most people generally agree when it’s there and when it isn’t. I’ve got a thread in Elections asking - independent of politics - who the most charismatic Dem candidate is. Mayor Pete currently has 40% of the vote, with 31. Liz Warren is second. With 11.

So yeah, it may be a bit subjective, but it’s clearly not entirely subjective.

Quote:
Bullshit.

White people like Mayor Pete. He's a safe, middle-of-the-road-don't-rock-the-boat-focus-tested candidate.

But he is also full of hot air. He spouts word-salad half-the-time and GOP talking points the other. Black people don't like Mayor Pete. Black people also didn't like Trump and voted overwhelmingly against him last time. One would think that now is the right time to start listening to the people who got it right last time.
1) White people are about 80% of the US population.

2) White people aren’t the Borg. We don’t have a hive mind. Some of us like Mayor Pete, some of us don’t. The fact that most of Mayor Pete’s supporters are white doesn’t mean ‘White people like Mayor Pete’.

4) I guess ‘word salad’ must also be subjective because he always makes perfect sense to me. I never have trouble understanding him.

5) He doesn’t spout any GOP talking points. He has criticisms of some of Warren’s plans and Bernie’s plans, that’s all.

6) Okay. So ‘black people don’t like Mayor Pete’. Does that mean they’d stay at home if his opponent is Donald Trump? Because that’s really the key question here.

7) The majority of Black people also preferred Hillary to Bernie IIRC, and Bernie would’ve won. So their track record isn’t exactly unblemished.

Quote:
That isn't how it works. That isn't how any any of this works.
That’s exactly how this works. If you disagree, please provide an example of a US election from 1960 onwards where the less charismatic candidate won.

Quote:
Are you personally guaranteeing a vote for Mayor Pete will defeat Donald Trump? Have you decided the outcome of the next election already? We should just pack it all in and go home?
I think that if Mayor Pete gets the nomination then the election is good as won. In fact, if he gets the nod then I plan to place a few pretty substantial bets on his victory. I’m more than prepared to put my money where my mouth is.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 12-11-2019 at 03:58 AM.
  #44  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:06 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Youíre talking about policy and history. Those things donít matter. Maybe they should, but they donít.
...of course they matter.

Quote:
Theyíre semi-subjective.
Bullshit. I don't consider Buttigeig either charismatic nor likeable. Complete disagreement with your thesis is about as subjective as you can possibly get.

Quote:
Most people know it when they see it and most people generally agree when itís there and when it isnít. Iíve got a thread in Elections asking - independent of politics - who the most charismatic Dem candidate is. Mayor Pete currently has 40% of the vote, with 31. Liz Warren is second. With 11.
And how many of the people responding to that poll are white? For the record: my skin colour is...not white. And I certainly didn't vote for Mayor Pete in your silly little poll..

That poll doesn't mean jack-shit. You really think that your tiny little poll on an obscure liberal messageboard on the internet means anything to anyone?

Quote:
So yeah, it may be a bit subjective, but itís clearly not entirely subjective.
It is entirely subjective.

Quote:
1) White people are about 80% of the US population.
No shit sherlock.

Quote:
2) White people arenít the Borg. We donít have a hive mind. Some of us like Mayor Pete, some of us donít. The fact that most of Mayor Peteís supporters are white doesnít mean ĎWhite people like Mayor Peteí.
It isn't that "white people like Mayor Pete." Its the fact that "black people do not like Mayor Pete." The distinction is important.

Quote:
4) I guess Ďword saladí must also be subjective because he always makes perfect sense to me. I never have trouble understanding him.
Of course it would. You obviously speak "peak liberal."

Quote:
5) He doesnít spout any GOP talking points. He has criticisms of some of Warrenís plans and Bernieís plans, thatís all.
You do understand what a "talking point" is? it isn't a critique. When Mayor Pete said "there are some voices in the Democratic Primary right now who are who are calling for a policy that would eliminate the job of every single American working at every single insurance company in the country" that isn't a valid critique. Its a fucking lie. Its spin. Its a complete recontextualization of Warren and Bernie's plan wrapped up in a pithy sentence, AKA as a Talking Point, and this particular one is a GOP Talking Point. And by not including the word "health" to insurance this Talking Point turned into literal fake news.

Quote:
6) Okay. So black people donít like Mayor Pete. Does that mean theyíd stay at home if his opponent is Donald Trump? Because thatís really the key question here.
And I'm the wrong person to be asking. If this is a key question you should be asking black people what they think. What will get them out to vote? Why aren't you directing that question to them?

Quote:
7) Black people also preferred Hillary to Bernie, and Bernie wouldíve won. So their track record isnít exactly unblemished.
Bernie probably wouldn't have won. Trump was the perfect storm, he defeated all of the Republicans in the primaries, he had help from a complicit press, from foreign governments, and he won with the most narrow of margins. To call the track record of black voters blemished, a people who were bought to your country in chains, have been massacred, didn't even universally get the vote until the 60's, and who at the last election were actively targeted to suppress their votes, is quite simply disgusting.

They made the right choices at the last election. Trump won because of white people. They deserve all of the blame.

Quote:
Thatís exactly how this works. If you disagree, please provide an example of a US election from 1960 onwards where the less charismatic candidate won.
Donald Trump is infinitely more "charismatic" in my opinion than Mayor Pete, who in my opinion has the charisma of a wet fish. So if this is "how it works" then if Mayor Pete gets the nomination we are on a track for four-more-years of Trump.

But that isn't how it works. And elections in 2020 are going to be a very different thing to what we had in 2016, which was a very different thing to what we had four years before. The situation is chaotic. Its "butterflies flapping their wings in Siberia" chaotic. The next election isn't going to hinge on a single metric and you would be a fool to think that merely nominating the "charismatic" candidate is going to give you the election. This is a war on multiple fronts that you are hoping to win by fighting from the Maginot Line.

Quote:
I think that if Mayor Pete gets the nomination then the election is good as won.
Is this a guarantee Mister Random Person on the Internet? Are you going to guarantee he is going to win or not?

Quote:
In fact, if he gets the nod then I plan to place a few pretty substantial bets on his victory. Iím more than prepared to put my money where my mouth is.
That really isn't fucking good enough. Lives are on the line. If you expect people to vote based on a bullshit metric like "charisma" a few dollars out of your pocket don't mean jack-shit.

This is just confirmation bias. Head-to-head all of the leading Democratic candidates defeat Donald Trump. So stop worrying about things you can't quantify like "charisma" and worry more about who is the best candidate to both defeat Donald Trump and to serve as the next President of the United States. I think Biden, Warren, Sanders, I think all three are capable of doing both.

But here is what you don't understand. Trump & McConnell and his merry band of co-conspirators have broken your system. As Sarah Kendzior correctly puts it: this is an international crime syndicate masquerading as a government. Every single government office right now is under-manned, being lead by incompetent and dangerous people. There is a literal white supremacist in charge of immigration. Today's news about designating Judaism as a race or nationality should be scaring the fuck out of you. They are taking over the courts. Do you know how many refugees America allowed to be resettled in October? Zero. There are concentration camps on the borders.

If Trump does loose the next election then it will not be a normal transition. There is going to have to be a purge followed by a long period of rebuilding that could take decades. And all of that has to happen while fighting the Republicans in the Senate and every other dirty trick that they will throw in the way.

I personally don't think that Mayor Pete's charisma will be enough to defeat Trump. But even if it were, what is it about Mayor Pete's background that you think makes Pete "I'm not asking for your vote" Buttigieg is remotely qualified enough to deal with any of this?
  #45  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:28 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Hey, remember when I said you were a conflict junkie and you strenuously denied it? Well...
  #46  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:32 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Hey, remember when I said you were a conflict junkie and you strenuously denied it? Well...
...concession accepted.
  #47  
Old 12-11-2019, 07:00 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Mayor Pete is the most charismatic Democratic candidate to white voters. Minority voters seem to be seeing something entirely different. That makes him LESS electable than other Democrats if that holds up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
"If". "Seem to be".

Got a reasonable cite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It could also be that minority voters won't vote for a gay candidate, but we're not really supposed to talk about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Maybe. Election polls right now show Buttigieg weak against Trump. That could be name recognition. It could also reflect low turnout if he's the nominee.

I'm positive on Buttigieg so I hope you're right but I've got this nagging feeling that he might have a real minority problem in the general as well as the primaries. Partly due to being gay, partly due to his South Bend record.
"Could be". "Maybe" "Might have a problem". "We're not supposed to talk about that." And no cites. Got it.

Since we've changed forum, let's note that it could be - no, it blatantly is - the case that you're going to pull the same shit you've done in previous elections and pepper every thread with vague insinuations, unsupported assertions and handwringing over "Oh, if only the Democrats had nominated that candidate instead of the one they did, I might have voted for them" while ignoring everything remotely similar or worse on the Republican side. Because you've got form, man, and you're already starting it up again.
  #48  
Old 12-11-2019, 03:14 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...concession accepted.
I wasnít conceding. I was making an off-hand remark about your temperament, which is deeply off-putting and unnecessarily combative. I mean, I sometimes get angry on this site, but I donít enjoy it. Usually, I feel bad afterwards. I certainly donít get that vibe from you.

Quote:
Of course they [politics and history] matter.
Not in electioneering. Thatís why Trump won. Thatís how GW Bush beat John Kerry after starting an immoral, needless war. Thatís why the most charismatic candidate has won every US General election since they started televising the debates.

Whatís your evidence that policies and history matter in US General Elections post 1960?

Quote:
Bullshit. I don't consider Buttigeig either charismatic nor likeable. Complete disagreement with your thesis is about as subjective as you can possibly get.
Okay. Whoís more charismatic, Mick Jagger or Stephen Miller? Robert Mueller or Kanye West? Tom Cruise or Jacob Rees-Mogg? If charisma is truly subjective youíd expect a wide range of opinions on these questions. But you donít see them. Why not?

Fact is, charisma is like physical attractiveness. Itís impossible to define, but most people know it when they see it.

So you donít think Buttigieg is charismatic. Fine. But a lot of people do. More so than for any other candidate. Which is my Ďsilly little pollí saw him pick up 40% of the vote on a board full of Warren and Sanders supporters.

Quote:
And how many of the people responding to that poll are white?
How should I know?

Quote:
For the record: my skin colour is...not white. And I certainly didn't vote for Mayor Pete in your silly little poll..
Who did you vote for?

Quote:
That poll doesn't mean jack-shit. You really think that your tiny little poll on an obscure liberal messageboard on the internet means anything to anyone?
Most people who voted in that poll donít support Buttigieg, yet he got three times as many votes as the second highest scoring candidate. Therefore, I can conclude that even people who donít like Buttigieg are willing to concede he has more charisma and is more likeable than their preferred candidate.

As Iíve said, charisma and likability are the only things that matter in a US election. 40% will vote Democrat no matter what, 40% will vote Republican. The next election will be decided by the uncommitted 20%, and theyíll vote for the candidate who makes them feel best - and thatíll be the candidate with the most charisma.

As such, if you really want to beat Trump you should nominate Mayor Pete.

Quote:
It is entirely subjective.
Cite please.

Quote:
It isn't that "white people like Mayor Pete." Its the fact that "black people do not like Mayor Pete." The distinction is important.
A majority of black Democrats currently prefer other candidates. Thatís as much as you can safely say and that could easily change. But if Buttigieg were to become the nominee, do you think black Democrats would stay at home? Why?

Quote:
You do understand what a "talking point" is? it isn't a critique. When Mayor Pete said "there are some voices in the Democratic Primary right now who are who are calling for a policy that would eliminate the job of every single American working at every single insurance company in the country" that isn't a valid critique. Its a fucking lie. Its spin. Its a complete recontextualization of Warren and Bernie's plan wrapped up in a pithy sentence, AKA as a Talking Point, and this particular one is a GOP Talking Point. And by not including the word "health" to insurance this Talking Point turned into literal fake news
1) Heís clearly talking about health insurance. Itís abundantly obvious from the context. To call it fake news is just nitpicking.
2) As I understand it, Bernie wants to eliminate private health insurance. How are private health insurance workers going to keep their jobs if private health insurance is eliminated?

Quote:
And I'm the wrong person to be asking. If this is a key question you should be asking black people what they think. What will get them out to vote? Why aren't you directing that question to them?
I think itís safe to assume that black voters arenít going to take a second Trump term sitting down, donít you?

Quote:
Bernie probably wouldn't have won. Trump was the perfect storm, he defeated all of the Republicans in the primaries, he had help from a complicit press, from foreign governments, and he won with the most narrow of margins. To call the track record of black voters blemished, a people who were bought to your country in chains, have been massacred, didn't even universally get the vote until the 60's, and who at the last election were actively targeted to suppress their votes, is quite simply disgusting.

They made the right choices at the last election. Trump won because of white people. They deserve all of the blame.
1) Not my country.
2) Bernie wouldíve won.
3) Thereís nothing Ďdisgustingí about pointing out that black voters called it wrong in backing Hillary. And thereís nothing Ďdisgustingí about pointing out that black voters are (shock horror!) fallible just like everyone else.
4) I wasnít Ďblamingí black people for Trump (although 10% of black people who voted in 2016 voted for Trump). Thatís just more of the same disingenuous straw manning Iíve come to expect from you in particular and this board in general.

Iíll respond to the rest later. Probably over the weekend.
  #49  
Old 12-11-2019, 05:34 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I wasnít conceding. I was making an off-hand remark about your temperament, which is deeply off-putting and unnecessarily combative. I mean, I sometimes get angry on this site, but I donít enjoy it. Usually, I feel bad afterwards. I certainly donít get that vibe from you.
...yeah, I'm just the angry brown man.

Its the fucking pit. Its the place to rant, I'm fucking ranting, what the fuck do you expect? You want me to feel sorry for speaking my mind? Why the fuck would I do that? Is that the standard you hold everyone else to in the pit, or are you reserving that just for me?

Quote:
Not in electioneering.
Of course it does. Of course it matters. You can't pin everything on a single metric that you can't objectively measure.

Quote:
Thatís why Trump won.
That isn't why Trump won. Trump won for many different reasons: and to ignore those reasons in favour of a single metric is a dangerous strategy.

Quote:
Thatís how GW Bush beat John Kerry after starting an immoral, needless war. Thatís why the most charismatic candidate has won every US General election since they started televising the debates.
I'll be polite, and call this a valid possible hypothesis. I'm not going to accept your hypothesis though without the evidence: and even if you provided the evidence I'd have to point out to you that the next election won't be won over television, it will be fought for and won over the internet. The landscape is changing. It is chaotic. People are locked into their own personally curated propaganda channels, and whatever you think was the key to previous elections won't be the case in 2020.

Quote:
Whatís your evidence that policies and history matter in US General Elections post 1960?
Where is your evidence that "charisma" was the only thing that mattered in every US General Election post 1960?

Quote:
Okay. Whoís more charismatic, Mick Jagger or Stephen Miller? Robert Mueller or Kanye West? Tom Cruise or Jacob Rees-Mogg? If charisma is truly subjective youíd expect a wide range of opinions on these questions. But you donít see them. Why not?
The wide-range of opinions is what makes something subjective. People do find Miller and West and Rees-Mogg charismatic. This isn't an objective measure.

Quote:
Fact is, charisma is like physical attractiveness. Itís impossible to define, but most people know it when they see it.
If it is impossible to define it is, by definition, a subjective measure.

Quote:
So you donít think Buttigieg is charismatic. Fine. But a lot of people do. More so than for any other candidate. Which is my Ďsilly little pollí saw him pick up 40% of the vote on a board full of Warren and Sanders supporters.
Your silly little poll on an obscure message board is statistically meaningless.

Quote:
How should I know?
You could ask.

Quote:
Who did you vote for?
None of your fucking business. (I said you could ask. Never said you would get a polite answer.) But if you don't know the answer to that question then what does the poll actually tell you?

Quote:
Most people who voted in that poll donít support Buttigieg, yet he got three times as many votes as the second highest scoring candidate. Therefore, I can conclude that even people who donít like Buttigieg are willing to concede he has more charisma and is more likeable than their preferred candidate.
You can make whatever conclusions you like from your unscientific tiny little insignificant poll. But your conclusions don't mean jack-shit.

Quote:
As Iíve said, charisma and likability are the only things that matter in a US election. 40% will vote Democrat no matter what, 40% will vote Republican. The next election will be decided by the uncommitted 20%, and theyíll vote for the candidate who makes them feel best - and thatíll be the candidate with the most charisma.
You make a lot of assumptions here. Voting for the "candidate that makes them feel best" won't necessarily be the one who is most "charismatic." The decision making process at the voting booth is complex. And we aren't probably talking about 20%. The votes that matter will probably be a (figuratively) handful of voters in a handful of battleground states. You want to hedge your bets on a single subjective measure? I think you need to do much better than that.

Quote:
As such, if you really want to beat Trump you should nominate Mayor Pete.
I find this statement...unconvincing.


Quote:
Cite please.
Subjective.

Quote:
A majority of black Democrats currently prefer other candidates. Thatís as much as you can safely say and that could easily change. But if Buttigieg were to become the nominee, do you think black Democrats would stay at home? Why?
I think that black voters will come out in force regardless of who the nominee is. They will come out in force despite efforts to suppress their vote, despite threats to their safety and security, they will come out to vote because America is creeping toward a white-supremacist authoritarian state.

It isn't about whether or not they stay home or not. Its about not taking their vote for granted. Its about listening to what they have to say. They have valid concerns about a potential Buttigeig presidency and the very least you can do is give them the time of day.


Quote:
1) Heís clearly talking about health insurance. Itís abundantly obvious from the context. To call it fake news is just nitpicking.
It isn't nitpicking. It was a clearly rehearsed talking point that he used to deflect attention from the question he was being asked.

Quote:
2) As I understand it, Bernie wants to eliminate private health insurance. How are private health insurance workers going to keep their jobs if private health insurance is eliminated?
Well, yeah. What is it do you think a Talking Point is? Its a short, pithy sentence that recontextualizes complex arguments into a media friendly sound-byte.

What is it, do you think a properly running healthcare system should be?

I live in New Zealand. We have universal healthcare here. I went into hospital a couple of months ago. My blood had elevated levels of something and my GP recommended I go to A+E to get checked up. They kept me overnight. I got a bed in the ward. They gave me free drugs. I got a CT scan, blood tests. I got dinner and breakfast.

And it turned out that there was nothing wrong, so they discharged me. Do you know how much I paid out of pocket for that experience?

Nothing. Zero. Zilch. I even got a voucher for my car so I didn't even have to pay for parking.

I pay less in taxes for my stay in hospital (as a percentage of total tax take) than I would if i lived in the United States. And I don't have to pay insurance on top of my taxes. I don't have a deductible to pay, nor co-pays. I don't have to worry about getting taken to a hospital that is "out of network". I'm not going to get a bill that will bankrupt me in a couple of months time. Our hospital system is designed to fix people, get them better, then back out into society.

And we manage to be able to do that and our country currently operates at surplus.

What value does the insurance industry add to healthcare? We have private medical insurance here, but all it gets you is a private room and maybe speed up the process in some non-urgent procedures. What is the point of this additional layer of bureaucracy?

I don't agree with "eliminating private health insurance." But that's a quibble that would be on the negotiating table if Bernie were to ever come close to implementing his plan.

But it is disingenuous to compare the sort of job cuts that Buttigieg was being asked about to the loss-of-jobs in an industry that probably never needed to exist in the first place. We don't need coal as much any more and while I have sympathy for coal miners the closing down of many coal mines is simply inevitable. One-hour photo labs used to be on every street corner and now there are only 200 in the US. There are hardly any video stores any more.

Entire industries become obsolete all the time. If the goal of your healthcare system is to fix people without them going bankrupt, and you can do that cheaper and more effectively without a healthcare insurance than with it, then why would you need healthcare insurance?

This is why talking point are so effective. To respond to a talking point with a pithy talking point doesn't do the debate any justice. This is also one of the reasons why Buttigeig is seen by many as charasmatic. He doesn't have to explain anything. He can deflect, he can be curt, he can ignore and hide from debate. Buggigeig has been ruder than Castro but Castro gets the reputation for rudeness.

Quote:
I think itís safe to assume that black voters arenít going to take a second Trump term sitting down, donít you?
Of course. Even if you advocate for the worst possible candidate to represent their interests (and Pete is the worst possible candidate out of all the Democratic nominees for black people) they will still keep standing up because unlike you, their lives are on the line.

Quote:
1) Not my country.
Not your country what?

Quote:
2) Bernie wouldíve won.
You do realize that all the polls showed that Hillary should have beaten Trump don't you? Its very easy to be right "after the fact."

Quote:
3) Thereís nothing Ďdisgustingí about pointing out that black voters called it wrong in backing Hillary.
But they weren't wrong. They did their job at the last election. Trump didn't win because black people voted for the wrong person. Trump won because white people voted for the wrong person.

Quote:
And thereís nothing Ďdisgustingí about pointing out that black voters are (shock horror!) fallible just like everyone else.
They weren't fallible here. They did their job at the last election and they will do the job at the next election. It isn't the black voter that needs to step up.

Quote:
4) I wasnít Ďblamingí black people for Trump (although 10% of black people who voted in 2016 voted for Trump).
89% of black people who voted voted for Hillary, only 8% voted for Trump. 52% of white men voted for Trump, 41% of white women voted for Trump. It should be pretty fucking crystal clear who deserves most of the blame.

Quote:
Thatís just more of the same disingenuous straw manning Iíve come to expect from you in particular and this board in general.
You don't even know what a strawman is. The next President of the United States is going to have to deal with things that no President has ever had to deal with before. In Dungeons and Dragons the Fighter with high-charisma but low strength and no constitution is going to die a horrible death. The next President of the United States need to be able to fight a battle on multiple fronts. I just don't thing Buggigeig is up to it.

Quote:
Iíll respond to the rest later. Probably over the weekend.
LOL.

You are only going to "respond to the rest later" because you are a conflict junkie. Imagine not only committing to responding to my posts later, but announcing that commitment to everyone as well. You are here for the conflict. Just in a passive-aggressive way.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017