I don’t understand why people are cheering this guy, all I get is that all the other establishment candidates aren’t really making a dent against Sanders, so CNN and the likes keep trying to showboat establishment candidates with a veneer of progressive values ‘Oh look here’s Beto, Latinos’ love him’ or ‘Here’s Buttigieg, he’s Gay and a Rhodes scholar’ or ‘Kamala Harris, she’s the female candidate who’s gonna get Trump’ Get ready for Biden next with ‘Biden comes to the rescue’
So out of Biden, Beto, Buttgieg, Harris, Booker, how many of them supported and then walked back their previous commitment to free healthcare at the point of use?
This guy is nothing special, and you should be focusing more on wanting to overhaul the system of inequality than just trying to replace Trump with someone more respectable, in fact, you can do both.
[Buttigieg is the Democrats’ flavour of the month. Just don’t ask what he stands for](Buttigieg is the Democrats’ flavour of the month. Just don’t ask what he stands for)
I really don’t think Donald would go down that road. I believe he is savvy enough to know that it would backfire. It would be a different story if he were making innuendoes about someone who was supposedly straight, but was the subject of rumors about being possibly gay or bisexual. He would definitely do something like that. What I don’t believe he would do, is try to make political hay of someone who was openly gay. For the same reason he loves to bait Elizabeth Warren with the “Pocohontas” thing, but I believe he would never do the same thing if Warren were ACTUALLY and OBVIOUSLY a Native American.
Would his campaign have various surrogates and propaganda emphasizing the fact that Buttegieg is gay, to the Bible Belt demographic? YES, he would. Would Trump himself talk about it directly - even jokingly? I doubt it.
But say he did. Say during a debate, he made some kind of crack about it…I don’t know, something like “Pete definitely knows how to find the best men for the job”, or just pronounced his name like “butt” or “booty.” Let’s say he did it.
Pete has one of the most confident, authoritative, composed, “together” personas I have ever witnessed from any politician, let alone a younger one. I was astonished to hear it when I first heard an interview with him: I was expecting Pete Campbell, I got Don Draper, for those of you hip to Mad Men references. He has a baritone voice that would be right at home narrating a car commercial or doing color commentary on a football game. He has A+ body language, posture, and facial expressions. And it’s not a facade. The guy is fucking SMART.
I do not believe he would brook any bullshit from Trump, who is 1/100th the man he is in terms of personal character, in a debate. I think Trump would be the one who wound up embarrassed…very, very embarrassed. Pete would knock him out of the park in a debate.
He just has it. Either you have it or you don’t, and he does. As to why he gives the impression of being smart? Seriously? The guy is a Rhodes scholar, Naval Intelligence officer, and speaks multiple languages. You don’t get to do those things unless you’re smart. But even if I knew NOTHING about his background and just heard him talk about some unrelated topic - he’s articulate, he’s sharp, you can just tell!
Not answering for Lamoral, but I did see Pete’s speech when he threw his hat in the ring.
He’s CONFIDENT. I think his ‘body language’ showed that he was very comfortable speaking to the crowd. It shows honesty, he speaks well. He doesn’t trip over his own tongue. He knows that he doesn’t have all the answers, but want’s to work to find them. He is very much like Obama, but a little bit more down home and folksy.
Trump is confident too, but lacks every other thing. Trump is confident because he has a bunch of screaming morons supporting him that don’t give a shit if he can string two sentences together.
Trump will be advised to not attack Buttigieg for his homosexuality. But Trump is just a 10 year old school yard bully. I doubt he will be able to help himself.
I honestly also think he has sex appeal - mainly because of his voice. And the fact that he’s gay is not going to make any difference to the thousands of women who will find the tone of his voice sexy. I’m not saying women (or gay men) would just mindlessly vote for someone based on that, but it’s just another asset. (I heard numerous people say that Obama’s voice was also sexy.)
Someone’s speaking voice is really, really important. Like REALLY important, to attaining popularity and attention and getting people to listen to your message. And he has the right voice.
I agree. It would be nice to see Donald’s Charge, the modern equivalent of Pickett’s charge: An attack that was tried because it would have been effective in the past but now utterly fails because war/politics has changed.
I do think he’s a like Obama in being folksy/charismatic and not just in being a minority it would be nice to have as president. Having Bill, Barack and Buttigieg together would be nice.
I don’t think Buttigieg is “folksy.” (I hate that term - I know you’re trying to use it positively, but George W. Bush ruined it forever with the constant use of that word to describe him.) There’s nothing about the way he talks that says “small-town guy” or “middle-America guy”. That may be how he’s perceived, because of where he’s from and possibly because of his youthful appearance, but when I hear Pete speak I hear “big time” and “A-list”, not “folksy.”
Perhaps a wrong word to use. But seems like a guy you could sit down and have a beer with. Much like Obama. It was a relatively small crowd. And he seemed to connect pretty well.
Perhaps “approachable” or “unpretentious” (as much as you can be unpretentious running for President of the United States) would fit better?
I remember losing a debate in another thread where I kept harping on about Democrat candidates needing to be the kind of person who’d do well in a singles bar, or a jazz joint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRatTuWdT_Q
I’d love to love it. I have a much different reaction though. If Pence as VP hasn’t done much of anything to affect gay people negatively, even in a complicit way, this might be a miscalculation, though I am understanding of why it would come up. Pence is brilliant politically at not overplaying his hand when people come at him. Buttigieg is kind of personalizing the issue and I know growing up as I did in a conservative Christian faith that personal feelings are neither here nor there as far as the true believer is concerned. It’s nothing for the converted to fret about, as the distinction between God making a perfect creation and permitting his creation to fall into sin is understood.
Buttigieg has apparently been comparing Pence to a Pharisee, which I feel is more pertinent on a constant basis, and a lot of us feel a long-stewing anger inside of us where we’d like the idea of the piss being taken out of him for his brazen hypocrisy.
Religious texts are open to interpretation. It just feels shaky for a religious politician to make deductions rather than speak of religion in a way that is a little more open ended. There’s something I’m really burned out on with quotes I see on social media relating religion to current events in a condensed, tidily packaged format that serves one side. See examples below (conservatives do this as well, of course). I guess I’m exhausted from them regardless of how much truth I might see. Oh well. I’m otherwise pleased with Pete. Neener neener.
“What Jesus never said: ‘Feed the hungry only if they have papers.’ ‘Clothe the naked only if they’re from your country.’ ‘Welcome the stranger only if there’s zero risk.’ ‘Help the poor only if it’s convenient.’ ‘Love your neighbor only if they look like you.’” - James Martin, S.J.
“If your church romanticises the Hondurans they reach out to on short term mission trips, but demonizes the Hondurans seeking asylum in a refugee caravan, it might be time to re-examine what mission is really all about.” - Craig Greenfield
“In the Bible, religious people ended up abandoning God and mindlessly worshiping a golden calf. It isn’t surprising, that so many of them are now bowing down to an orange jackass.” - John Pavlovitz
“Everything you need to know about American Evangelicals: They pass one object of idolatry (Bibles) to be blessed by another object of idolatry (Trump) even though first object of idolatry (Bible) bans idolatry — and every single thing the second object of idolatry (Trump) does.” - Betty Bowers
A couple of points - It’s worth remembering that Pence was Governor of Indiana (2013 - 2017) during a portion of Buttigieg’s tenure as Mayor of South Bend (2012 -). So, they have a political history together locally. Pete has likely worked these very rhetorical disputes with Pence previously.
At the national campaign level, the VPs role is always as a loyal attack dog against the opposition. For Pence he is playing to the evangelical base, and considers it a win even if Pete had a decent come-back. And at this point the attacks are trial balloons to see what sticks and what energizes the base. As time goes on, the attacks will become more refined. If something looks like it is working, it will become amplified and repeated for potency. If they can turn it into a bumper-sticker style chant then that’s a big win. Expect Pence to continue to hone this attack up until the point when Pete inevitably drops out of the race.
What we learned in 2016 is that the voters don’t care about policy. Donald could walk into a room full of MAGA hat wearers, say “I’m going to cut your Social Security! I’m going to cut your Medicare! I’m going to pollute your water! I’m going to raise your taxes and use the money to give more to the rich!” and the room would explode in applause.
The trouble with stating your policies is that you just give the other side ammunition. Why bother doing so when there is no reward?
Wrong, they do care about policy, you forget the reasons as to why Trump was voted in, because a large section of the American population felt like they were not listened too, and that their concerns were not being addressed and that they were being left behind. There’s a reason why Michael Moore compared Trump to a Molotov cocktail to the establishment, it’s also a reason why Bernie is so popular with Trump voters.
The vibe I get is that he’s somehow a sensation because of him being the first Gay
candidate, which is great, but what’s more important are his policies such as medicare, which he has already walked back on.
I could not disagree more. His sexual orientation is barely talked about when I hear people talk about Pete. I mean it’s seriously barely EVER mentioned at all.
He’s a “sensation” - that part is true - because:
He’s erudite, articulate, sounds intelligent without sounding like a know-it-all;
He has a phenomenal speaking voice, juxtaposed with a youthful boyish appearance;
He is a veteran - that actually means something to a lot of people, at a time when it feels like the folks who have “been there and done that” are less represented in politics than ever. I mean, shit, look at the gigantic field of candidates (mostly Republicans) in 2016, where were the veterans? NOWHERE, is where. Jim Webb didn’t last one debate, and even among the God-n’-Guns GOP challengers, only nonentity Lindsey Graham had any time in uniform.
The fact that he is gay is really far down on the list of reasons why Pete has garnered so much attention and support.
You don’t get it do you? This isn’t 2008 anymore, people don’t care too much about that, they care about how long they’re going to put up with a shitty quality of life and if they don’t get it, which candidate would be best to blow up the system.
This ‘Sensation’ Walked back his commitment to medicare for all, and watered it down to a transistional phase. Wouldn’t get that with Bernie.
He has also been in a number of undisclosed dinners with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Terry McAuliffe organised by long term donor Bernard Schwartz which leads me to believe that the mainstream Democratic leadership is more concerned about a potential leaders pliability and ability to be controlled. Not so easy with Bernie Sanders.
It hasn’t completely soured me, but I’m very very unimpressed by this turd of a “national service” idea. He danced around whether it would be mandatory or enforced merely through economic discrimination against the losers who choose not to dig and refill potholes for Uncle Sam, but either idea sounds pretty terrible, both for the unwilling national servants and the people who would do those jobs for market wages and benefits but now have to compete with a bunch of temps.