Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:36 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Fiddle Peghead
What makes him a "faux progressive"? One example for why I ask this: Bernie Sanders is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and wants to immediately upon gaining office get rid of private insurance and implement government run health care for all.
Sounds great.

Quote:
Pete Buttigieg is for "Medicare for All Who Want It", which is essentially having both systems where one takes their pick.
Because it's essentially a trick, all of the uninsurable patients would be dumped onto the public service, whilst the private insurers would reap all the ones who were low risk, and then Buttigieg would be able to turn to the public and say 'See, Public insurance is inefficient and unreliable' Thus justifying cut backs and rolling back of any pretense of public healthcare.

Quote:
This is not a typical progressive position, in my estimation. He is telling you right there that he is not a full-on progressive.
Okay, but he literally is quoted on record back in Feb 2018 saying he supported Medicare for all, then walked it back once it became a problem for his large corporate donors.

Quote:
Now, it may be the case that Buttigieg himself goes around calling himself a progressive (I have no idea if the does this) and if that's the case, then perhaps that would be your short answer. Otherwise, it seems to me that some people in articles I read online sometimes project the progressive label onto him so that they can then attack him for being a phony. What say you?
He's a phony of the Patrick Bateman vibe, he doesn't care about anything really other than getting into positions of power and will do anything to get there. What really irritates me is how his faux charm has won over so many people.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #52  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:44 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,455
Given that he's been campaigning and among the leading candidates for a year, it's rather amazing how little has been said about how he did as mayor. It's not only that his sole political experience is as mayor of a small town, but that he did a really bad job as mayor of a small town. All kinds of bad things dealing with city government happened while he was mayor, but the national media barely seems to have any interest. I happen to live nearby, so I see the headlines in the South Bend Tribune constantly.

Heck, a city government office was raided by the FBI this past summer. Poor children in the public schools failed to receive school lunches. There's a steady parade of city officials resigning after corruption or incompetence came to light. The city has a sizable homeless problem and the response has been one embarrassment after another.

I guess it's not surprising that the liberal media largely avoids this stuff, but if Pete actually gets the nomination, I doubt that the Republicans will be so nice.

Last edited by ITR champion; 02-05-2020 at 04:45 PM.
  #53  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:52 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
As far as how Trump would run against Mayor Pete, IMHO Trump will likely steer clear of using the gay angle.
Trump himself might avoid the gay angle, but pastors and preachers in countless churches across the nation, addressing countless congregations, will likely bring it up. Because Buttigieg isn't a gay atheist running for president, in which it might be considered unremarkable. He is someone who claims that Christianity, and Scripture, endorses homosexuality (or, at least, does not oppose it.) This will bring the topic into the pulpit with far more ferocity than otherwise.

It would be like how most Muslim voters wouldn't care about a pork-eating atheist running for office - that's par for the course - but they would object vehemently to someone who claims to be Muslim and not only eats pork but claims that the Quran endorses pork consumption.

Sure, most people who would vote for Trump because of Buttigieg's gayness would be voting Trump anyway, but this issue can rev up turnout among the religious right in a way that there might not have been otherwise.

The term "wolf in sheep's clothing" is already circulating as a description of Buttigieg. A wolf in wolf's clothing is unremarkable. A wolf in sheep's clothing fires up much greater intensity.

Last edited by Velocity; 02-05-2020 at 04:56 PM.
  #54  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:53 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 29,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
He's a nice guy, and has charisma. But he has no national experience and I am afraid that a openly gay man wont play in Peoria.
Are you sure about that? Because South Bend, Indiana is in a pretty red state - it's where Pence comes from, you know - and it largely seems to be a non-issue around here.
  #55  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:54 PM
Sterling Archer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Haven't observed that hate thing myself. I too would most prefer a Warren/Buttigieg ticket. I don't even care which goes where. They are my two favorite candidates.


Same here, I don’t see any cross-campaign hate.
  #56  
Old 02-05-2020, 06:57 PM
asterion is offline
Your Ad Here
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 11,793
So, for those who say Buttigieg is too young, is there anyone in his part of the early Millennials you would find acceptable had they run or do we have to keep waiting for our parents (and possibly grandparents) to get out of the way maybe a decade from now?
  #57  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterling Archer View Post
Same here, I donít see any cross-campaign hate.
So, in what contexts do you usually use the phrase "loathsome turd"?
  #58  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:07 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Mayor Pete has almost zero minority support, has no real platform for structural change around the country and his only talent is upholding a facade of progressivism whilst enabling the worst aspects of corporate power to be assured of their dominance in American political life.
The U.S. congress is not ready for your agenda. And I don't want to replace one strongman with another.

Perhaps I should then be for Bernie, who seems ineffective in the Senate, and whose health issues may render him less than energetic.

As for who will win -- Trump. Incumbent + economic growth = second term. I realize that Trump is unpopular, and a bit behind in many polls, but he's brilliant when it comes to character assassination. As a result, whomever is nominated will subsequently lose support.

As for who is most likely to do what's unlikely -- beating Trump -- I'd say Biden, especially with a Biden/Abrams ticket.

People have made up their mind about Biden, pro and con, making him somewhat resistant to Trump's coming character assassination campaign.

I'm thinking that Warren is also one where minds up made up, with the main line of attack against her extremely widely known. She could run a fairly strong race.

Buttigieg could conceivably be strong against Trump. I guess he'd make Harris his VP candidate. We really don't know what Trump would do to try to destroy Pete. If the GOP oppo research effort against him finds little, Pete could win.

Candidate identity is less important than structural factors like the economy, and time for a change dynamics (as in 2016), and incumbency (as this year).

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 02-05-2020 at 08:08 PM.
  #59  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:50 PM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,176
I suspect he would be a fine veep. Further watching him debate Pence would be priceless.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #60  
Old 02-05-2020, 08:58 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
The term "wolf in sheep's clothing" is already circulating as a description of Buttigieg. A wolf in wolf's clothing is unremarkable. A wolf in sheep's clothing fires up much greater intensity.
Whatever clothing he's wearing, at least a wolf is still a wolf. It's better to have a wolf than a sheep. Well, I mean, it's better to have a wolf fighting for your team, than a sheep. (If we're just talking about literally having an animal in your presence, most people would probably go with the sheep.)

I wouldn't call any of the other Democratic candidates sheep, exactly. They're more like old, weak horses.

Every SINGLE TIME I see Pete talking about something, he just knocks it out of the park. The guy is SO good at talking and sounding authoritative, confident, and tough when he needs to be. It is so rare for me to be impressed by any politician. For all of my life (and I'm not that much younger than Pete himself) the ONLY politician in my lifetime I can remember really being impressed by, was Obama. I don't mean impressed by his policies or his administration, I mean impressed by HIM.

I absolutely think he has a VERY strong shot against Trump. I think Bernie has somewhat of a shot at beating Trump, but it's a gamble. With all the other Democratic contenders, I think they have no shot at all and are a guaranteed 2nd Trump term.
  #61  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:03 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
So, for those who say Buttigieg is too young, is there anyone in his part of the early Millennials you would find acceptable had they run or do we have to keep waiting for our parents (and possibly grandparents) to get out of the way maybe a decade from now?
Late 30s isn't really enough time to develop the life experience to become president. Generally I'd prefer someone be at least 50, which gives them 30 years of experience at being an adult. 60s seems to be the sweet spot regarding age. You've had decades of life experience, but your mind is still sharp and you won't die within the next 4-8 years.

Granted the last 2 democratic presidents were in their 40s and they did fine.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-05-2020 at 09:05 PM.
  #62  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:10 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Sounds great.



Because it's essentially a trick, all of the uninsurable patients would be dumped onto the public service, whilst the private insurers would reap all the ones who were low risk, and then Buttigieg would be able to turn to the public and say 'See, Public insurance is inefficient and unreliable' Thus justifying cut backs and rolling back of any pretense of public healthcare.



Okay, but he literally is quoted on record back in Feb 2018 saying he supported Medicare for all, then walked it back once it became a problem for his large corporate donors.



He's a phony of the Patrick Bateman vibe, he doesn't care about anything really other than getting into positions of power and will do anything to get there. What really irritates me is how his faux charm has won over so many people.
Realistically, the democratic congress will, at best, pass a medicare buy in for people over the age of 50 or 55. It'll be a giveaway to insurance companies by moving middle aged people into the medicare system, so private insurance doesn't have to cover them (and will only have to cover medical costs for people under age 50 or 55 who are also healthy enough to hold down a job that offers insurance benefits). The democrats won't even pass medicare for all who want it, at best they'll pass 'medicare for people who cost the private system lots of money'

Buttigieg isn't a progressive, but even if we elect Sanders or Warren they won't accomplish anything. Joe Manchin isn't going to vote for progressive legislation, and a senate run by Schumer isn't going to accomplish anything.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #63  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:11 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Late 30s isn't really enough time to develop the life experience to become president. Generally I'd prefer someone be at least 50, which gives them 30 years of experience at being an adult. 60s seems to be the sweet spot regarding age. You've had decades of life experience, but your mind is still sharp and you won't die within the next 4-8 years.
Ah yes, like that shitty president, Kennedy, who was only 43. He was definitely in over his head, and certainly not popular with the electorate - not someone who projected an image of authority and power. They'd NEVER, for instance, compare him with a famous mythological king. You have to have lots of life experience, like Richard Nixon, to achieve that.

And Buttigieg, who's even five years younger than Kennedy was - my God - do you have any idea how important those five years are? They don't call the years between age 38 and 43 "the formative years" for nothing.

Last edited by Lamoral; 02-05-2020 at 09:12 PM.
  #64  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:31 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,410
Obama did not do well his first two years as president. Mainly because he did not recognize how scorpion like the Republicans were. And he got blasted in the 2010 election. But Obama took the administration from a president who at least was able to do a good job helping his successor with the transition. (Yes, I just said something nice about Dubya.)

Buttigieg would be taking over a complete clusterf**k. There simply has been no continuity since Jan 20, 2017. I suspect he'd need to go back to Obama era officials to get any real help with the transition. Not sure such a tyro, even a very bright, energetic and willing tyro, would be up to the task.

I want to see a hardened Washington insider take on the job. And even for someone like that, it's going to be very very difficult. (My recommendation has been for Andrew Cuomo to become chief of staff. That man can flat out kick ass and he has Washington experience. He's not a nice guy, but he gets things done.) I'm not certain Buttigieg would have the chops to stand up to a personality like Cuomo's.

The country is in deep trouble and I don't believe mayor Pete is the person to rescue it. Now is not the time for something new and untried.
  #65  
Old 02-05-2020, 09:49 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
Maybe that is all true, but I think Pete is more ELECTABLE than the other candidates and isn't that what it all comes down to in this particular scenario?

Barack Obama was something "new and untried" and he won. Donald Trump was also something "new and untried" and he won. It's MY opinion that the Democrats need someone "new and untried" if they're going to win this time around, and both Pete and Bernie fit that bill even though they are very different policy-wise. But none of the other Democrats really do.
  #66  
Old 02-05-2020, 10:34 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Ah yes, like that shitty president, Kennedy, who was only 43. He was definitely in over his head, and certainly not popular with the electorate - not someone who projected an image of authority and power. They'd NEVER, for instance, compare him with a famous mythological king. You have to have lots of life experience, like Richard Nixon, to achieve that.

And Buttigieg, who's even five years younger than Kennedy was - my God - do you have any idea how important those five years are? They don't call the years between age 38 and 43 "the formative years" for nothing.
JFK was a mediocre president, the greatest thing he ever did was pick LBJ as his VP. LBJ was competent and got a lot of very meaningful domestic programs passed. Civil rights act, voting rights act, medicare, medicaid and a variety of programs for the environment and education.

Your argument for young people is to pick a mediocre pretty boy? I'm sure there are highly competent political leaders in their 30s, but I wouldn't consider JFK one.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #67  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:02 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
Iowa is even farther from the liberal coasts than Peoria.

The whole "nation isn't ready for ____" meme smacks of "we better keep picking old white straight Christian guys, or we'll lose in the general election!"..
Well, look, I didnt say never go for Pete, but he also has no national politcal experience.
A couple terms in Congress or something will fix that.
  #68  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:06 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Are you sure about that? Because South Bend, Indiana is in a pretty red state - it's where Pence comes from, you know - and it largely seems to be a non-issue around here.
Look at the polls, match up vs trump. Pete does the worst vs trump, nationally:


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...eral_election/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/

Could be his orientation, could be his lack of experience.
  #69  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:09 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by asterion View Post
So, for those who say Buttigieg is too young, is there anyone in his part of the early Millennials you would find acceptable had they run or do we have to keep waiting for our parents (and possibly grandparents) to get out of the way maybe a decade from now?
Hardly too young but he has no national experience.
  #70  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:29 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
JFK was a mediocre president, the greatest thing he ever did was pick LBJ as his VP. LBJ was competent and got a lot of very meaningful domestic programs passed. Civil rights act, voting rights act, medicare, medicaid and a variety of programs for the environment and education.
Horseshit. JFK got the Moon Landing in the works. That wasn't just a flex on the Soviet Union, it was something that boosted the country's morale tremendously. JFK's quote about "ask not what your country can do for you" is still one of the most venerable and admired bits of verbiage today.

The man who was probably the single biggest influence in my life other than my own parents - a guy from a privileged background with a college education, who voluntarily joined the Army and went to Vietnam to fight in combat as an officer during the bloodiest years of that conflict - and who later covered the Fall of Saigon as a civilian journalist - and went on to have the most distinguished career, not just in his own field but out of literally EVERYONE that I know, and I've been lucky enough to cross paths with a number of A-listers - that man, to this day, directly credits Kennedy's "ask not" speech as his motivation to embark on that path.

That means that Kennedy had an influence on me. And I'm 33.
  #71  
Old 02-05-2020, 11:55 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar View Post
I suspect he would be a fine veep. Further watching him debate Pence would be priceless.
And Pence knowing that a gay man moving into his house, should the Dems win the election, would be priceless as well.

I'm hearing and seeing some chatter that the malfunctioning app that led to the Iowa caucus debacle (in which I would have been a participant if I hadn't been sick) was largely underwritten by the Buttigieg campaign.
  #72  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:04 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Horseshit. JFK got the Moon Landing in the works. That wasn't just a flex on the Soviet Union, it was something that boosted the country's morale tremendously. JFK's quote about "ask not what your country can do for you" is still one of the most venerable and admired bits of verbiage today.

The man who was probably the single biggest influence in my life other than my own parents - a guy from a privileged background with a college education, who voluntarily joined the Army and went to Vietnam to fight in combat as an officer during the bloodiest years of that conflict - and who later covered the Fall of Saigon as a civilian journalist - and went on to have the most distinguished career, not just in his own field but out of literally EVERYONE that I know, and I've been lucky enough to cross paths with a number of A-listers - that man, to this day, directly credits Kennedy's "ask not" speech as his motivation to embark on that path.

That means that Kennedy had an influence on me. And I'm 33.
The fact that the apollo program impressed you doesn't mean he was a good president.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #73  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:22 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
You missed, like, 85% of the rest of my point, but OK.
  #74  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:03 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Whatever clothing he's wearing, at least a wolf is still a wolf. It's better to have a wolf than a sheep. Well, I mean, it's better to have a wolf fighting for your team, than a sheep. (If we're just talking about literally having an animal in your presence, most people would probably go with the sheep.)

I wouldn't call any of the other Democratic candidates sheep, exactly. They're more like old, weak horses.

Every SINGLE TIME I see Pete talking about something, he just knocks it out of the park. The guy is SO good at talking and sounding authoritative, confident, and tough when he needs to be. It is so rare for me to be impressed by any politician. For all of my life (and I'm not that much younger than Pete himself) the ONLY politician in my lifetime I can remember really being impressed by, was Obama. I don't mean impressed by his policies or his administration, I mean impressed by HIM.

I absolutely think he has a VERY strong shot against Trump. I think Bernie has somewhat of a shot at beating Trump, but it's a gamble. With all the other Democratic contenders, I think they have no shot at all and are a guaranteed 2nd Trump term.
This! All of it!

Also, Pete is the only person I know of that can best Trump's rhetoric with out stooping to his juvenile antics.

Pete is the ONLY one that can destroy Trump in the debates (yeah, I know the debates have little impact on the election).

I don't care if he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I don't care if he's taking PAC money. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

It's not my ideal way of winning the WH, but seriously, this country is hemorrhaging democracy. We need to stabilize that shit stat. I'll go back to worrying about feel good ideals once we bring this country back to sanity.
  #75  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:32 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,780
I don't exactly see a lot in Pete's municipal record that wows me, but I don't think this is relevant. As far as I can tell, public schools in South Bend are not operated by the city government, but by an independent school district.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 02-06-2020 at 01:35 AM.
  #76  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:36 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Are you sure about that? Because South Bend, Indiana is in a pretty red state - it's where Pence comes from, you know - and it largely seems to be a non-issue around here.
South Bend has elected seven consecutive democratic party mayors since 1972.

You have to go back to 1964 when a republican was elected mayor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Bend,_Indiana
  #77  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:06 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
I don't exactly see a lot in Pete's municipal record that wows me, but I don't think this is relevant. As far as I can tell, public schools in South Bend are not operated by the city government, but by an independent school district.
What would be relevant was when and how Buttigieg found out about it, what he tried to do about it, and what the results were. The school district might be technically independent, but it's hard to imagine they'd tell the mayor of the major city in the school district to go fuck himself.
  #78  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:08 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral
Maybe that is all true, but I think Pete is more ELECTABLE than the other candidates and isn't that what it all comes down to in this particular scenario?
Yeah, like anyone really knows what will constitute 'electability' this year, or who will turn out to be 'electable' after another nine months of the media circus.

Vote for the candidate you think is best. Leave 'electability' calculations out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
Pete is the only person I know of that can best Trump's rhetoric with out stooping to his juvenile antics.

Pete is the ONLY one that can destroy Trump in the debates (yeah, I know the debates have little impact on the election).
Now this is nothing but fanboyism.
  #79  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:27 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Vote for the candidate you think is best. Leave 'electability' calculations out of it.
Now this is nothing but fanboyism.
Well okay, think that if you want, but I say Pete would be better at the debates based on what I've observed from him and not blind loyalty.

When he gets asked hardball questions, whether it be on the debate stage or in interviews. He has an immediate response, that is well reasoned, articulated and thought out. These aren't canned responses either. He can do this off the cuff.

Where as the other candidates, tend to be slower, tripping over their words, and oftentimes can't remember all the details of their talking points. Which makes them look weak even if their policies are sound.

The optics look better for Pete in my opinion.
__________________
"What kind of a man desecrates a defenseless textbook?"
  #80  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:31 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
What would be relevant was when and how Buttigieg found out about it, what he tried to do about it, and what the results were. The school district might be technically independent, but it's hard to imagine they'd tell the mayor of the major city in the school district to go fuck himself.
I live in a city where the mayor has no control over the school board. We're having a series of major school scandals and the mayor can do nothing about it, except call for the schools to be placed under city government, which might or might not be a good idea.
  #81  
Old 02-06-2020, 12:32 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly
Yeah, like anyone really knows what will constitute 'electability' this year, or who will turn out to be 'electable' after another nine months of the media circus.
Electability this year will be the same as it is every year: Charisma. If you have more of it than the other guy, you win. Period. End of story. Done. Finito. It really is that simple. Pete has more of it than Trump so he’ll win.

Now, whether that’s a good thing is a whole other conversation.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 02-06-2020 at 12:34 PM.
  #82  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:01 PM
SuntanLotion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: mentor ohio
Posts: 295
A president who won't sexually harrass women? Sign me up.
__________________
I want to know what happened pre malone
  #83  
Old 02-06-2020, 01:43 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 16,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grrr! View Post
I don't care if he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I don't care if he's taking PAC money. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Exactly. Nobody goes to Washington DC to meet nice people. But it never hurts to make some think they have met a nice person in Washington DC.
  #84  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:17 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
He's a phony of the Patrick Bateman vibe, he doesn't care about anything really other than getting into positions of power and will do anything to get there. What really irritates me is how his faux charm has won over so many people.
For the record, I agree, Bernie's plan for health care does indeed sound great. I hope it happens ASAP. My point was that you seem to dislike Buttigieg because he is not a real progressive, only a "faux" progressive. But if he doesn't profess to be a progressive, you shouldn't fault him for it if he himself doesn't claim to be one. Certainly you can be against his positions, though, but that doesn't make him phony.

As for him not caring about anything other than power, how do you determine this? How do you know that Sanders, for example, doesn't only care about power, but is just better at pretending that he wants to help others? I am NOT saying I believe this. I'm just interested in how you tell the difference.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-06-2020 at 03:20 PM.
  #85  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:19 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Trump himself might avoid the gay angle, but pastors and preachers in countless churches across the nation, addressing countless congregations, will likely bring it up. Because Buttigieg isn't a gay atheist running for president, in which it might be considered unremarkable. He is someone who claims that Christianity, and Scripture, endorses homosexuality (or, at least, does not oppose it.) This will bring the topic into the pulpit with far more ferocity than otherwise.

It would be like how most Muslim voters wouldn't care about a pork-eating atheist running for office - that's par for the course - but they would object vehemently to someone who claims to be Muslim and not only eats pork but claims that the Quran endorses pork consumption.

Sure, most people who would vote for Trump because of Buttigieg's gayness would be voting Trump anyway, but this issue can rev up turnout among the religious right in a way that there might not have been otherwise.

The term "wolf in sheep's clothing" is already circulating as a description of Buttigieg. A wolf in wolf's clothing is unremarkable. A wolf in sheep's clothing fires up much greater intensity.
I completely disagree. I'm not a Pete fan overall, but I think his overt religiosity is one of the strongest points in his favor.

I think there are a whole lot of moderate and even liberal voters who have been turned off of the Democratic Party by the perception that it is anti-religious.

Typically, when right-wing Christians cite the Bible to justify their homophobia/sexism/general fuckedupness, Democrats respond with platitudes about multiculturalism, tolerance and the ideal of a secular government. I think a lot of people would LOVE to see a politician take them on on their own ground and quote Scripture back at them.

Your Muslim analogy fails because AFAIK there is no significant strain of Islam which permits eating pork. But millions of Americans belong to churches which teach that homosexuality isn't a sin, and I think they'd be thrilled to have their point of view expressed in the political arena for a change.

And really, for Pete there's no downside here. He already married a guy, and it's mathematically impossible for his support among conservative evangelicals to drop below zero.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 02-06-2020 at 03:20 PM.
  #86  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:54 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
I'm not sure on all those points but I think Buttigieg's sexual orientation is a minor factor in electoral prospects. It's hard to say stuff like that without being accused of naive or 'out of touch' but at a certain point it just is really marginal. As is Sanders' being Jewish*. Nobody can prove it would lose zero votes in either case but among all the varying factors, there never being two otherwise identical candidates except one with A religion or sexual orientation and one with B, I don't think it's significant in either case. Considering either thing can also pick up some votes, or get some people to go out and vote for you who would have stayed home otherwise.

(Post snipped)

Well, there IS the woman in Iowa who asked for her vote back after learning that Mayor Pete is gay.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...arning-hes-gay
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #87  
Old 02-06-2020, 03:57 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 554
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed this thread keeps disappearing and reappearing from the front page for this forum?
  #88  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:01 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Mayor Pete has almost zero minority support, has no real platform for structural change around the country and his only talent is upholding a facade of progressivism whilst enabling the worst aspects of corporate power to be assured of their dominance in American political life. He also flip flopped on medicare for all, his 'Douglas plan' Was ridiculous and his dealings with McKinsey are questionable at best.

It blows my mind why anyone cannot see him for what he really is, a faux progressive trying to borrow the soundbytes from Obama to paper over the vacuousness of his campaign. I don't know why people in the older generation are falling for it or think he's a stand up guy, maybe it's to assuage their 'Look see! I'm progressive!' Without actually having to do give up anything which makes for a more equitable society.

So if he wins the primaries and gets nominated, I hope those Pete supporters enjoy another second term of Trump, because he's essentially Hillary 2.0
While Mayor Pete is not my first, or even second choice for Presidential candidate, I won't write him off. He has to be an incredibly well-organized, inspiring leader to have gone so far on a resume that ought to be printed on the skin of a helium balloon. He is charismatic, calculating, and wicked smart. I think that he would have Trump on the ropes in any debates. That said, I still think Joe Biden is our best chance for dumping Trump, especially if he can get Klobuchar as his running mate. Bernie and Warren are exactly the candidates Trump would like to run against and Bloomberg can kiss my ass. He is like the shitty people that chat up friends in long lines and finesse their ways in.
  #89  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:04 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
All of that assumes Trump is debating anyone. There is a decent chance he doesn't.

Oh, as for the Kennedy argument up thread. It's not a popular view among my fellow Democrats, but yeah, I do think Kennedy was a shitty President who was over his head. He talked nice and motivated Americans to be more patriotic - so did Reagan. Give me an LBJ any day.
  #90  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:05 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed this thread keeps disappearing and reappearing from the front page for this forum?
Are you alleging an anti-Bernie conspiracy of some sort?
  #91  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:23 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed this thread keeps disappearing and reappearing from the front page for this forum?
Whoa! Yeah, I just noticed that happening.
  #92  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:49 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
All of that assumes Trump is debating anyone. There is a decent chance he doesn't.

Oh, as for the Kennedy argument up thread. It's not a popular view among my fellow Democrats, but yeah, I do think Kennedy was a shitty President who was over his head. He talked nice and motivated Americans to be more patriotic - so did Reagan. Give me an LBJ any day.
This thread isn't about Pete being an awful awful president. It's about him supposedly being an awful awful candidate. This seems to have eluded a lot of people - and I admit I sidetracked it myself when I described Kennedy as having been a good president. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But would anyone really argue that Kennedy was a bad candidate?

Do people want Donald Trump out of the White House or not? Do you WANT to keep seeing his fucking face every time you look at the news? If the answer is "no", then the most important factor in this election is "who is the most electable candidate."

The idea that Trump would not participate in a debate against the Democratic nominee is manifestly absurd. The man lives for the spotlight. It's sheer fantasy to imagine that he would ever be cowed away from the debate stage by ANY man, woman, vegetable or mineral.
  #93  
Old 02-06-2020, 04:50 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui View Post
All of that assumes Trump is debating anyone. There is a decent chance he doesn't.

Oh, as for the Kennedy argument up thread. It's not a popular view among my fellow Democrats, but yeah, I do think Kennedy was a shitty President who was over his head. He talked nice and motivated Americans to be more patriotic - so did Reagan. Give me an LBJ any day.
I'm not sure JFK was a shitty President, but he is certainly over-rated. His efforts to rub out Castro and the whole Cuban Missile Crisis show that he did not exercise the best judgment to say the least. His appointment of his brother as Attorney General was rather questionable. And, since he was an avowed anti-communist, the idea that he would not have turned up the heat in Vietnam the way LBJ did is dubious. He would have given his ears to the same advisors as Johnson and would have been at least as eager to keep all the dominoes in East Asia standing. In all likelihood he would have gotten us knee-deep in the big muddy just the same.
  #94  
Old 02-06-2020, 05:12 PM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
then the most important factor in this election is "who is the most electable candidate."
By that factor I'd consider Buttigieg even less of a factor. As stated up thread in head-to-heads with Trump he's always lower than Sanders and Biden (who usually polls BEST against Trump head-to-head). He tends to be the same or slightly better than Warren head-to-head against Trump. He also doesn't seem to excite African-Americans in way that would increase turnout (neither does Warren either).
  #95  
Old 02-06-2020, 05:19 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
(Post snipped)

Well, there IS the woman in Iowa who asked for her vote back after learning that Mayor Pete is gay.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...arning-hes-gay
Yeah I saw that. But again there are also people who are more likely to go out and vote* if they think a candidate even might be discriminated against by other voters for some invalid reason. And they might be more numerous at this point IMO when it comes to a gay or Jewish candidate than voters who'd actually switch sides or stay home because the candidate of the party they'd otherwise vote for is gay or Jewish. I think it's reached the point of ambiguity for those two things nationally** in the US.

*Not so much people who'd switch parties but people who'd vote Democratic if they voted but might be more inspired to actually go vote if there was any sense the Democratic candidate was being attacked for sexual orientation or religion.
**our small city mayor is non-Judeo-Christian. I think it's more likely that flyers in the last election calling him a 'terrorist' were put out by dirty tricks groups supporting him (perhaps without his knowledge) than the candidate whose name was on them as supposedly saying that. Anyway it certainly helped him net IMO, in this local electorate. National electorate for that particular case, maybe not.
  #96  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:50 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 32,035
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Electability this year will be the same as it is every year: Charisma. If you have more of it than the other guy, you win. Period. End of story. Done. Finito. It really is that simple. Pete has more of it than Trump so heíll win.
You must have a wildly different definition of charisma than anything I've heard before.
  #97  
Old 02-06-2020, 06:55 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Charisma is completely subjective. My subjective opinion is that I don't think Pete has it. He comes off like he's acting, just reading his lines off a teleprompter. I just don't get the sense that he actually feels passionate about what he's saying, in contrast to, say, Obama. YMMV.
  #98  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:18 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Off topic, but has anyone else noticed this thread keeps disappearing and reappearing from the front page for this forum?
Not that, but as Sherrerd said, I too was having trouble quoting. An empty text box kept being displayed. And there were no javascript errors or such. Very strange.
  #99  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:20 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Charisma is completely subjective. My subjective opinion is that I don't think Pete has it. He comes off like he's acting, just reading his lines off a teleprompter. I just don't get the sense that he actually feels passionate about what he's saying, in contrast to, say, Obama. YMMV.
My subjective opinion is quite different. I find him smart, articulate and engaging. Kind of like Obama, but not exactly.
  #100  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:22 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
Do people want Donald Trump out of the White House or not? Do you WANT to keep seeing his fucking face every time you look at the news? If the answer is "no", then the most important factor in this election is "who is the most electable candidate."
..."electable" isn't really a thing. You can't measure it. You can't define it. You can't test it until after the election. We all want the best candidate to go up against Trump. But I don't think Buttigieg is that candidate. Some call him charismatic. I think he's as dull a post. Some think he would "destroy" Trump in the debates. I think that Trump would stomp all over him and make him look like a fool.

Some think when you ask him " hardball questions, whether it be on the debate stage or in interviews he has an immediate response, that is well reasoned, articulated and thought out, these aren't canned responses either, and that he can do this off the cuff", while I think that every response he gives is focus-tested to the point of blandness, that he can do this off the cuff because his brain isn't really engaged and he is just regurgitating talking points.

And I think Castro was simply better than Buttigieg in every single way but got dinged for "attacking Biden" while Buttigieg has been much more passive-aggressively nastier than Castro but he gets a pass because some people perceive him as "more reasoned and articulate."

Buttigieg is the emperor with no clothes. He's an empty suit. We aren't talking policy in this thread because he doesn't bring anything to the table. If you want a charismatic candidate then ask Tom Hanks to run.

But if the Dems do manage to defeat Trump then you can't ignore the battle that they will be up against. Trump and co have basically destroyed the Federal government. Departments have been decimated. Acting head of Homeland Security. Acting head of ICE. Corrupt Attorney General. Immigration policy is being run by a literal white supremacist.

As Sarah Kendzior puts it: they are an international crime syndicate masquerading as a government. They have looted and pillaged. This isn't fucking normal. Whomever gets the nomination is going to have to both go through the process of both rebuilding and fixing institutions while fighting off a resurgent and nastier-then-ever GOP at the very same time. I personally think that Warren is easily the best candidate to be able to do this but both Biden and Sanders have got the experience and the chops to be able to do that as well.

But Buttigeig doesn't have it. He doesn't have the experience. He doesn't have the plans, he will be very easily out-flanked. He won't have time to "learn the job." He is an awful, awful candidate and Trump and the GOP will run rings around him.

But if you think otherwise: then make the case here. Not about "electability": because head-to-head all of the candidates in the varying polls will beat Trump to varying degrees. But about why Buttigeig would be the best President out of all of the candidates. And don't play the "do you want Trump out of the oval office" card because that is a nonsense argument. We (as in this thread) all want Trump gone. Disagreeing on a candidate doesn't mean we want Trump gone any less.
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 10:37 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