Scott

42 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

What Would Black America Be Like Under President Pete? Ask South Bend

Personally, I don't see a lot of substance in these criticisms.

Most of the issues cited are ones of systemic, national racism that likely couldn't be corrected entirely by a small town mayor (for example, the article even admits that the school system is not under the direct purview of the mayor's office, but that, regardless, Mayor Pete should have fixed the school-to-jail pipeline as well as broader segregation issues). They fault him for firing a black police chief, and express upset that minority applicants are having a difficult time passing entrance exams for city jobs. Not sure how much of this is directly traceable to Pete's functions as mayor.

One South Bend resident states that, “If he’s not out waving a banner saying I did this for you black people, then a lot of people are like ahh, I don’t know if he’s for us or not."

Another states, “A thing I’ve noticed about the difference between say older people and the younger generation...is if you are not demolishing [white supremacy] from jump then that’s not gonna work.”

Also, the top comment criticizes Pete because he's apparently not gay enough. He's just a white, gay, cis dude from the Midwest. 

I feel increasingly unmoored from the Democratic party. The more we embrace identity politics (for the love of all that is holy, someone is denouncing this gay presidential candidate for not being gay enough), the more we secure Trump's reelection.

26 minutes ago, legend said:

 

On the other hand, people like me aren't going to be interested until he gives us something to get behind. Maybe people like me are a minority, but that still leaves me unsure why people are excited by a personality.

We are a year and a half out.

He's a young nobody mayor from flyover country. My guess is he's doing everything he can to get his name out there while remaining palatable to as broad a base as possible.

I'm sure he has no lack of policy proposals, but why dive in that deep before 80% of the country even recognizes your name or face?

And I'd venture that people are so excited by this "personality" because he is the complete inverse of Trump in almost every conceivable way. After 2 years of hot garbage, it feels refreshing to listen to someone who is articulate, reasonable, honest, and humble.

49 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

So is the first name logo thing just what we’re doing now? 

I think it is if your last name is Buttigieg. 

9 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I hope Pete's campaign can withstand your constant barrage of sick, totally substantive retweet burns.

1 hour ago, SilentWorld said:

Why's that? 

Why won’t the president make an overt reference to a political opponent sucking cock? Is that what you’re asking me?

6 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

Mayor Peterpuffer. Think Trump, or his proxies, are above that? I don't. 

 

Pro corporate can't win, not in post industrial states. 

There is a zero percent chance Trump refers to Buttigieg as Mayor Peterpuffer. A trump supporter? Sure. But no way that becomes another Lyin’ Ted or Crooked Hillary. 

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

I hate this argument because you're applying left right politics to the entire country, the Presidential Election is not a national race, it's 51 individual elections. Hillary Clinton lost by 97,000 votes across Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Which is the better way to retake those States? Convert Trump voters who watch Fox News, or rally the base? If you nominate a "centrist", you're stuck with trying to convert Trump voters, but if you nominate a progressive, you can rally the base and you might get some Trump voters who voted for Socialist Obama but not Hillary. I don't see any democrat putting any 2016 blue state in danger, the entire election is in those 3 states. 

I don’t think liberal voters stay home on Election Day because the nominee isn’t sufficiently progressive. I think having a colossally unpopular nominee kept many people home. Beyond that, I think it’s good ole apathy and ignorance. 

People are dumb and easily manipulated by the media. I think it will help to have a candidate who doesn’t have easily nickname-able, tweetable scandals, like “Pocahontas!” 

Pete so far seems fairly scandal free, and offers something that can appeal to everyone (except maybe keyboard warrior Bernie stans). 

We can discuss how pro- or anti-corporate he is all day long, but ultimately what matters most, for now, is can he beat trump?

9 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

high IQ Pete decides to mentions Omar 20 minutes after babbling about himself

His initial phrasing of “some people did this” was him referencing Omar. And it doesn’t matter at all. And he wasn’t babbling about himself. And his response was pretty perfect. But you know all this. 

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

The enthusiasm gap in 2016 was on the left wing of the Democrats. The centrist Hillary types will show up to vote for whomever has the (D) next to their name.

If someone on the far left edge of the political spectrum would rather see trump re-elected than hold their nose and vote for a centrist Dem, then fuck us, we deserve Trump. I have to imagine that all Dems will get on board and vote for the nominee, given that the alternative is more trump. I’m not so worried about Dems falling in line. I’m more concerned about the farther left candidates failing to rally any moderates or conservatives. I could see Rust Belters voting for Pete. Less so for Sanders. 

Again, we’re in an Al Davis situation. “Just win, baby.”

I agree with mclumber that we will need a centrist. What middle class blue collar worker from the Rust Belt is getting out and stumping for anyone who shows any affinity for any variety of socialism? How many pipe fitters from Indiana are going to thumb their nose at our strong economy and vote Blue because of transgender bathroom rights? You know that’s the shit that will air 24/7 on Hannity. We need a level-headed, intelligent, non-scandalous, inspiring fresh face like Buttigieg to sound reasonable, serve as a counterpoint to Trump in every way possible, and not present any low-hanging fruit for Right wing talk radio to attack. “Pocahontas” WILL bring down Warren.  I supported Bernie last time. I won’t this time. America is too stupid. We can’t take any chances. We need to fucking win. 

20 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

Yep, can’t wait for the DNC to ignore him and anoint a candidate because of their sex and/or race. They’ll push THAT aspect of the candidate, and get trounced by Trump. 

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

The purpouse is to stop the distribution of materials that incite violence. Those may be poor tools for that purpouse.

 

 

Because we can’t hold somebody accountable just for having bad thoughts. The actionable nature of the explicit call to violence makes it different than something else that directly or indirectly provides justification for potential future acts of violence.

 

We have solid and narrow standards for these things, no need to worry about that slippery slope.

I wonder, of all the mass murders and violent attacks in the last 5 years, how many were motivated by direct calls to violence versus indirect calls. 

5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

The practically blind worship that liberals give to "freedom of speech" borders on the pathologically degenerate.

How much censorship would you prefer? What's the sweet spot?

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Incitement of violence isn’t a possibility, it is a specific offense that one commits they moment they encourage the imminent lawless action. It actually doesn’t matter whether or not anybody ends up heeding the call.

 

From a purely outcome-based perspective, I think it's as easy to become radicalized or inspired to violence by indirect messages as it is by direct messages.

I don't need to be told "go do this crime" in order to hear the underlying message and decide to act on it.

And if that's our goal - to prevent and reduce violence - we ought to start censoring those indirect messages as well. And then where do we stop? It's a gateway to broad censorship.

I know that's not how the SCOTUS decision defines it, but the moment we start cracking down on this stuff is the moment we suddenly hear a rallying cry to start cracking down on less direct messaging. And if we allow that, then, as they say, the horse is out of the barn.

6 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

but the Bible does not call on it’s readers to commit acts of violence nor did those who put the book together. It describes people committing acts of violence.

You're right. There's a difference between indirect inspiration and direct incitement.

Curious - should I be allowed to own The Unabomber's Manifesto or The Monkey Wrench Gang?

I'd have to comb through them to see if their authors directly tell their readers to commit crimes; but the basis and justification for crime is out in the open.

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

 

SCOTUS has a pretty good way of determining it. It isn’t particularly broad.

I'd rather trust our fellow citizens to hear, and then disregard, violent rhetoric rather than trust governmental bodies to censor speech whenever they feel there may be potential for imminent lawless action.

Can't you imagine liberal media censoring Trump speeches that focus on immigration due to their possibility to incite violence? How would the Right respond? With logic and a level head? No, they'd certainly make some weird retaliatory censorship against liberals, and we'd ultimately descend even farther into chaos. I think we should always err on the side of more freedom, not less.

19 hours ago, sblfilms said:

If the goal of the book is to incite violence, sure.

Where do you draw that line? And who draws it?

9 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Good lord. Can we all agree never to speak about Hillary Clinton ever again, in any context, anywhere?? What the fuck point is Tom Watson trying to make here? The language he uses is so cringey - "a barrier [Pete] seeks to keep intact" - yes, that's clearly why Buttigieg is running - to make sure no woman holds the office of President. That's what he's seeking. Fuck this guy. Fuck anyone who ever talks about HC ever again. Her campaign was the disaster that gave us Donald Trump. Criticizing her should be a prerequisite to be on the ballot.

Pete Buttigieg is far and away the most impressive candidate I've seen so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrjkQt60vI

On 2/12/2019 at 2:50 PM, Amazatron said:

 

Yeah, but you paid 30-40% more for the new car.  Strictly from a financial position, buying used is always better.

Maybe.

I knew a guy who bought his daughter a brand new sedan as she was heading off to college.

She drove the piss out of it for 4 years. 100,000 miles or more. She came home after all this, and her dad asked her how soon she needed her next oil change.

She asked him what he meant? What was an oil change?

She hadn't changed the oil once in 100,000 miles.

He got the oil changed immediately, took it to a car lot and sold it for a decent chunk of change. Some poor bastard will buy that car.

I bought my last vehicle new. I'm happy to pay slightly more to have been there for each driven mile of that car's life.

It's Greg Daniels and Steve Carell. I'll definitely give it a chance.

I'm loving his podcast so far. Conan is genuinely wonderful to listen to. I think I might actually prefer him when he's being serious.

At this point I basically just use it to play The Office while I'm doing busywork around the house.

5 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Why bother when he couldn't beat Ted Cruz?

Because all 50 states participate in the general election - not just Texas.

14 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

The con here is he would have find a way to stay relevant and popular during the next 4 years. 

I think a general election campaign against Donald Trump would get him all the face time he'd ever need to stay relevant.

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Beto lost to Ted Cruz. TED. CRUZ. Think about that for a second and ask yourself do really want a guy who lost to Ted Cruz running for President.

Yeah, he lost.

In Texas.

By 3 points.

To an incumbent candidate with a high national profile.

If he can almost swing Texas away from Ted Cruz then I have high hopes for him nationally.

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

By steak I assume we mean experience. If so, do we? Obama had none and ran one the cleanest White Houses ever, I'm not sure how more experience would have helped or how his lack of experience hurt. 

No, not just experience. Obama and Trump both had little experience.

21 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We're gonna have a fucking ten way tie and dipshit leftists and/or centrists won't get on board with whomever wins and Trump's gonna get four more years

Agreed. Here in Montana, Kathleen Williams was running against Greg Gianforte (reporter bodyslammer) for the House. A Democrat friend I know refused to vote for her because she didn't support single payer. All was moot, because Gianforte won. Now isn't the time to make some high-minded, principled stand. Democrats need to WIN.