-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...-rails-biden-accuses-buttigieg-of-being-empty
What an idiot.
Mike Gravel said:
What an idiot.
Joe Biden has no shot of winning and the only thing wrong about what Mike Gravel said was that Pete buttigieg energizes the gay community. Although maybe he does for the white gay man community.
Yes, Pete has never said anything except "I'm gay vote for me!" Just like Hillary spent all of 2016 talking about her vagina.
Sick burn bro!!
Pete has said nothing of substance for months I don't understand how that's not obvious?? You do know that like part of being a politician is like... having real policy ideas right?
The reason people like him the first place are his ideas. Just like with Hillary, it takes a lot of effort to stay willfully ignorant enough to believe that he's just running on lolidentitypolitics.
Not to mention that the president doesn't make legislation. The most admirable part of Warren's detailed proposals is that they're entirely unnecessary aside from showing she has actual experience and competence behind her stump speech (coughberniesanders).
Those are interviews not platforms. I don't know why you keep comparing him to Hillary at all I've said nothing about Hillary only about how Pete has remains one of the few candidates who still has not announced any policy platforms. And it's not willful ignorance I literally spent an hour after my first post trying to find any kind of clear policy proposals, best I found was he's rolling out an app soon for key word searches on his site.
Just another example of what I mean from the New York Times: Pete Buttigieg's Focus: Storytelling First. Policy Details Later.
And From the LA Times: Pete Buttigieg has everything except positions on major issues
"He’s impressive on television, a fluent mix of Democratic talking points wrapped in moderate Midwestern tones — plus, as my colleague Mark Z. Barabak wrote, a “Mr. Rogers haircut and Howdy Doody grin.”
Buttigieg acknowledges that it’s “audacious” for the thirtysomething mayor of a town of 102,000 to seek the presidency. Actually, it’s unprecedented. The last mayor to win a nomination was New York’s DeWitt Clinton in 1812. And he lost in the general election.
His pitch is mostly his biography. He’s a millennial, he points out often in an unsubtle contrast to older candidates.
“I come from the generation that is going to be on the business end of climate change as long as we live,” he said in his announcement speech on Sunday.
He argues that as a Rust Belt mayor who has won votes from Trump supporters, he could be the “electable” candidate Democrats yearn for."
So basically: He's a guy who says nothing unique or original and literally is running on identity politics by the sounds of it.
Just another example of what I mean from the New York Times: Pete Buttigieg's Focus: Storytelling First. Policy Details Later.
And From the LA Times: Pete Buttigieg has everything except positions on major issues
"He’s impressive on television, a fluent mix of Democratic talking points wrapped in moderate Midwestern tones — plus, as my colleague Mark Z. Barabak wrote, a “Mr. Rogers haircut and Howdy Doody grin.”
Buttigieg acknowledges that it’s “audacious” for the thirtysomething mayor of a town of 102,000 to seek the presidency. Actually, it’s unprecedented. The last mayor to win a nomination was New York’s DeWitt Clinton in 1812. And he lost in the general election.
His pitch is mostly his biography. He’s a millennial, he points out often in an unsubtle contrast to older candidates.
“I come from the generation that is going to be on the business end of climate change as long as we live,” he said in his announcement speech on Sunday.
He argues that as a Rust Belt mayor who has won votes from Trump supporters, he could be the “electable” candidate Democrats yearn for."
So basically: He's a guy who says nothing unique or original and literally is running on identity politics by the sounds of it.
Last edited:
...interviews where he establishes his platform, conveniently organized by issue nontheless. Bernie's website was just a donate button until a few weeks ago. Does that mean Bernie had no platform?
Because this is the same exact thing people said and continue to say about Hillary, despite having an extensive list of easy-to-find policies. Similarly, Pete has laid out numerous plans in interviews and speeches thus far, and it is indeed willful ignorance to ignore that.
That's what happens when your only source of political news is memes.
Well, now you have a great source! If videos don't count for some reason, you're free to read the transcripts.
First of all, he's right. "We need to establish a unified ideological platform before worrying about specific policy implementation details," is both a valid and intelligent position. Look at Republicans. Aside from guns, taxes, and abortion, they really don't give a shit about what the government does. Instead, they all rally around "family values" and personal liberties, then they derive their policies from that. Populist candidates like Bernie and Trump do the same thing, except their supporters rally around "us vs the establishment" rhetoric, and their favoured policies (no matter how poorly thought out) follow that motivation. The cult of personality that they both formed is symptomatic of that.
And I can link dozens of articles with Bernie's peers speaking poorly of him, or with subtly misleading headlines about Bernie (heck, you could find 100 just talking about "America doesn't want a socialist president"). I feel like you don't give those articles the same benefit of the doubt.
If "unprecedented" is your argument, then we shouldn't even be talking about any candidate not named Biden or Beto. In fact, we could disqualify half the field by saying "the last time a woman won the nomination was in 2016, and she lost in the general election."
I dare you to watch a single video of Pete speaking, then try to say "most" of his pitch is that he's a millennial. Give me a break.
One of the most common talking points about 2016 is that Bernie would have won because he appeals to white guys in the rust belt. One of the most common talking points about his candidacy right now is that he is electable because he appeals to the rust belt and disenchanted republicans.
It's really hard to take you seriously.
Honestly asking, how is he basically a Republican in any way? And when did I say anything about his political leanings or quality as a candidate?
And not referring to you specifically, but why do the same people calling him a republican also say he has no platform? How can you judge the lean of his platform if he doesn't have one?
The most common attacks on Buttgieg are some of the least substantive smears I've ever seen. Good luck convincing people who like his ideas that he... has no ideas.
And not referring to you specifically, but why do the same people calling him a republican also say he has no platform? How can you judge the lean of his platform if he doesn't have one?
The most common attacks on Buttgieg are some of the least substantive smears I've ever seen. Good luck convincing people who like his ideas that he... has no ideas.
Last edited:
And also running on zero reservations of prostituting himself (as Biden would call himself) to big money interests.
The obsession some have on the far left of calling those on the slightly-less-far left ‘Republicans’ is kind is insane
Georgia just banned abortion. Our president doesn't believe in climate change. The current DHS actively puts children in cages
But Pete Buttgieg doesn't unequivocally support dumb policies like free college, is open to a public option as a stepping stone to M4A, and worked for a consulting firm for a few years.
So yeah, he's basically the same thing.
But Pete Buttgieg doesn't unequivocally support dumb policies like free college, is open to a public option as a stepping stone to M4A, and worked for a consulting firm for a few years.
So yeah, he's basically the same thing.
What bothers me about Pete is that there is nothing to suggest he would differ from Bush-Obama-Trump in terms of foreign military policy. He's hardly critical of the military, probably because he served as a Navy intelligence officer for 7 years including in Afghanistan. He brags about his service and wants to make it a social norm for everyone over 18 to spend a year in national service (Link).
Of course he's not a Republican. But as of now, he comes off as worse than the other progressive candidates- Bernie, Yang, Warren. If you look at Pete's website compared to Bernie's extensive policy page it is very telling about how much respective thought they have put into this. All I get from that is he supports universal healthcare and action on climate change, which is great, but an actual detailed plan would be nice. Bernie, Warren, and even Gabbard have fairly progressive voting records to show as well where they stand in terms of proof (although Gabbard said she supports drone strikes which is bad.) Pete has nothing except for some legislation as mayor concerning LGBT rights. For now, there's really no reason to vote for him unless the other candidate ends up being worse. It is still quite early though.
Of course he's not a Republican. But as of now, he comes off as worse than the other progressive candidates- Bernie, Yang, Warren. If you look at Pete's website compared to Bernie's extensive policy page it is very telling about how much respective thought they have put into this. All I get from that is he supports universal healthcare and action on climate change, which is great, but an actual detailed plan would be nice. Bernie, Warren, and even Gabbard have fairly progressive voting records to show as well where they stand in terms of proof (although Gabbard said she supports drone strikes which is bad.) Pete has nothing except for some legislation as mayor concerning LGBT rights. For now, there's really no reason to vote for him unless the other candidate ends up being worse. It is still quite early though.
Last edited:
Civil service, not military service.
Well he said "civilian or military" but the very vague way he talks about it leaves it up to interpretation and the rhetoric prefacing it saying how disciplined his military background made him or whatever doesn't help. He also implies he wouldn't mind it being legally mandatory which raises concerns.
That being said, the idea of expanding volunteer service programs like AmeriCorps is certainly something I can get behind. Or re-establishing a massive volunteer service specifically dedicated to environmental problems like the old Civilian Conservation Corps.
I think it’s because mainstream Democrats don’t do anything to change the systemic problems that pervade governance by either party— so the differences are differences that don’t change the structures of power or most deep rooted abuses. In many ways they are effectively the same, and I think when people on the left do this they're referring to which side of that dichotomy they see the politician in question on.
Last edited:
Also civil service, military service, I don't fucking care. A government that has systematically impoverished the financial and environmental futures of younger generations while giving them nothing has no legitimacy in asking for their most productive years in servitude. Give me a fucking break Pete-- you can talk about this kind of crap after you've wiped student debts clean, ensured guaranteed college for all, and reformed society so that millenials and younger are projected to be significantly wealthier than their parents, not significantly poorer.
I think that erasing student debt is OK as long the money comes from the school's coffers, not taxpayers' pockets. The schools are responsible for this crisis, not taxpayers. The schools enjoy their tax free status and massive federal appropriations. It's time for them to give back to the society.
This seems like a very naive outlook and you come across like the bold is a prerequisite to any democratic candidate, in so far to suggest that it has been done before, when it hasn't. There's nothing wrong with presenting an idea that isn't in the big 10 or so debate topics. This is precisely what makes candidates unique and allows others to adopt the best parts of their opponent's platforms.
With regard to this post and others criticizing Buttigieg for a lack of detailed policy, I would like to remind you of your last few words: it is May 2019. There is PLENTY of time to discuss policy and as we approach the primary debates that is all but guaranteed. There IS an importance to establishing a narrative around yourself as a candidate and this is proven by the early polls showing Buttigieg with favorable numbers. In the bubble of progressive politics we seem to forget that the average American looks for qualities we have come to expect in almost every known POTUS with the exception of Trump—temperament, civility, trust, and many other traits that have absolutely nothing to do with policy.
How exactly is this going to happen? After decades of pensions and social security bought by the next generation I fail to see how any future generation will be as wealthy as "our parents" ever will be
In this case I'm specifically speaking to the absurdity of young people being legally or even socially forced to spend valuable time from their most productive years doing work for a government in one form or another that is doing nothing but pillaging their future prospects. That notion is totally unacceptable.
Notice that I didn't say they must do it. I said they must do it if they want to legitimately ask for the servitude of the youth.
My understanding is that most proposals say you'd do it by printing money. Quantitative easing.
Last edited: