2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Ph, that's insulting and beneath you. I'll let you walk that one back when you get a chance. This is a story that has happened over and over again to black, brown, and immigrant communities throughout the last 100 years. It's not surprising that it's happening here and the evidence that we have - accounts from residents, accounts from Buttigieg, and accounts from South Bend political operatives - more or less sound like the evidence in the texts that I'm teaching tomorrow. Hopefully, my students will be a bit more open minded about the evidence and implications that urban renewal has had on "the new urbanism" than you have been on this thread.

Ph, your posts on this thread is like the example sentence for the word "stan." Here is a similar sentiment on CNN. I'll be showing this video in class tomorrow so that my majority POC students know that slum clearance is still very much a strategy of urban development. This isn't just something that happened "back in the day."

And NED - c'mon, man. I'm just providing a different account of Mayor Pete's cleanup of South Bend's slums. It's not a great look, but showcases his self-confidence, hubris and efficacy. Textbook technocrat, which can be a good and bad thing.

i'll also point out that there is still very little traction on here for Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, etc. The Pete Posse really doesn't want to elect a woman.

Oh Jesus fucking Christ.

Shmoo- are you a Beto Bro or a member of the Pete Posse?

Some of the most qualified women in politics are running for president and y’all stan for the 37 year old white guy.

I've already stated I'm behind Warren. But your premise is a fucking joke.

Strickland33 said:

Shmoo- are you a Beto Bro or a member of the Pete Posse?

Some of the most qualified women in politics are running for president and y’all stan for the 37 year old white guy.

Click to expand...

Notice how Bernie Bros aren’t included in this even though they didn’t want the most qualified woman four years ago either.

Strickland33 said:

i'll also point out that there is still very little traction on here for Warren, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, etc. The Pete Posse really doesn't want to elect a woman.

Click to expand...

Good grief, what are you talking about?

From what I’ve seen, I like Mayor Pete a lot but I am far from making up my mind. I’d be more than happy to support any of the women (outside of Gabbard) running for the nomination. In fact, right now I would say Pete and Harris are my tier 1 candidates from what little I’ve seen.

And I also voted for a woman in 2016.

Newenglanddeac said:

[/B]

Good grief, what are you talking about?

From what I’ve seen, I like Mayor Pete a lot but I am far from making up my mind. I’d be more than happy to support any of the women (outside of Gabbard) running for the nomination. In fact, right now I would say Pete and Harris are my tier 1 candidates from what little I’ve seen.

And I also voted for a woman in 2016.

Click to expand...

So did everyone else Strick is talking about. It’s ugly politics.

Pete Derangement Syndrome

Ph, I don't include Bernie bros because I don't think there are any Bernie Bros on the board. I guess mdmh and MHB could fall into the Bernie Bro category, but have both been pretty critical of him lately.

From what I can tell, most of us fall into one of the following: Gillistans, Warrenistas, Pete Posse, and Beto Bros.

Way to wave the Bernie Bro flag, though.

Post-2016, y'all were relentless either dog whistling misogyny or outright accusing posters of misogyny. Now, in the run up to 2020, there are at least four awesome female candidates and board liberals (+NED) are salivating over the 37 year old white gay cis-gender male mayor of South Bend, Indiana. It's just...interesting. That's all I have to say about that.

Ph legit compared me to a poster who posted neo-nazi propaganda because I discussed a common critique of Buttigieg's record that was all over the news in the last week. I don't think that it's me that is suffering from a derangement syndrome.

No. I made the comparison because you got all worked up that Pete critiques weren’t in the MSM while posting a Pete critique from the MSM.

You’re getting really worked up because people like a different candidate than you do in freaking April. It’s weird man. Chill out.

I thought that the buzzfeed article was better than the CNN article.

I'm not worked up over anything. I think y'all are just hilarious. You have gone from not knowing who the guy is to stanning for him on a message board in the span of six months.

The gender piece, though, I think is what is riling me up. Y'all were such assholes towards Clinton critics (me, birdman, mhb, mdmh, etc. -- all of whom voted for Clinton, btw) and now you're supporting a young, cis white dude in a field full of super talented, (actual) policy-intelligent, and charismatic female candidates. It's just funny to me. The first charismatic white guy that comes to the table and doesn't talk about socialism becomes board liberals' political crush.

LOL. I’ve been a critic of Hillary for many many years. But I was happy to vote for her when the time came. And I’ll criticize her poorly run campaign till I die.

You’re really missing what people (including women and men) like about Pete. He’s the only candidate besides maybe Warren outlining a path to something besides base centrist politics or gridlock.

And again, I heard of him awhile back when he ran for DNC and when he came to the Tampa Bay area for an event in the 2018 cycle.

What path is he outlining? The accomplishment that he touts as indicative of his efficacy as a politician is responsible for exacerbating, not mitigating racial and economic injustice in South Band under the familiar rubric of "urban renewal." And you criticized the article because it featured the opinions of "aspiring slumlords."

I'm not missing what people like about Pete. He's charismatic. He speaks in political platitudes. Supporters can imagine drinking a beer with him. It's the same thing that people like about every political candidate. He's the manifestation of the post-2016 election mantra of "can the (people who wrongly think that they are) subaltern speak?' style of "both-sides" politics. I'm still waiting to hear about substantive policy proposals from the guy. I'm looking forward to a united America, a thriving economy, etc. but I need a bit of substance if you're going to convince me to advocate for you.

Last I saw he’s going to start rolling out policy proposals in May. He’s going to do one a week to generate buzz and get media attention.

I’m not going to get too worked up over policy in this race for four reasons.

First, policy comes from Congress anyway.

Second, policy won’t matter unless we keep the House and win the Senate.

Third, any candidate not for getting rid of the filibuster isn’t serious about policy anyway.

Fourth, the policy differences between the candidates aren’t that big aside from each having one or two unique big ideas that may or may not have a chance in hell in any Congress.

The election is about voting for someone in the primary that more people will want to vote for in November. Pete wins that one for me going away. He’s presenting a major contrast between Democrats and Republicans not just on policies but values. Any candidate who doesn’t counter that “both sides are the same” BS has no chance building a coalition.


One more thing. Obama deserves some criticism for his 8 years in office. But the one thing he did do is win big in 2008 with enough coattails to put 60 Democrats in the Senate. That’s what we need right now. Then we can start putting pressure on Congress to make sure their policy goals meet the needs of Americans who have been forgotten during the 40 year era of conservatism.

Can't you see how he's outlining a path to something besides base centrist politics...by not talking about policy?

PhDeac said:

First, policy comes from Congress anyway.

Third, any candidate not for getting rid of the filibuster isn’t serious about policy anyway.

Click to expand...

So policy doesn't matter because policy comes from Congress, but opinions about getting rid of the fillibuster matter because presidents definitely control that, right?

Strickland33 said:

I'm not missing what people like about Pete. He's charismatic. He speaks in political platitudes. Supporters can imagine drinking a beer with him. It's the same thing that people like about every political candidate. He's the manifestation of the post-2016 election mantra of "can the (people who wrongly think that they are) subaltern speak?' style of "both-sides" politics. I'm still waiting to hear about substantive policy proposals from the guy. I'm looking forward to a united America, a thriving economy, etc. but I need a bit of substance if you're going to convince me to advocate for you.

Click to expand...

Spivacuous

MHBDemon said:

So policy doesn't matter because policy comes from Congress, but opinions about getting rid of the fillibuster matter because presidents definitely control that, right?

Click to expand...

That's a yes/no thing. That's a veto/no veto thing. That's not about some subsection of a bill.