I don't know much about the guy and can't pronounce his name, but the more I learn about him, the more I like him to challenge orange. Here's rooting for the underdog!

Who are ahead of him? Biden, Bernie, Beto, Kamala?

Ma and Pa Kettle in the flyovers cannot even begin to process the concept of a First Man organizing the Easter egg hunt on the White House Lawn.

Calcupcakes said:

---

I don't know much about the guy and can't pronounce his name, but the more I learn about him, the more I like him to challenge orange. Here's rooting for the underdog!

Who are ahead of him? Biden, Bernie, Beto, Kamala?

---

Ha. I have the exact opposite reaction.

I think he can win the upper midwest over Trump, which is all he really needs. I also like the fact he said his first priority would be to spend his political capital on addressing the flaws in the American political system. Campaign Finance Reform, making the Supreme Court less political, ensuring voter rights, and having a popular vote for President. It may not be as sexy as big policy splashes, but I believe the country needs to address the fact people within their democracy don't feel represented, and therefore don't trust the system. We need to first alter the trajectory of our politics away from our current path of alienation. Think of all the people that think their vote doesn't matter and they have no say. This includes big coastal cities from liberal places and small rural places in flyover country.

I keep liking him when I hear him.
Vann Jones called him the youngest but most mature democratic candidate at the end of his one on one on his recent show.

But I know there is a huge swath of the US that will never vote for a gay president in their lifetime, so I fear he'd lost to trump.

We need to remove trump above all else.

Donated a month ago, wear his shirts, got his stickers on my car, talked to his people about working for him when they get organized here in Kamala Country.

A counterpoint to the Mayor Pete love. I personally couldn't get through all of this, but food for thought.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?fbclid=IwAR1nfikPBLht1dIMsB8ZfNDL9GE7W-AV9LZz537gR2XZbLW3Z5QP3wKXsB4

Yogi Bear said:

---

A counterpoint to the Mayor Pete love. I personally couldn't get through all of this, but food for thought.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?fbclid=IwAR1nfikPBLht1dIMsB8ZfNDL9GE7W-AV9LZz537gR2XZbLW3Z5QP3wKXsB4

---

Breaking news: Bernie bro questions Pete's militant socialist credentials, quotes Chomsky

Film at 11

Yogi Bear said:

---

A counterpoint to the Mayor Pete love. I personally couldn't get through all of this, but food for thought.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?fbclid=IwAR1nfikPBLht1dIMsB8ZfNDL9GE7W-AV9LZz537gR2XZbLW3Z5QP3wKXsB4

---

A couple of points:

First, this is long, and I didn't get through all of it, because it is so very long.

Second, the premises I read in the first portion (I stopped at the point where they discuss the Rhodes scholar), and they all seem like a stretch. I get the sense the author would prefer an underground semi-anarchist resistance fighter who will die in an unwinnable battle over someone who understands the system and works to change it from within the system. The author literally uses the fact he was successful in school (by going to Harvard and being a Rhodes scholar) as a sign that he can't be trusted, which I believe is a bit ridiculous. I think the author's preamble sums it up best:

Quote:

---

Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40 under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of rsums if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our "meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."

---

Simply put, he doesn't trust traditionally talented people and I fundamentally disagree with the author on most things, and therefore disagree with him on his assessment.

Will agree w golden sloth here.

I think the 40 year swing to the right has run its course and a swing left is inevitable (and needed), but this reads (what I was willing to get through) as a bit of a purity test.

I've felt that the rise of the tea party was the beginning of the end for the current right movement. I fear I'm seeing a parallel act on the left. Not that the ideas percolating from the far left don't merit consideration, but if it's that or nothing, you'll get nothing.

golden sloth said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

A counterpoint to the Mayor Pete love. I personally couldn't get through all of this, but food for thought.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?fbclid=IwAR1nfikPBLht1dIMsB8ZfNDL9GE7W-AV9LZz537gR2XZbLW3Z5QP3wKXsB4

---

A couple of points:

First, this is long, and I didn't get through all of it, because it is so very long.

Second, the premises I read in the first portion (I stopped at the point where they discuss the Rhodes scholar), and they all seem like a stretch. I get the sense the author would prefer an underground semi-anarchist resistance fighter who will die in an unwinnable battle over someone who understands the system and works to change it from within the system. The author literally uses the fact he was successful in school (by going to Harvard and being a Rhodes scholar) as a sign that he can't be trusted, which I believe is a bit ridiculous. I think the author's preamble sums it up best:

Quote:

---

Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40 under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of rsums if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our "meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."

---

Simply put, he doesn't trust traditionally talented people and I fundamentally disagree with the author on most things, and therefore disagree with him on his assessment.

---

I didn't see that, I thought this was a very solid piece of journalism. The author did a good job showing how fake this guy is, for example his posing as a down home midwestern when he's really more of a Coastal transplant who dislikes middle America. According to a friend from Notre Dame, he's actually not very well-liked in South Bend and Indiana.

He reminds me a lot of Emmanuel Macron, a young banker who was propped up by powerful backers and received tons of favorable press without having any kind of platform (though he had more experience than Buttigieg). He has the same combination of leftist/cultural marxist social issues and establishment capitalism on the economic front, a lot more McKinseyan than Keynesian, and like Buttegieg, Macron also run with an empty platform.

PB's father was a devoted disciple of Gramsci, an Italian communist intellectual who advocated global marxism through the stealth manipulation of culture and the undermining of traditional institutions. Very similar to Macron, and a more advanced version of Blair, in his combination of neoliberal bankster economics with identity politics. The difference between PB and Booker or Harris is that Buttigieg is a lot more "tactical" with his image, presenting a clean-cut centrist facade that will not turn off Midwestern voters.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

A counterpoint to the Mayor Pete love. I personally couldn't get through all of this, but food for thought.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/all-about-pete?fbclid=IwAR1nfikPBLht1dIMsB8ZfNDL9GE7W-AV9LZz537gR2XZbLW3Z5QP3wKXsB4

---

A couple of points:

First, this is long, and I didn't get through all of it, because it is so very long.

Second, the premises I read in the first portion (I stopped at the point where they discuss the Rhodes scholar), and they all seem like a stretch. I get the sense the author would prefer an underground semi-anarchist resistance fighter who will die in an unwinnable battle over someone who understands the system and works to change it from within the system. The author literally uses the fact he was successful in school (by going to Harvard and being a Rhodes scholar) as a sign that he can't be trusted, which I believe is a bit ridiculous. I think the author's preamble sums it up best:

Quote:

---

Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg, let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40 under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of rsums if they are the type to openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our "meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."

---

Simply put, he doesn't trust traditionally talented people and I fundamentally disagree with the author on most things, and therefore disagree with him on his assessment.

---

I didn't see that, I thought this was a very solid piece of journalism. The author did a good job showing how fake this guy is, for example his posing as a down home midwestern when he's really more of a Coastal transplant who dislikes middle America. According to a friend from Notre Dame, he's actually not very well-liked in South Bend and Indiana.

He reminds me a lot of Emmanuel Macron, a young banker who was propped up by powerful backers and received tons of favorable press without having any kind of platform (though he had more experience than Buttigieg). He has the same combination of leftist/cultural marxist social issues and establishment capitalism on the economic front, a lot more McKinseyan than Keynesian, and like Buttegieg, Macron also run with an empty platform.

PB's father was a devoted disciple of Gramsci, an Italian communist intellectual who advocated global marxism through the stealth manipulation of culture and the undermining of traditional institutions. Very similar to Macron, and a more advanced version of Blair, in his combination of neoliberal bankster economics with identity politics. The difference between PB and Booker or Harris is that Buttigieg is a lot more "tactical" with his image, presenting a clean-cut centrist facade that will not turn off Midwestern voters.

---

I'm willing to have people disagree with me, but I feel like your comment to open discussion is not in good faith. This is obvious by the blatant lies and bombastic assertions you make. It is also not clear you actually read the article, and it is entirely possible you used that article as jumping point for your ridiculous claims.

1. How the hell is someone who grows up in Indiana, then moves away for college and work, but returns to Indiana a coastal elite? 26 of his 37 years were spent living in Indiana (aka about 70% of his life). Your claim is demonstrably false, and the attempted attack on his 'authenticity' is blatant.

2. How does he not have a platform? Have you listened to his interviews at all, first and foremost he wants to institute rules to preserve the democracy from the destruction of the Conservatives. This means voter rights, instituting a popular vote, de-politicizing the Supreme Court, and giving voice to DC and Puerto Rico. He has also talked about Medicare for All, but instead of just saying he is for it, he believes candidates should have a reasonable and pragmatic plan to get there, which in his view is the public option. He also talked about getting out of the endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. These are just snippets from listening to him speak, he has more ideas as well, so how does this make for an 'Empty Platform'? He may not have absolutely everything figured out, but claiming he has no platform is a straight up lie and not in good faith.

I don't care much for French politics, but the one thing I know about Macron is that he is from a Center-Right party. Therefore, its also interesting that you characterize him as Marxist, meaning once again your claims are baseless and not in good faith.

3. Buttigeig has explicitly stated he is a Democratic Capitalist, as in he believes in Capitalism. He is against the Rape and Pillage Capitalism that Conservatives promote that has lead to 4 decades of slow middle-class destruction and increased risk for the working class for the benefit of the rich. Also, his father doesn't matter, anyone that claims he does is an idiot or has an agenda. I love my father but we disagree heartily on politics to the point we simply don't talk about it, hence my dad believing something is irrelevant to what I believe. So again you are trying to make baseless connections and not acting in good faith.

Therefore, I anoint your comment as TROLL.

The good news, is that if Conservative trolls are going after him, that means he is becoming a threat.

That kind of simplistic binary political thought process is not helpful, the political spectrum is a lot more complex nowadays. FYI I would be fine with a Sanders or even Warren presidency, who I think would make much better presidents than Buttegieg.

I did read that article from start to finish after it came out last week, I thought it was well researched and documented, and I also understand that the author has his own biases, some of which I do not share, but as I was saying, its content confirmed what a friend who lived in South Bend told me, and my own impressions about PB.


He's a very staged candidate, who made his way across a crowded field through the media bubble, and a series of TV appearances filled with softballs and effusive hosts. His book's cover picture gives you an indication of how staged a persona he is, they went as far as making sure his shirt and tie match the "Main Street" building colors he's framed with:



1- Hoosier credentials.

Quoting the author of that article:

Quote:

---

"Buttigieg portrays himself as an Indiana hayseed for whom the bustling metropolis of Cambridge, MA was an alien world...Calculated folksiness runs through the whole book. On the cover he is literally in the process of rolling up his sleeves, his collar blue, in front of a Main Street Shopfront. There is a smattering of exaggerated Hoosierism on many a page"

---

when in fact he was the son of college professors from a college town that's a fairly short drive from a metropolis that is bigger than Boston. And as far as IN college towns, South Bend is not Lafayette or Bloomington, it's a town on the edge of the state that is practically a Chicago exurb. His midwestern folksiness is a crafted image, he is much more of coastal transplant.

PB has basically used the mayoral stint as a springboard for a presidential run, he was parachuted by the Democrat establishment onto that post, which due to the town's demographics is Democrat by default. This is still a fairly unusual path in US politics, but a very common one in France, where candidates are groomed by being handed mayoral stints.

The 7-month deskjob stint in Afghanistan is along the same lines, it's part of a resume checklist, enough to give him military/vet credentials.


2- Lack of substance. The article nails it there:

Quote:

---

VICE: I listened to you talk today. On the one hand, you definitely speak very progressively. But you don't have a lot of super-specific policy ideas.

BUTTIGIEG: Part of where the left and the center-left have gone wrong is that we've been so policy-led that we haven't been as philosophical. We like to think of ourselves as the intellectual ones. But the truth is that the right has done a better job, in my lifetime, of connecting up its philosophy and its values to its politics. Right now I think we need to articulate the values, lay out our philosophical commitments and then develop policies off of that. And I'm working very hard not to put the cart before the horse.

---

How evasive can you get... He's basically a slicker version of Beto in terms of using platitudes to stay vague, appealing to his voters mostly through his manufactured image as opposed to substance. Very similar to Macron in France, who run on the basis of his youth, academic creds, clean-cut looks and supposed brilliance. Regardless of your interest in French politics, Macron is a very useful figure as he is the prototype of the modern establishment candidate, a groomed candidate that's going to pursue the same policies but pose as a millennial maverick.

3- "Buttigeig has explicitly stated he is a Democratic Capitalist, as in he believes in Capitalism. He is against the Rape and Pillage Capitalism"

Well what exactly is a Dem Capitalist, and what is "rape and pillage capitalism that conservatives promote", and how is that any different from Obama Capitalism, given that Wall Street stockpiled his administration with their crowd, and stuck the taxpayers with the largest wealth transfer in the history of mankind in the form of a $10 trillion bailout. Nomi Prins on the modern banking cartel:

Quote:

---

Six banks control so much capital and have so much power as to the laws around that capital. And the administrationand this started in Reagan, through Bush, through Clinton, into Obama this is not new but the reaction of the administrations has been to allow this to happen, to allow the concentration of this capital, of this power, to do nothing in the face of the financial crisis of 2008, which I believe is still ongoing, just in a different manifestation, because this risk still exists and because these numbers are worse than they were before the crisis of 2008.

---

"Democratic capitalism" is a vague label, and without any substance or policy layout, it's just empty politics. Warren has put forth the wealth tax, Yang the Tobin tax on financial transaction. Both of these proposals are very progressive, groundbreaking measures meant to level the field, and both of these candidates have been very critical of the 2008 bankster bailout, identifying key flaws in the system like its basic structure that privatizes profit and socializes megalosses, structure which has been in place since the Reagan era S&L crisis. I don't think Buttegieg has gone beyond vague monikers.

Buttegieg has exactly the same political profile as Macron: military interventionism, staunchly pro-Israel, Wall Street neoliberal economics (reflecting the McKinsey mindset, the author has done a good job fleshing out this mindset in PB's mayoral tenure), in combination with new left identity politics, where labor rights and the welfare of the middle class get replaced by nebulous LGBT rights and 21st century gender issues.

Running for President reminds me of the college admissions scandal. The scandal is a direct result of colleges demanding that an 18 year old have a resume to differentiate themselves from the multitudes. So what happens: kids work off a checklist; play the piano, play a sport, work with the homeless, show diversity, start a business, write a novel oh and have "passion" And they embellish and cheat.

We can see the same things with these candidates and their image consultants- have Ivy League credentials, appeal to diversity, serve in the military, appeal to the mythical midwestern white guy, be authentic have "vision." But much of this is self- branding not necessary anything real.

Kamala Harris is black but is being the daughter of a Jamaican Professor and Indian scientist give her more insight into the African American community? Not as a prosecutor it didn't.

When I look at this group and ask who among them have spent a life working on issues of inequality and social justice and in opposition to the right wing agenda that both parties have faithfully served, a list of anyone I could vote for becomes very small, very fast.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Running for President reminds me of the college admissions scandal. The scandal is a direct result of colleges demanding that an 18 year old have a resume to differentiate themselves from the multitudes. So what happens: kids work off a checklist; play the piano, play a sport, work with the homeless, show diversity, start a business, write a novel oh and have "passion" And they embellish and cheat.

We can see the same things with these candidates and their image consultants- have Ivy League credentials, appeal to diversity, serve in the military, appeal to the mythical midwestern white guy, be authentic have "vision." But much of this is self- branding not necessary anything real.

Kamala Harris is black but is being the daughter of a Jamaican Professor and Indian scientist give her more insight into the African American community? Not as a prosecutor it didn't.

When I look at this group and ask who among them have spent a life working on issues of inequality and social justice and in opposition to the right wing agenda that both parties have faithfully served, a list of anyone I could vote for becomes very small, very fast.

---

Based solely on that criteria, Bernie is your guy. Nader would have been too

Conservatives of faith, in a weird way, has having the first devoutly amoral president made it a little easier to accept the possibility of having the first president living in sin (not that there's anything wrong with that)?

Mayor Pete slam dunks on Pence, posterizes him using God. Gotta love this.

Yes, that was really powerful.
I watched two edited clips, and both had separate slam-dunk portions.
So, I've been waiting for the entire speech to be posted.
Here it is:



The good part of his speech begins at about 3:30

okaydo said:

---

---

Agreed.
He makes sense.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Conservatives of faith, in a weird way, has having the first devoutly amoral president made it a little easier to accept the possibility of having the first president living in sin (not that there's anything wrong with that)?

---

Sadly, I don't think the Conservative Christian core is there yet.
But his presence on the stage will advance things for millions. Until, eventually....

Just like how the US Women's National Team (USWNT, soccer) is suing for equal pay. They may not win before their short athletic lifespans are up, but future generations of female workers thank them.

I think he cannot win the presidency, but he can get a job at a high level and continue to change base opinions. And that's a fight worth continuing!

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Agreed.
He makes sense.

---

That tweet was sarcasm, since Mayor Pete's rise is tied to his identity.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Conservatives of faith, in a weird way, has having the first devoutly amoral president made it a little easier to accept the possibility of having the first president living in sin (not that there's anything wrong with that)?

---

Ha! No. I think Erik Erickson has it about right. (If you want more, he's been ranting about Mayor Pete for the past 24 hours -- I don't actually follow the guy, btw.)

IMHO, devout Christians allow for people to screw up. They encourage it -- as long as you say you love God. Well, at least screw up when it comes to (heterosexual) sex and alcohol. But they're overly willing to forgive sinners as long as the sinner is on their side.

Like they'd immediately forgive a Christian who shoots up an abortion clinic. They would never, however, forgive Colin Kaepernick.

offshorebear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Kamala Harris is black but is being the daughter of a Jamaican Professor and Indian scientist give her more insight into the African American community? Not as a prosecutor it didn't.

When I look at this group and ask who among them have spent a life working on issues of inequality and social justice and in opposition to the right wing agenda that both parties have faithfully served, a list of anyone I could vote for becomes very small, very fast.

---

Based solely on that criteria, Bernie is your guy. Nader would have been too

---

Kamala is a political opportunist ala Hillary, i.e. they will cater to the prevailing winds of party consensus (they will support whatever is politically expedient).

You saw it with the Rep party recently. The party was disingenuous on their appeal Obomacare and support for polarizing immigration reform. So they feigned an attempt and gave up.

It may not matter given you have to own both houses of the legislature to get anything done on a key issue, but at least guys like Bernie and Nader are going to make a sincere effort to get make polarizing and even unpopular political legislation passed.

Here's the thing about Pete, Beto, AOC and the other young Dem pols...a lot have the authenticity factor to go along with smarts. (Bernie has it too but with an old crusty vibe.). I think part is being young and not yet developing the D.C. patina/ego from dealing with corruption/lobbying and duplicity. They don't speak double talk gibberish of nothingness yet. Their views and communication are clear and unobstructed by a need to problem solve, be responsive to their constituents and not prime the politics of the day and money.

Mayor Pete seems like a smart, normal guy with an upright and forward moving manner. Also...who cares if he's gay. If you're hung up on that...go pray with Mike Pence.

Rachel from Real World San Francisco...https://www.newsweek.com/pete-buttigieg-fox-news-trump-1389404

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Agreed.
He makes sense.

---

That tweet was sarcasm, since Mayor Pete's rise is tied to his identity.

---

Oh, well, that's just homo-centric/phobic snark.

Nice way of reducing him, a la Barack to his skin color.

okaydo said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Conservatives of faith, in a weird way, has having the first devoutly amoral president made it a little easier to accept the possibility of having the first president living in sin (not that there's anything wrong with that)?

---

Ha! No. I think Erik Erickson has it about right. (If you want more, he's been ranting about Mayor Pete for the past 24 hours -- I don't actually follow the guy, btw.)

IMHO, devout Christians allow for people to screw up. They encourage it -- as long as you say you love God. Well, at least screw up when it comes to (heterosexual) sex and alcohol. But they're overly willing to forgive sinners as long as the sinner is on their side.

Like they'd immediately forgive a Christian who shoots up an abortion clinic. They would never, however, forgive Colin Kaepernick.

---

Ding ding ding!!!
You are correct. And for this reason, he will not win in 2020.
There are so many closet Erik Ericksons. They came out of the woodwork in 2016 and stunned us all.

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Agreed.
He makes sense.

---

That tweet was sarcasm, since Mayor Pete's rise is tied to his identity.

---

Oh, well, that's just homo-centric/phobic snark.

Nice way of reducing him, a la Barack to his skin color.

---

The point is "identity politics" is a phrase used to denigrate having female candidates and minority candidates. But Trump's rise is due to identity politics. So is Beto's rise.

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Conservatives of faith, in a weird way, has having the first devoutly amoral president made it a little easier to accept the possibility of having the first president living in sin (not that there's anything wrong with that)?

---

Ha! No. I think Erik Erickson has it about right. (If you want more, he's been ranting about Mayor Pete for the past 24 hours -- I don't actually follow the guy, btw.)

IMHO, devout Christians allow for people to screw up. They encourage it -- as long as you say you love God. Well, at least screw up when it comes to (heterosexual) sex and alcohol. But they're overly willing to forgive sinners as long as the sinner is on their side.

Like they'd immediately forgive a Christian who shoots up an abortion clinic. They would never, however, forgive Colin Kaepernick.

---

Ding ding ding!!!
You are correct. And for this reason, he will not win in 2020.
There are so many closet Erik Ericksons. They came out of the woodwork in 2016 and stunned us all.

---

I don't know, its not like Erik Erickson (or those like him [aka the closet Ericksons]) are swing votes, meaning he and his tribe are never going to vote for any of the Dem's (or Schultz). All Erickson is doing is inciting rage to motivate the base to actually vote. Democrats should have the energy to counter (thanks to Trump), its just a question of if that person can rally the Democratic coalition to prevent any 'protest votes' because they are butthurt their candidate didn't run, and someone that will not immediately turn off the middle of the upper midwest.

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

concordtom said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

Agreed.
He makes sense.

---

That tweet was sarcasm, since Mayor Pete's rise is tied to his identity.

---

Oh, well, that's just homo-centric/phobic snark.

Nice way of reducing him, a la Barack to his skin color.

---

The point is "identity politics" is a phrase used to denigrate having female candidates and minority candidates. But Trump's rise is due to identity politics. So is Beto's rise.

---

I understood the "identity" aspect of the tweet, possible as a sarcastic gay comment - as neither the author (I assume) nor me is gay. I chose to assume the author was being genuine, and agreeing with Pete's comments, rather than his "identity ". I think I haven't used clear language here. Sorry.
I do not identify with Pete's gayness. I do identify with the things he's said!
I'm hoping Petes rise is not because he's gay but because of his words.

And unlike trump, where there's a big difference between who he is and what he says (as in a rich guy saying he'll fight for the poor guy), I think Pete is telling the truth!

I think I posted this in the wrong thread:

Just listened to an hour long form interview with Buttigieg. Very impressive thinker and speaker. I havent read through his policy beyond the headlines but we would all be much better off with someone like him in charge. Unfortunately I don't think moderate conservatives would ever 1) give up on their God Trump or 2) vote for a gay man for President, or even vote for his ability to marry, or receive healthcare, or labor rights, or anything else. Sick that that has to come into play

offshorebear said:

---

I think I posted this in the wrong thread:

Just listened to an hour long form interview with Buttigieg. Very impressive thinker and speaker. I havent read through his policy beyond the headlines but we would all be much better off with someone like him in charge. Unfortunately I don't think moderate conservatives would ever 1) give up on their God Trump or 2) vote for a gay man for President, or even vote for his ability to marry, or receive healthcare, or labor rights, or anything else. Sick that that has to come into play

---

Just curious, do you think those same moderate conservatives would be willing to vote for a black woman from California or anyone from a coastal big city like Booker and Warren, or a socialist like Bernie, or an overly handsy Biden?

Or bi-sexual and lesbian Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin?