dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearister said:

---

How about a Biden/Klobuchar ticket?

---

Too white. If Biden gets the nomination and doesn't pair up with Harris he's making a mistake.

---

Stacey Abrams.

---

That's a big promotion from State legislature

---

Not for Biden apparently, he's floated her name.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearister said:

---

How about a Biden/Klobuchar ticket?

---

Too white. If Biden gets the nomination and doesn't pair up with Harris he's making a mistake.

---

Stacey Abrams.

---

That's a big promotion from State legislature

---

..but not as much as the leap from failed game show host, failed businessman and serial sex offender to POTUS.

bearister said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

bearister said:

---

How about a Biden/Klobuchar ticket?

---

Too white. If Biden gets the nomination and doesn't pair up with Harris he's making a mistake.

---

Stacey Abrams.

---

That's a big promotion from State legislature

---

..but not as much as the leap from failed game show host, failed businessman and serial sex offender to POTUS.

---

Vote blue no matter who

A few weeks ago there was an anonymous person claiming to have known Pete since they were kids. This is what he wrote (his account is now protected).









Anyways, how do we know this is real or fake? The same account posted this tweet in 2013.

Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's father is a well known Marxist scholar and expert in the works of Antonio Gramsci

Point: it's easy to believe that Pete's maniacal goal in life has always been to be president.

Counterpoint: then why isn't he straight like Lindsey Graham?

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

---

Clinton raised and spent over a billion. Trump about 600 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Anarchistbear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

---

Clinton raised and spent over a billion. Trump about 600 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

---

Ok, so have Bloomberg put in $2B to make up for Trump's free media. Make it $5B. It still wouldn't put a dent in his fortune.

dajo9 said:

---

bearister said:

---

How about a Biden/Klobuchar ticket?

---

Too white. If Biden gets the nomination and doesn't pair up with Harris he's making a mistake.

---

Despite the fact that Harris has already conclusively demonstrated that she doesn't move women or minorities to vote for her. It's a nice narrative that has no validity when confronted with cold hard facts.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Despite the fact that Harris has already conclusively demonstrated that she doesn't move women or minorities to vote for her. It's a nice narrative that has no validity when confronted with cold hard facts.

---

How about now?

I don't think Sanders will choose Bloomberg- too Jewish.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Despite the fact that Harris has already conclusively demonstrated that she doesn't move women or minorities to vote for her. It's a nice narrative that has no validity when confronted with cold hard facts.

---

How about now?

---

I would recommend an immediate facelift

Anarchistbear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

---

Clinton raised and spent over a billion. Trump about 600 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

---

Trump got about $5 billion worth of free airtime. More than all the other candidates combined.

Democrats talking about wealth inequality and structuring an economy that works for the middle class, but none of them are talking about tax cuts or stimulus to the middle class (except Yang), while some openly admit taxes will go up for everybody. Insane logic.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

---

Clinton raised and spent over a billion. Trump about 600 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

---

Trump got about $5 billion worth of free airtime. More than all the other candidates combined.

---

Well, that has always been his genius.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's father is a well known Marxist scholar and expert in the works of Antonio Gramsci

---

...and Rudy Guiliani's dad was a convicted felon, jailbird and enforcer for the mob.

bearister said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Interestingly enough, Buttigieg's father is a well known Marxist scholar and expert in the works of Antonio Gramsci

---

...and Rudy Guiliani's dad was a convicted felon, jailbird and enforcer for the mob.

---

Why do you equate Marxist scholar with jailbird? Very Trumpish.

GBear4Life said:

---

Democrats talking about wealth inequality and structuring an economy that works for the middle class, but none of them are talking about tax cuts or stimulus to the middle class (except Yang), while some openly admit taxes will go up for everybody. Insane logic.

---

Shockingly, Medicare For All costs money to provide

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I think Bloomberg should join the ticket of whomever wins the nomination. As VP, I believe Bloomberg could spend unlimited amounts of his personal money on the campaign since it would technically be his own campaign. If Bloomberg could spend like, I don't know, $1B on the campaign, wouldn't that get it done?

Just to put it in perspective - Obama spend $775M in 2012, Clinton spend $565 in 2016 and Trump spent just $322 (including $65M of his own cash, less however much he paid his own companies).

I get that Bloomberg is a weird fit for just about anyone as a VP and maybe he wouldn't want to do it, but I think his money could be a game changer and it's better than having a bunch of money from random billionaires.

---

Clinton raised and spent over a billion. Trump about 600 million

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

---

Ok, so have Bloomberg put in $2B to make up for Trump's free media. Make it $5B. It still wouldn't put a dent in his fortune.

---

Can't he spend that money anyway without being on the ticket?

golden sloth said:

---

Perhaps the majority of those underrepresented groups dont care about the identity politics of it all, and just want a candidate they agree with or will beat donald trump.

---

That's pretty much it. The desire to get rid of Trump is overriding other concerns that might normally matter more.

The interesting part is how younger voters of color have stuck with Bernie. I think younger people are not so worried about the socialism.

GBear4Life said:

---

Yang is the only non-establishment, non-ideological candidate, which is what a lot of the self proclaimed enlightened Left desires.

---

Sounds like Trump and the right circa 2016.

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Point: it's easy to believe that Pete's maniacal goal in life has always been to be president.

Counterpoint: then why isn't he straight like Lindsey Graham?

---

You counterpoint requires a closet in there somewhere.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

I find Yang very likable and his ideas interesting, but maybe run for something else first? Show you can actually do the government thing before asking to be President?

---

I don't disagree with you in terms of voting for him, but I don't think it is the right strategy. Obama didn't want to run in 2008 thinking he should get more experience. His advisors basically told him with his brand, every day he spent in Washington was a bad day. His window would be closed in four years or god forbid 8.

Yang is an outsider. His chances were always slim. Being in government would hurt his brand. He is better off running now, introducing himself, and running again later when people are more familiar

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

Steyer seems like a lunatic

Yang basically has one big thing (UBI) and due to the unthreatening status of his candidacy it hasn't been well examined by anyone, which is why he hasn't been attacked on how impractical it is as he's envisioned. The irony behind him holding himself out as some sort of math guy is that the math behind his UBI doesn't check out at all. If anyone considered him a credible candidate they would attack his idea mercilessly and we all have seen how that has gone for the MFA crowd. UBI is nowhere near the sort of consensus that universal healthcare has achieved.

Other than UBI he basically speaks in platitudes.

Is he a nice guy? I guess so but people who worked at his small testing company didn't all think so. Is he good at explaining his ideas? Undoubtedly. Is that enough to make him the leader of the free world? I sure hope not or we are even more doomed than I thought.

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

I find Yang very likable and his ideas interesting, but maybe run for something else first? Show you can actually do the government thing before asking to be President?

---

I don't disagree with you in terms of voting for him, but I don't think it is the right strategy. Obama didn't want to run in 2008 thinking he should get more experience. His advisors basically told him with his brand, every day he spent in Washington was a bad day. His window would be closed in four years or god forbid 8.

Yang is an outsider. His chances were always slim. Being in government would hurt his brand. He is better off running now, introducing himself, and running again later when people are more familiar

---

He doesn't have to run for anything in Washington, could be a local or state office. Something.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Yang basically has one big thing (UBI) and due to the unthreatening status of his candidacy it hasn't been well examined by anyone, which is why he hasn't been attacked on how impractical it is as he's envisioned.

---

Virtually nothing spouted at primaries (including universal health care) is practical -- legislatively or monetarily

Quote:

---

The irony behind him holding himself out as some sort of math guy is that the math behind his UBI doesn't check out at all.

---

That's never stopped anybody on either side of the aisle. Furthermore, it is essentially a stimulus, essentially similar to extending unemployment benefits, and it embodies the core principal of leftist/keynsian economics which is increasing demand of goods and services.

It's telling that any liberal would bash UBI when it is more loyal to leftist economic principles of equality in a race where literally NOBODY is saying they'd like to put more money in the poor and middle class' hands through either tax cuts or stimulus -- always we'll "invest in X and Y programs that will help you!"

It's telling that in an era where Democrats are waxing poetic about the economy not working for "main street" (do they know what main street is?), none of them have espoused any intention to help main streeters keep more of their earned money.

Quote:

---

Other than UBI he basically speaks in platitudes.

---

This is just false

Quote:

---

Is that enough to make him the leader of the free world? I sure hope not or we are even more doomed than I thought.

---

This alarmist hyperbole is just funny.

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

I find Yang very likable and his ideas interesting, but maybe run for something else first? Show you can actually do the government thing before asking to be President?

---

I don't disagree with you in terms of voting for him, but I don't think it is the right strategy. Obama didn't want to run in 2008 thinking he should get more experience. His advisors basically told him with his brand, every day he spent in Washington was a bad day. His window would be closed in four years or god forbid 8.

Yang is an outsider. His chances were always slim. Being in government would hurt his brand. He is better off running now, introducing himself, and running again later when people are more familiar

---

He doesn't have to run for anything in Washington, could be a local or state office. Something.

---

Experience is overrated. Politics is not a technical craft like engineering or computer science.

In non-technical fields the best predictor of success in a role isn't experience or education or how well you interview, it's IQ.

For president, do you have good ideas and are you smart. That's it.

GBear4Life said:

---

sycasey said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

I find Yang very likable and his ideas interesting, but maybe run for something else first? Show you can actually do the government thing before asking to be President?

---

I don't disagree with you in terms of voting for him, but I don't think it is the right strategy. Obama didn't want to run in 2008 thinking he should get more experience. His advisors basically told him with his brand, every day he spent in Washington was a bad day. His window would be closed in four years or god forbid 8.

Yang is an outsider. His chances were always slim. Being in government would hurt his brand. He is better off running now, introducing himself, and running again later when people are more familiar

---

He doesn't have to run for anything in Washington, could be a local or state office. Something.

---

Experience is overrated. Politics is not a technical craft like engineering or computer science.

In non-technical fields the best predictor of success in a role isn't experience or education or how well you interview, it's IQ.

For president, do you have good ideas and are you smart. That's it.

---

I'm not overrating it. I'm just asking for my candidate to have any government experience at all. Yang doesn't have the bare minimum.

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

Steyer seems like a lunatic

---

What's that make Trump?
Honest question. And here's your chance to sound like you have your head screwed on straight.

concordtom said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Yang and Steyer seem like decent, good, fellows. I'd enjoy that beer conversation with them. But I have never considered them for office of president.

---

Steyer seems like a lunatic

---

What's that make Trump?
Honest question. And here's your chance to sound like you have your head screwed on straight.

---

An effective president?