Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 265: Nobody Likes Aquitter

(+) Yeah! (+)

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Now this is about to be horrible, this is not my view, but being real: You think a conservative (democrat even) black person in South Carolina is voting a gay man to be their President?

uh...yeah dude. Bad take. If Pete has true momentum at this point because Biden is "buried" in the media than sure. I don't think Biden WILL be buried but that's all I'm saying.

---

Yeah uh, sorry but no that's not a bad take. Like it may be an uncomfortable take, but the leading choice for Biden's second choice nation wide is... Bernie.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

So this is pretty bad

https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1226357866568863744

I'll go ahead and quote it because wow

But yeah, there's no chance whatsoever of a conspiracy

At a certain point the distinction between rigged and incompetence is irrelevant when it becomes functionally the same thing.

If this stands, you literally can not argue it wasnt rigged because its no different than if it was.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Yeah uh, sorry but no that's not a bad take. Like it may be an uncomfortable take, but the leading choice for Biden's second choice nation wide is... Bernie.

My extremely leftist cousin down in North Carolina stated last summer. "Identity politics is all well and good, but it only takes you so far. African Americans are a key demographic for the Democrats, and while it may be surprising to some, the vast majority are not the most LGBT intimated. It may be uncomfortable to democrats, but it is the truth. The alliance of Democrats can be fragile in certain scenarios."

*Shrug*. I didn't necessarily disagree.

And, yes, Chris. He is all aboard choo choo Bernie. He was last election also, but he made it straight up known anyone going to eliminate his student loan debt or try to gets his vote regardless.

He voted third party last year because he was made at Bernie getting screwed.

---

I was replying to Hero.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I was replying to Hero.

Duh. I was joining the convo.

---

Oh cool combos I love those!

---

I think Pete's chances are bring overblown. He would need a LOT of momentum to take 1st in the later states because, simply put, he's doing really bad in a lot of them.

The real reason Iowa matters is because Sanders needs all that momentum to stave off Biden, who is sinking but could still rebound. Pete's chance of being the nominee is honestly like something close to 1%.

---

Well, I think Biden assured Buttgieg stays in just to be spiteful at this point. So if Pete hurts him at all, Sanders will likely continue to benefit from it.

---

I really don't know what to say to "identity politics doesn't matter but black people won't vote for a gay man" so I'm just going to drop this

---

Conservative Christian black people, specifically

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I really don't know what to say to "identity politics doesn't matter but black people won't vote for a gay man" so I'm just going to drop this

That is not what the quote even said.

He is saying identity politics for the democratic party are all well and good (he even is for reparations and shit. He is goofy). But that when it comes down to it, African-Americans aren't really the biggest allies of LGBT. They basically turn an eye to it in general because it doesn't really affect them, but that in general African-Americans as a group aren't going to be rallying behind the LGBT cause predominantly.

This goes somewhat into African-American support and Buttgieg, possibly, if that is indeed generally correct.

---

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/education/profile-in-courage-essay-contest/past-winning-essays/2000-winning-essay-by-peter-buttigieg

This is old as hell, but I missed it somehow.

LMAO what happened?

---

That was definitely brought up before... I wanna say like a year ago or something?

I actually really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of Pete. He's not moderate. One big downside he does have is lack of experience, but the attacks I see on him are always totally nonsensical.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That was definitely brought up before... I wanna say like a year ago or something?

I actually really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of Pete. He's not moderate. One big downside he does have is lack of experience, but the attacks I see on him are always totally nonsensical.

He sold out to special interests.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That was definitely brought up before... I wanna say like a year ago or something?

I actually really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of Pete. He's not moderate. One big downside he does have is lack of experience, but the attacks I see on him are always totally nonsensical.

Setting aside that every single aspect of Pete is a charade that seems designed-by-committee to imitate President Obama.

His terrible history with minorities in South Bend, demolishing minority neighborhoods to raise property values, his both sides-ing a situation involving Eric Garner protesters and cops wearing shirts that said something like Breath easy and obey the police.

His sketchy history with McKinsey consulting, his potential ties to the CIA, etc.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

He sold out to special interests.

Also this, but this is the obvious stuff. Like remember when a little kid asked him if hed pledge to stop taking billionaires money and he straight-up said no? Lmao


---

As far as I can tell there is no actual evidence of any ties between Pete and the CIA at all.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with working for McKinsey or any other consulting firm. Consulting is not a bad thing. It literally just enables companies to hire temporary expertise that they don't need to have on hand permanently. Here's an article about what Pete did at McKinsey, and none of it appears to be problematic to me:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/11/21010731/what-we-know-about-pete-buttigieg-mckinsey

I know you guys aren't going to agree with me, but I don't think taking money from rich people automatically corrupts you. There are good reasons to try and get money out of politics by law, but until those laws are in place unilaterally disarming is just helping Trump (who obviously has no problem taking money from anyone).

I haven't really looked Pete's history with racial issues (as I was never seriously considering him over Biden), but given his real dearth of support with minorities I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there might be something there (but again, that's usually not what I'm seeing people on the left lob at him).

---

I agree that it is not perhaps automatic. However him repeating known insurance company talking points about why M4A is bad (you state it differently, I don't agree but its not the insurance company talking point of "choice" that a whistle blower admits was created to keep profits up)

Yeah he has a lot of stuff with minorities in South Bend which is very yikes.

Basically if you're on twitter you're getting some weird version of the left. I just think he is an empty suit.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That was definitely brought up before... I wanna say like a year ago or something?

I actually really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of Pete. He's not moderate. One big downside he does have is lack of experience, but the attacks I see on him are always totally nonsensical.

he's a phony.
that's all, he comes off as fake and that sinks him. he's using obama's style of speaking, obama's style of phrasing, combining it with his own, and going forward with that.

and chris - it's a fair question to have and the data supports you.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

2nd to last chart:
the only religious group that does worse with gay marriage than black protestants are white evangelicals. in 2017 that'd be 44% and 35%. no numbers for 2019 exist for black protestants but every other key demo in the chart went down so it's probably around 38-42% now - that's the range of drops the others hand.

last chart:
blacks as a whole are just 51% in favor of it.
this is likely due to religion and yes, a more conservative bend when it comes to gay rights/opinions on gay people. this has been a very well documented issue and is fair to bring up. especially true among older black Christians, he ain't getting any of their votes.

---

Oh yeah I guess I should be specific that I was talking about the Very Online left where I've seen a ton of animosity towards Pete going way beyond the level I see it towards anyone else (I'm guessing the average Sanders voter doesn't even dislike Pete or any of the other Democratic candidates).

---

personally can't care about the consulting firm job all that much. it's among the things that are expected when you're at an ivy league. hell, his time as mayor is one of those things i look at and shrug off, mayor of a small town is something i don't consider as experience to being president so he might as well have nothing on that aspect. his ties to the CIA aren't something i mind that much either, same for him being former military. i kinda like it in a way since i value those aspects much more than mayor and it says he has a better idea of what's going on behind the doors. i also like his education background and the wide range of languages, little things like that are pretty cool to have in a leader.

i just don't like a guy who i can tell within ten words is fake.
i can't trust him so i can't like or support him. i don't know what he's gonna do but he'll mold himself to bullshit me and the room 1000x richer than me alike - but i know which one he's gonna side with. or to stick with democrat terms... he's a guy trying to be obama as hard as he can but he comes off more as a less hawkish hillary when it matters. i can absolutely see him giving speeches for goldman sachs for 6 figures.

---

Theres also the issue

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Theres also the issue

it's the year of the rat.
pete wins asian demo confirmed.

LordoftheMorons posted...

Oh yeah I guess I should be specific that I was talking about the Very Online left where I've seen a ton of animosity towards Pete going way beyond the level I see it towards anyone else (I'm guessing the average Sanders voter doesn't even dislike Pete or any of the other Democratic candidates).

for that group, honestly, it's hard to figure out what it is. but tony's statements might answer them better for some stuff, like the CIA bit. even if there's not much actually there, any bit of being a glow in the dark will push them.

i'd go a step further and say the biggest reason this fringe group of the left has an issue with him is more racist - pete's the whitest of white. he might know a ton of languages but the man's lighter than bread. for this group of online lefties we're talking about, they're the ones who championed the diversity in the race, and be diversity i just mean racial, not that they supported any of them when it came to issues. they're the ones who explicitly said "NO MORE WHITE MEN" not just on twitter but across multiple different publications. it's the group of the left that'll say shit like kill white people or complain about interracial dating with white people. being gay ain't a saving point for them either since that just awaits the eventual cries of gay men being misogynistic.

if any of that sounds like it's way too out there, i'm pretty sure each of those statements has appeared in at least one of WaPo, NYT, or the Guardian. so while i agree it is nuts, it's also very public and highlighted by major press.

---

There are people on the left who have gone so far down the rabbit hole of identity politics that it has become their identity. They are why we need Trump. We need to elect Trump or someone similar until the Democratic Party expels these people or at least stops listening to them. And if it can't do that, we need eventually to create a center left splinter off the Republican Party to replace them.

---

Like he's blamed for working for McKinsey out of college? How many of the people complaining about this were okay with Hillary earning more than Pete's annual salary for giving a single speech to similar firms?

And don't say you weren't okay with it but supported Hillary anyway.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

That was definitely brought up before... I wanna say like a year ago or something?

I actually really don't understand the left's visceral hatred of Pete. He's not moderate. One big downside he does have is lack of experience, but the attacks I see on him are always totally nonsensical.

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/965396700511825920?s=21
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

https://twitter.com/petebuttigieg/status/965396700511825920?s=21

Yeah, that.

---

see, i like that pete more. it's how he actually is, a sarcastic dick with some wit. you just gotta compare how pete was around the time of the first debate to now and you'll see a gigantic difference in the way he's carrying himself and speaking. if you go back further the difference becomes even clearer. he's become more "politician" as time passed.

---

I know you guys aren't going to agree with me, but I don't think taking money from rich people automatically corrupts you. There are good reasons to try and get money out of politics by law, but until those laws are in place unilaterally disarming is just helping Trump (who obviously has no problem taking money from anyone).

its not that taking money from billionaires automatically corrupts you, but it definitely raises the question of why these billionaires want him to succeed. If hes the best candidate for billionaires, hes probably a pretty bad candidate for the rest of us.
---

Well, I think it's pretty clear that if you're a billionaire Sanders and Warren are not going to be good for you personally unless you're really selfless. If you're anti-Trump, it stands to reason that you'd give to whichever other Dem you thought had the best chance of winning (they still will increase your taxes, but they're not advocating for a wealth tax which is really going to gut you).

---

Know who won't take money from a bunch of billionaires?
Bloomberg.


---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Well, I think it's pretty clear that if you're a billionaire Sanders and Warren are not going to be good for you personally unless you're really selfless. If you're anti-Trump, it stands to reason that you'd give to whichever other Dem you thought had the best chance of winning (they still will increase your taxes, but they're not advocating for a wealth tax which is really going to gut you).

They care more about their absurd wealth than healthcare to the poor. Of lifting people out of poverty with pre-programs. Of all the good their moneyncould due to millions of people who are struggling. Money they can't spend in a lifetime. No tax is going to "gut" them. A billion dollars is one thousand million. You can buy a major sports franchise for a billion. Some of these people have dozens of that amount or more. Their wealth is obscene.

---

See that's the difference between us you think it is natural and OK if the absurdly wealthy hold onto their money while the working class suffers.

---

I'm not saying anything about whether a billionaire is right or wrong to do that. I'm saying it's obvious why a lot of them would support Pete or any other non-Sanders/Warren candidate even in the absence of thinking that they were going to do anything particularly helpful for them: the most helpful thing for the billionaire is that if they win, Sanders and Warren don't.

---

Right, which is why Pete is no good.

If you worked a seven figure job for 50 years and retired you could have 50,000,000 in job earnings.

That is 5% of a Billion.

There is nothing wrong with taxing people money they have no real use for it ensure the health and well being of millions.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

See that's the difference between us you think it is natural and OK if the absurdly wealthy hold onto their money while the working class suffers.

yeah, LotM's phrasing of things definitely makes it seem this way.

he calls it "being really selfless," i call it "the normal and human thing for billionaires to do."

---

Im personally fine with taxing billionaires a ton (I think the wealth tax and some of the other proposed taxes are dumb for other reasons (including the fact that theyve been ineffective in other countries that have tried them), but Im definitely for, e.g., large inheritance taxes/estate taxes).

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I agree that it is not perhaps automatic. However him repeating known insurance company talking points about why M4A is bad (you state it differently, I don't agree but its not the insurance company talking point of "choice" that a whistle blower admits was created to keep profits up)

Yeah he has a lot of stuff with minorities in South Bend which is very yikes.

Basically if you're on twitter you're getting some weird version of the left. I just think he is an empty suit.

This is my main problem with him. Hes like Biden but without the charisma or electability or history of accomplishing good things. I dont like Biden the best on policy but he has other things going for him that I at least understand the appeal. I also feel like I know where Biden stands and Id rather have that than this uncertainty with Pete where I sort of feel like he stands for nothing.

Like I think Biden loses to Trump but I think Buttigieg gets crushed by him. I dont hate him but hes like worst case scenario for me.

---

If we're going to just seize people's wealth, I propose a 95% tax on wealth accumulated from giving speeches to banks, consulting firms, and universities.

---

Is it more racist to believe that Trump is going to get a relevant percentage of the black vote, or to believe that he won't?

(because I'm firmly in the "he won't" camp)

---

Finally something all the campaigns can agree on: Iowa sucks and they messed this up.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/08/politics/iowa-caucuses-results-democrat-campaigns-irregularity-claims/index.html


---

So... Maybe Biden shouldn't have made that attack ad when he is on record saying:

I never had an interest in being a mayor cause thats a real job. You have to produce. Thats why I was able to be a senator for 36 years,

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_1390823?ref=elections-2012

Oof

---

Corrik7 posted...

That is not what the quote even said.

He is saying identity politics for the democratic party are all well and good (he even is for reparations and shit. He is goofy). But that when it comes down to it, African-Americans aren't really the biggest allies of LGBT. They basically turn an eye to it in general because it doesn't really affect them, but that in general African-Americans as a group aren't going to be rallying behind the LGBT cause predominantly.

This goes somewhat into African-American support and Buttgieg, possibly, if that is indeed generally correct.

Well lucky for Pete, as that video from Iowa displayed, its not common knowledge that hes gay
---

The full quote of that isn't as bad.

At the same event, Biden also gushed about Obamas former chief of staff, Chicago native Bill Daley, as well as Richard Daley, who was the mayor of Chicago for more than two decades. I never had an interest in being a mayor cause thats a real job. You have to produce. Thats why I was able to be a senator for 36 years, Biden said. [Obamas] a little like my image of you, Richie. The one thing that always amazed me was the decisive moves you make. You just make the decisions ... I consider Billy Daley one of my closest friends in the world."

---

Yeah it seems like Biden was just puffing smoke to build up Daley while adding a little self detrimental humor to enhance the speech.

BUT Buttigieg absolutely should turn that into an ad. Context definitely matters but I guarantee people wont look into that enough to find the context and it makes for a great counter to Bidens brutal ad from yesterday.

---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1226251504086065152?s=21

Maybe Trump is the guy to finally get the ball rolling on this
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1226251504086065152?s=21

Maybe Trump is the guy to finally get the ball rolling on this

It is super ridiculous that Pete Rose and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't in the Hall of Fame.

---

Corrik7 posted...

It is super ridiculous that Pete Rose and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens aren't in the Hall of Fame.

I actually would have guessed youd be against this, since they broke the baseball laws
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I actually would have guessed youd be against this, since they broke the baseball laws

What laws did they break? Pete Rose maybe did. But what rule did Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens break?

The fact is that baseball has always had cheating, whether you knew about it or not. Players took stuff for decades, spit on balls, stole signals, etc.

But what Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens did could not be replicated regardless. Taking a steroid did not make Barry Bonds hit .400. Didn't make him make contact with the ball and have the bat speed to turn on balls. Look at all the certified juicers we know of. None had the bat speed and barring average that bonds did.

Pete Rose I know less about, but again. This is the baseball hall of fame. Your contributions to baseball. Pete Rose is a legend of the game. Perhaps he should have had been banned from baseball and such if that is what the rules dictated, but that shouldn't have taken away his ability to be in the hall of fame. It's about his contributions on the field. I mean, unless he was point shaving or something then his contributions on the field were what they were and not against the spirit of the game.

---

Corrik7 posted...

What laws did they break? Pete Rose maybe did. But what rule did Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens break?

Corrik7 posted...

Taking a steroid

And hey I agree with you that they should be in! But lets not act like they didnt break the rules
---