OFFICIAL IAW IS FULL MITTENS FOR SAINT PETE BUTTIGIEG THREAD

[sexy_shapiro]

Straight people feel safe with Mayor Pete because he’s “not one of the fruity ones.”

 

America needs a fierce queen in the White House who can slay.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Straight people feel safe with Mayor Pete because he’s “not one of the fruity ones.”

 

America needs a fierce queen in the White House who can slay.

 

Ehhhhh

 

I get it, but I think people overall need to realize that many gay people aren't stereotypically fruity.

[Greatoneshere]

I'm off the Mayor Pete train for now. Ana Kasparian did a great break down of some of his history and key policies and when I followed that up with my own research he is concerningly secretly a corporate centrist Democrat in a lot of ways. Maybe he's truly changed but now I feel like he's playing us. 

[mclumber1]

21 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I'm off the Mayor Pete train for now. Ana Kasparian did a great break down of some of his history and key policies and when I followed that up with my own research he is concerningly secretly a corporate centrist Democrat in a lot of ways. Maybe he's truly changed but now I feel like he's playing us. 

 

If the Democrats want to win, they will need someone who is a centrist. Running someone like Sanders or Warren will just turn off a large portion of swing voters. 

[Amazatron]

35 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I'm off the Mayor Pete train for now. Ana Kasparian did a great break down of some of his history and key policies and when I followed that up with my own research he is concerningly secretly a corporate centrist Democrat in a lot of ways. Maybe he's truly changed but now I feel like he's playing us. 

 

That was not a great break down at all.  Ana just runs her purity progressive test on all candidates not named Bernie.

[Greatoneshere]

3 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

If the Democrats want to win, they will need someone who is a centrist. Running someone like Sanders or Warren will just turn off a large portion of swing voters. 

 

I disagree but I can see the argument. I think a populist is much more likely to beat Trump though. If Mayor Pete becomes that, obviously in the general I'll support whatever Democrat is likely chosen, but in the primaries? He's not populist enough to win yet. And on policy, I don't agree with him much. But populism is what's needed, whatever that is. To me, Bernie is a populist candidate, for instance. 

 

3 hours ago, Amazatron said:

That was not a great break down at all.  Ana just runs her purity progressive test on all candidates not named Bernie.

 

Ana is very open about her bias but her breakdown was entirely fair. It covered only a few major policy positions, but it wasn't a purity test. Some of Mayor Pete's positions were concernign (from the little he's let slip about his real policy positions). My own independent research seemed to confirm this. What was dishonest in the breakdown?

[Chris-]

I want Warren the most but I'm fearful that the electorate is stupid enough to be bothered by that 'Pocahontas' bullshit.

[Greatoneshere]

29 minutes ago, Chris- said:

I want Warren the most but I'm fearful that the electorate is stupid enough to be bothered by that 'Pocahontas' bullshit.

 

Fearful? They are definitely stupid enough. I love her as a candidate but she's "boring", etc to a lot of people. I don't think she can get the populism she needs to make it work. We'll see.

[Boyle5150]

3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Fearful? They are definitely stupid enough. I love her as a candidate but she's "boring", etc to a lot of people. I don't think she can get the populism she needs to make it work. We'll see.

There simply aren’t enough Chris’ out there for her to win.  

[Amazatron]

48 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

Ana is very open about her bias but her breakdown was entirely fair. It covered only a few major policy positions, but it wasn't a purity test. Some of Mayor Pete's positions were concernign (from the little he's let slip about his real policy positions). My own independent research seemed to confirm this. What was dishonest in the breakdown?

 

McKinsey consultants work in all different industries and with many different companies.  She states Buttigieg is in the "Energy and and Economic Development" group.  Yet she criticizes him for working at McKinsey and not knowing about the company's project with Purdue Pharma.  Then she brings up McKinsey's relationship with Saudi Arabia.  Basically she's just conflating unethical things McKinsey has done to his policies because he worked there.  Other than that, just regurgitating that article from Nathan Robinson.  It is basically a one-sided argument biased to show that he isn't progressive enough.

[Greatoneshere]

7 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

McKinsey consultants work in all different industries and with many different companies.  She states Buttigieg is in the "Energy and and Economic Development" group.  Yet she criticizes him for working at McKinsey and not knowing about the company's project with Purdue Pharma.  Then she brings up McKinsey's relationship with Saudi Arabia.  Basically she's just conflating unethical things McKinsey has done to his policies because he worked there.  Other than that, just regurgitating that article from Nathan Robinson.  It is basically a one-sided argument biased to show that he isn't progressive enough.

 

Just because something shows someone isn't "progressive enough" doesn't mean it's biased - it might just mean he's not progressive enough. She didn't conflate McKinsey's relationship with Saudi Arabia as being tied to Mayor Pete, what she's suggesting is that someone who comes from the "elite" background he does working at a "big deal" firm like McKinsey indicates your character. Who you surround yourself with, what you believe in, etc. He didn't take the job "just to get a job" like a lot of poorer people do, he had options and he went to work there. In conjunction with his comments about Harvard student protesters fighting for Harvard janitorial wages and his College for All comments indicate to me an elitism that doesn't seem to understand the average working class America. She's painting a holistic view of his person whilst explaining what he has said on specific policies. If I worked for Blackwater, let's say, and they did shady shit, and I didn't condemn the company after shady shit came out about the company I used to work for/be a part of, that's on me. Not only did he play dumb on Purdue Pharma, he worked for a company with shady dealings with Saudi Arabia. She's indicating the shadiness of the company to his comments about Purdue Pharma and then towards his mentality to the aforementioned other issues.

 

I think your characterization is a bit unfair. I'm not done with him or anything, but I want those criticisms and concerns addressed at least. 

[Amazatron]

You're comparing Blackwater to McKinsey?  Good god.

 

McKinsey is one of the top places to progress in your career regardless of what you do afterwards and attracts the top talent out of colleges.  Attacking him solely for working there as "an elite" is stupid.

 

How about addressing that he left all of that to eventually serve in Afghanistan and then returned to his downtrodden hometown to become mayor with a salary much lower than what McKinsey pays their consultants.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Amazatron said:

You're comparing Blackwater to McKinsey?  Good god.

 

McKinsey is one of the top places to progress in your career regardless of what you do afterwards and attracts the top talent out of colleges.  Attacking him solely for working there as "an elite" is stupid.

 

But I'm not attacking him for solely working there? And I'm not comparing Blackwater to McKinsey. Insert any company you want. If my current company I work for did a ton of shady shit, 1) I wouldn't work there; and 2) even if I did, I'd certainly condemn them later if I found out about their shady shit.

 

I don't begrudge him taking some hot shot job after graduating - I was offered many after both college and law school and I turned them down because of their shadiness. It's easy to accept a big job when you primarily want money, which I didn't. If all he did was work there, that'd be fine, but again all the evidence in the aggregate paints a bigger picture. 

[Amazatron]

28 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

But I'm not attacking him for solely working there? And I'm not comparing Blackwater to McKinsey. Insert any company you want. If my current company I work for did a ton of shady shit, 1) I wouldn't work there; and 2) even if I did, I'd certainly condemn them later if I found out about their shady shit.

 

I don't begrudge him taking some hot shot job after graduating - I was offered many after both college and law school and I turned them down because of their shadiness. It's easy to accept a big job when you primarily want money, which I didn't. If all he did was work there, that'd be fine, but again all the evidence in the aggregate paints a bigger picture. 

 

Ok, he left McKinsey 9 years ago after only being there 3 years to work in local government and serve in the military.  It’s not like he was some decades-long McKinsey executive.  So what picture are you trying to paint?

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, Amazatron said:

 

Ok, he left McKinsey 9 years ago after only being there 3 years to work in local government and serve in the military.  It’s not like he was some decades-long McKinsey executive.  So what picture are you trying to paint?

 

That he likely is pro-corporate Democrat. Consistently on issues that involve money he has "strange" views for a self-avowed progressive. He calls himself that yet his policy positions (as far as we can ascertain them) don't seem to match that. That's why there is scrutiny. That's the picture I'm painting. 

[sexy_shapiro]

12 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Ehhhhh

 

I get it, but I think people overall need to realize that many gay people aren't stereotypically fruity.

 

For some reason straight people take comfort in knowing that some of us are just as boring as they are.

[Scott]

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. 

[Jason]

48 minutes ago, Scott said:

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. 

 

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.

[Scott]

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.”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

How about actual Democrats vote for who they like, and the winner is the nominee. 

 

"Electibility" is a bunch of crystal ball looking bullshit that is used to silence progressive ideas.

 

Finally, please for the love of God tell me what the fuck a centrist even is. How do they differentiate themselves from progressives (and the honest to God socialist)? Is it policy? What policy? Is it tone?

[mclumber1]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

How about actual Democrats vote for who they like, and the winner is the nominee. 

 

"Electibility" is a bunch of crystal ball looking bullshit that is used to silence progressive ideas.

 

Finally, please for the love of God tell me what the fuck a centrist even is. How do they differentiate themselves from progressives (and the honest to God socialist)? Is it policy? What policy? Is it tone?

 

Granted, I do not know all of Buttigieg's policy positions, but I get the gist that he is not as far left as some of the other candidates.  Yes, a far left candidate will have no trouble gaining the support of most Democratic voters - but you can't win just using your base.  How many times have we talked about that fact on this board concerning Trump?  All the time.  If you want to win, you have to win the independents and even some Republicans - and the only way you are going to do that is to present an option that is palatable to them. 

[Amazatron]

15 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

That he likely is pro-corporate Democrat. Consistently on issues that involve money he has "strange" views for a self-avowed progressive. He calls himself that yet his policy positions (as far as we can ascertain them) don't seem to match that. That's why there is scrutiny. That's the picture I'm painting. 

 

Labels are what you make of them, and what your expectations are of that said label.  You can be progressive in many areas and maybe less progressive in others, but still call yourself a progressive.  Is Bernie not a “progressive” and a hypocrite for being a millionaire and making money from corporate America publishing his books?  OMG, why didn’t he donate all the proceeds to charity, he clearly doesn’t care about the needy janitors or that homeless guy he walked past that one time...

 

You can pretty much make any argument if you bias it in a certain angle and pick and choose.  This article even attacks him for being too similar to the likes of Sanders and Warren.

 

https://fee.org/articles/what-should-we-make-of-peter-buttigieg-s-democratic-capitalism/#disqus_thread

[Greatoneshere]

4 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

Labels are what you make of them, and what your expectations are of that said label.  You can be progressive in many areas and maybe less progressive in others, but still call yourself a progressive.  Is Bernie not a “progressive” and a hypocrite for being a millionaire and making money from corporate America publishing his books?  OMG, why didn’t he donate all the proceeds to charity, he clearly doesn’t care about the needy janitors or that homeless guy he walked past that one time...

 

You can pretty much make any argument if you bias it in a certain angle and pick and choose.  This article even attacks him for being too similar to the likes of Sanders and Warren.

 

https://fee.org/articles/what-should-we-make-of-peter-buttigieg-s-democratic-capitalism/#disqus_thread

 

I'm basing him being less progressive on what Mayor Pete himself says. In his statement about College for All he literally calls himself a progressive, and then gives a non-progressive answer on the issue. The irony is palpable. 

 

And I think far left populists can easily rally blue collar workers in the Rust Belt if the messaging is good because socialist policies actually help those people the most. 

[Amazatron]

12 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I'm basing him being less progressive on what Mayor Pete himself says. In his statement about College for All he literally calls himself a progressive, and then gives a non-progressive answer on the issue. The irony is palpable. 

 

And I think far left populists can easily rally blue collar workers in the Rust Belt if the messaging is good because socialist policies actually help those people the most. 

 

Again, labels are what your expectations are.    The issue isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be.  Certainly pushing to make education much more affordable and student loans much more manageable isn’t “non-progressive”.  It’s just not what your expectations are.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/05/pete-buttigieg-argues-against-free-college-this-is-why-progressives-cant-agree-about-subsidizing-tuition/?utm_term=.6848b9ef534b

 

Besides, I thought you were taking about being pro-corporate...

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, Amazatron said:

 

Again, labels are what your expectations are.    The issue isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be.  Certainly pushing to make education much more affordable and student loans much more manageable isn’t “non-progressive”.  It’s just not what your expectations are.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/05/pete-buttigieg-argues-against-free-college-this-is-why-progressives-cant-agree-about-subsidizing-tuition/?utm_term=.6848b9ef534b

 

Besides, I thought you were taking about being pro-corporate...

 

I am - what I'm suggesting is that Mayor Pete isn't being completely honest (it seems, I'm speculating obviously) with where he stands on issues/policies. Being progressive is also about being authentic and I'm not against him but knowing more I need him to be more clear on that. Where he is potentially pro-corporate is partly in the fact that he is shifty about where he actually stands on some policies - a very pro-corporate politician move. I have no problem with being savvy, but inauthentic is something I do have a problem with. 

[Amazatron]

3 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I am - what I'm suggesting is that Mayor Pete isn't being completely honest (it seems, I'm speculating obviously) with where he stands on issues/policies. Being progressive is also about being authentic and I'm not against him but knowing more I need him to be more clear on that. Where he is potentially pro-corporate is partly in the fact that he is shifty about where he actually stands on some policies - a very pro-corporate politician move. I have no problem with being savvy, but inauthentic is something I do have a problem with. 

 

Ok, he flat out said he’s a capitalist, but when it threatens democracy, democracy needs to win out.

[Greatoneshere]

6 minutes ago, Amazatron said:

 

Ok, he flat out said he’s a capitalist, but when it threatens democracy, democracy needs to win out.

 

I know - I said I have concerns about him and want to know more, but I have suspicions of what he might really think (that's all). I've been burned on the Mayor Pete seeming type before (in Obama) and I don't want to make the same mistake twice. Beto already did this and my suspicions were right about him. I'm more than willing to jump back on the Mayor Pete bandwagon after learning more but I think there are some potential causes for concern. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

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

[Amazatron]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

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

 

Mentions himself once in 8 sentences = "babbling about himself", cool logic.

[Scott]

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. 

[RedSoxFan9]

His response was garbage.  The last tweet was the only meaningful one, and he only did that after people called he out for his weak response. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Finally, please for the love of God tell me what the fuck a centrist even is. How do they differentiate themselves from progressives (and the honest to God socialist)? Is it policy? What policy? Is it tone?

A "centrist" is someone who is willing to allow the right-wing to get their way only up to the point where it makes them feel kinda/sorta "icky".  Then they will mildly "tsk-tsk" about it while telling those on the Left to settle down and have some "civility".  Centrism -- in the words of my favorite Central American right-wing death squad leader -- is like an anus: it's full of shit and stinks.  It is absolutely the final retreat of the political mind who stands for nothing (and therefore will fall for anything) and anyone describing themselves that way can safely be ignored.

 

A "progressive" is slightly more activist (and perhaps useful) than an utterly useless "centrist" but usually their activism involves an easily-mocked hashtag or wearing a stupid hat at a safe, socially-approved protest event rather than engaging in a political activity that involves "real" risk.  The greatest sin of the term "progressive" is that it is totally vapid and  means absolutely nothing because the concept of "progress" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.  Hell, I'd be willing to be that the anti-abortion movement would gladly embrace the term "progressive" if it could be reasoned that their movement represented "progress" towards a society where "life" (whatever the hell that means) is respected.  No one should ever describe themselves as "progressive".  Ever.

 

Ultimately, because they both lack moral and intellectual courage, neither group should be trusted as they will sell out to the right-wing when things get a little too "hot" for them.  This is why they should be put up against the wall at the first opportunity.

[Jwheel86]

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Granted, I do not know all of Buttigieg's policy positions, but I get the gist that he is not as far left as some of the other candidates.  Yes, a far left candidate will have no trouble gaining the support of most Democratic voters - but you can't win just using your base.  How many times have we talked about that fact on this board concerning Trump?  All the time.  If you want to win, you have to win the independents and even some Republicans - and the only way you are going to do that is to present an option that is palatable to them. 

 

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. 

[Scott]

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?

[SaysWho?]

A "centrist" is something the media makes up since they have no idea what's right or left or what the spectrum is, so if the idea is new, it's "far-left" and the centrist might vote against the president once.