Strickland33
Well-known member
Bernie Bros, on the whole, were willing to vote for Clinton. I'm calling you a Bernie Bro because you are "stanning" for your dude and nothing he does - even when pointed out by activists who you would otherwise support (e.g., your 100000+ posts on "F is for Fascism") - beyond a few logistical campaign gaffes can possibly be wrong. You also have been arguing utterly illogically when it comes to Pete's progressive credentials and label basically anybody who disagrees with Pete as a bully. People are unwilling to argue with you because you're acting like Bernie Bros act. It's neither worth it nor particularly rewarding when there's just no way you'll move anywhere on the guy.
As for the content of the protests and dispositions of the activists - your dude, like Bernie Sanders, has a lot of blindspots as a privileged white dude in the United States and it's great that activists are identifying them and holding Pete accountable. It's laudable that Pete, like Bernie, is receptive to the feedback and seems to be incorporate into his campaign. Again, it makes me like him as a politician, not a presidential candidate.
As for being in a different, less polarized-era: sure, but this also feels like an ahistorical #whytry take. After listening to the history again on slow burn, Clinton's campaign seems a bit like Obama's campaign in terms of how he beat out establishment candidates and drew on his red state credentials to take the party to the center-right in an election against a fairly popular center-right president.
I want Buttigieg, Abrams, Gillum, Castro, and O'Rourke to win elections with DNC and grassroots support. Let's give them that support moving forward and as they navigate higher office in their respective states. They do not need to be presidents and do not have the skills (particularly, on the policy and interpersonal side) to be presidents. I have worked closely with two mayoral administrations now (De Blasio and Garcetti) who oversee gigantic populations, aging infrastructure, massive infusions of funding for progressive policy intervention. De Blasio is an idiot, but Garcetti is considered by the DNC establishment to be a rising star. He's also a fairly competent mayor. I don't think that either of those guys are close to having the chops necessary to oversee the Executive Branch of the federal government.By electing Buttigieg, you're setting him up for failure.
Castro isn't going to win and nobody talks abut him on here. I have advocated for him to drop out and run for awhile now, but continue to support him because he's nominally in the race. I also drop his name a lot because you and #whytry brigade continue to paint me as a Bernie bro and board progressives' definition of progressivism as Sanders purism. (That is a bad faith posture and a bad faith argument, but you and the others know that already and persist anyway).
There are plenty of receipts of me holding unqualified candidates to that same standard. Say what you want about Castro, but he at least sat on a Cabinet and oversaw a federal agency. He's still not qualified, imo, but he's a hell of a lot more qualified than Buttigieg, Yang, Steyer, Bloomberg, Wiliamson, and whoever else is rounding out bottom of the primary field these days.
As for the content of the protests and dispositions of the activists - your dude, like Bernie Sanders, has a lot of blindspots as a privileged white dude in the United States and it's great that activists are identifying them and holding Pete accountable. It's laudable that Pete, like Bernie, is receptive to the feedback and seems to be incorporate into his campaign. Again, it makes me like him as a politician, not a presidential candidate.
As for being in a different, less polarized-era: sure, but this also feels like an ahistorical #whytry take. After listening to the history again on slow burn, Clinton's campaign seems a bit like Obama's campaign in terms of how he beat out establishment candidates and drew on his red state credentials to take the party to the center-right in an election against a fairly popular center-right president.
I want Buttigieg, Abrams, Gillum, Castro, and O'Rourke to win elections with DNC and grassroots support. Let's give them that support moving forward and as they navigate higher office in their respective states. They do not need to be presidents and do not have the skills (particularly, on the policy and interpersonal side) to be presidents. I have worked closely with two mayoral administrations now (De Blasio and Garcetti) who oversee gigantic populations, aging infrastructure, massive infusions of funding for progressive policy intervention. De Blasio is an idiot, but Garcetti is considered by the DNC establishment to be a rising star. He's also a fairly competent mayor. I don't think that either of those guys are close to having the chops necessary to oversee the Executive Branch of the federal government.By electing Buttigieg, you're setting him up for failure.
Castro isn't going to win and nobody talks abut him on here. I have advocated for him to drop out and run for awhile now, but continue to support him because he's nominally in the race. I also drop his name a lot because you and #whytry brigade continue to paint me as a Bernie bro and board progressives' definition of progressivism as Sanders purism. (That is a bad faith posture and a bad faith argument, but you and the others know that already and persist anyway).
There are plenty of receipts of me holding unqualified candidates to that same standard. Say what you want about Castro, but he at least sat on a Cabinet and oversaw a federal agency. He's still not qualified, imo, but he's a hell of a lot more qualified than Buttigieg, Yang, Steyer, Bloomberg, Wiliamson, and whoever else is rounding out bottom of the primary field these days.