Telling that this is all you can latch onto in defense of your position that writing about Bernie makes Pete a true progressive.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Telling that this is all you can latch onto in defense of your position that writing about Bernie makes Pete a true progressive.
So are you saying you just made that up or...?
Also, you can refrain from putting words in my mouth, thanks.
Sure, I'll admit that parenthetical aside was a bit of a stretch (lamenting Buchanan falling out of favor is not the same as praising him). But it's not nearly as much of a stretch as your fundamental claim that writing an essay about Bernie for a contest makes Pete progressive.
It's not "a bit of a stretch." It's a willful misrepresentation that you put forth, I'm guessing, to advance an argument in absence of having anything of substance to use. You lied to make your case.
I never said whether Pete is a "true progressive" or not nor did I posit that his essay was proof that he was. I'm not the gatekeeper of what a "true progressive" is and neither are you.
I was arguing against your bizarre, unfounded and offensive statement that Pete would be hanging with Mike Pence if he weren't gay.
This is ridiculous. Pete has said multiple times that Republican politicians do not act in good faith and that Democrats shouldn't act like they do. He's frequently criticized dems from the left. His whole fucking deal with his campaign is reforming political structures so that Republicans and the right aren't so overrepresented across the system. If anything Sanders is the one more likely to try the rubbing elbows with Republicans approach.
His position on healthcare isn't as good as Sanders, but it's not bad and would ideally get to the same place. His position on Israel and whistleblowers is disappointing like Obama, but so is everyone not Sanders (who's also not perfect there). His college position is disappointing, but not awful. Every other aspect, he's as far left as anybody in politics it seems.
He's been more open to a UBI than most who aren't Yang, him and Inslee are the only two making climate a legislative priority, he's been backing Sanders/Warren tax policies, and he's the most radical (much more so than Sanders) in actually promoting systemic changes in every level of government necessary for the next president (AOC or someone like her) to be able to actually pass a DemSoc agenda in America.
On net balance, he's easily the third most left candidate behind Warren and Sanders. But not a single candidate's agenda sets the stage better for a successful AOC presidency.
I'd probably rank Warren and maybe Sanders ahead of him personally right now, but he's definitely top three and some of the attempts to smear anyone who isn't Sanders as being a corporate shill sellout are getting tiring already. Sanders may very well win my primary vote, but not everyone else is completely awful.
Last edited:
I posted Pete's own interviews a few pages back. Here's a sampling, with no commentary from me:
https://youtu.be/PI6IbymfkX8 (The View)
https://www.ajc.org/news/passport (scroll down to Buttigieg's interview)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-candidate-pete-buttigieg-troubled-by-clemency-for-chelsea-manning/
Cool, so just to be clear, you're comfortable sticking with:
-Lying to make your case
-Saying that Pete would be hanging with Pence if he weren't gay
-Misrepresenting what I said in order to create a bullshit straw man
Great.
Keep defending Pete's regressive statements and policies by attacking my tone and asides instead of dealing with the issues. Okay. I'm out, you win.
Williamson is campaigning in support of UBI.
Her initial reaction was strong support.
Then she did a campaign call interview with Yang soon after.
And added UBI to her campaign website few weeks after that.
marianne2020 said:
Well, there are plenty of things I like about my dad. He didn't vote for Trump, but he's solidly GOP in like 98
"Spiritual advisor to Oprah Winfrey" should be disqualifying to everybody.
Calling you out for lying is "attacking your tone"?
Questioning your bizarre assertion that if Pete weren't gay he would be an arch conservative hanging with Pence is "attacking your tone"?
Pointing out your straw man is "attacking your tone"?
I still find it suspect that 34% of Pete's donations were over $200. Beto had 98% of his donations under $200. Pete also seems more concerned about going on TV and meeting with big money donors than actually going out and talking to normal people. That could change I guess though.
No, 34% of his funds were from those donations, not percent of individual donors. He just reported his numbers differently than the rest. His average donation was actually smaller than Beto and he recieved over $2 million less, despite having comparable numbers of donors. Beto actually benefited more from big donations than Pete did, but Harris dwarfed both of them in that regard I believe.
I like how Sheryl Crow called out, in kind language, Booker and the other candidates for co-opting embracing Marianne's message.
Ah thanks for the clarification. Beto had about 20k more donors didn't he? Also that was only 2 weeks for Beto vs almost 3 months for Pete. Still impressive numbers for Pete. Beto can easily be surpassed by Pete if he keeps getting all the media attention. The feud with Pence is like a gift to him
yeah i dont want any 'spiritual' people anywhere near the government ideally. don't understand why anyone would like or vote for williamson personally
Really weird choice for first media appearance since announcing. A show that will get very little views on a Saturday night... I don't get it.
Yeah, that sounds about right. I'd be happy with either, really. Beto has surpassed Kamala to take my 4th spot.
Warren is my fave, but I still do get doubts about her beating Trump. My top 3 are very fluid and not set in stone right now. But I will say that Pete, and now Warren's, push to change the systems which have been handicapping the left is a top priority for me, as it makes it incredibly easier for the new wave of millennial dems over the next two decades to actually accomplish things of substance. I appreciate that Pete has said he would prioritize his political capital as president on that, and on climate change. Warren is the only other one I can picture actually using political capital on some of those systemic fights.
Wait I thought talking about donation breakdowns was a conspiracy, or something.
No, it's a conspiracy when someone says something like Beto got all his money from bundling or Wall Street with no evidence. I thought Pete had 34% of his donations come in over $200, which I thought was strange since it was so.much higher than everyone else, but that was clarified above.
Great answer by Beto on the uniting the party question and he promotes respect for the other candidates and makes note to say he won't degrade or denigrate other candidates or try to remake the party in his vision. That he'll listen to voices and engage.
Yeah, dude's great. To add to this he said he's lucky to be running in a primary along so many intelligent, talented and impressive people. Regardless of if he's your choice for candidate, he's a force for good and he seems committed to getting whoever is nominated elected.
Edit: On a question about the US' relations with Israel:
I'm not sure how well he can gracefully establish cordiality like this after flat-out calling Bibi a racist, but I guess he tried.
Last edited:
Why doesnt he support a one state solution? Because more arabs voting means a racist religious state dissolves? Oh no
A bit of both. He mentioned the massive amount of debt teachers are having from college and gave statistics on how many are quitting within their first year because they can't make a living wage. FB has a weird timer because it counts down, so it begins at the 37 minute mark.
That's probably it.
The thing that makes one-state/two-state dichotomy complicated is that there are honest and disingenuous arguments for both cases.
One-state, honest: No Israeli government is going to roll back the settlement and undo the border expansion to back go 1948/1967 borders. The only true option is full citizenships for all Palestinians and assimilation
One-state, disingenuous: Peace is possible and there's no reason to roll back or set borders (de facto annexation of Palestinian land)
Two-state, honest: This is Palestinian land, Israel never had the right to settle on it in the first place and are the colonizers. Or two state will allow both countries the autonomy they desire.
Two-state, disingenuous: Israel needs to remain a majority Jewish state (bunch of given reasons for this I'm not going to list, while increasing settlements anyway)
Whether he'll ever get it if he becomes President is an entirely different matter but you gotta respect Bernie for sticking to his guns on this matter.
Yeah I was basically using his words. If your country can't survive because minorities are a voting bloc, it's time to consider that maybe your country is just going to have to embrace the changes
When you say colonizers do you just mean the settlements? (If so, I agree, they're horrific and absolutely should be reclaimed.) I ask only because it's an incredibly loaded term when it comes to the Israelis as a whole because of the connotations with decolonization.
Some radicals will use the connotation in tandem with "decolonization" in favor of one-state (just one Palestinian state). Others are referring directly to the settlements. I've seen both arguments.
They're colonizers in that jews were 10% of the population of palestine in 1880 and then had their own state in a generation.
That doesn't mean they all need to leave, think of algeria where a decent chunk of the population were french transplants who then ended up having kids. They didn't all leave when the FLN won the civil war.
That doesn't mean they all need to leave, think of algeria where a decent chunk of the population were french transplants who then ended up having kids. They didn't all leave when the FLN won the civil war.
From a philosophical standpoint I think America "belongs" to Natives and their descendents. I know this is not actually practical grounds for policy-making but it's morally consistent in my internal system. It'd be strange for me to not extend that reasoning to Israel-Palestine because Israel is less than a century old.
From a pragmatic standpoint, at this point in time, only reparations are feasible (for America) and it's what I'd like to see in Israel, whether one-state or two-state.
From a pragmatic standpoint, at this point in time, only reparations are feasible (for America) and it's what I'd like to see in Israel, whether one-state or two-state.
Notice the people who continually come out first in support. Just one of a hundred reasons I'm a Sanders supporter. This is what a leader does. Good for him and Warren.
I love having a field of good candidates like Bernie and Warren running for president in times like these. using their platform to deliver a necessary response when the spotlight is on is so important and will hopefully get all the dems running to post a response.
Jay Inslee seems like a cool cat. Sad I have as much chance of winning the primary as he does.
jack_package_200 2020! What's your platform look like?
Anyway, its always nice to see that politicians from my state are more or less not shit.
Beto is really a good dude. Hopefully with him appearing on CNN tomorrow, it means the media blackout is over
- Status