"Pete Buttigieg is a Lying MF"

[herassisfamous 1,418]

1 hour ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

I'm not going to blindly support a white gay man and hand wave the horrible things he's done because he's gay, and the idea that any queer person should do that is ridiculous.

If you read the thing I wrote again, you would see that I said you don’t have to vote for him. I’m just saying why can’t we just be proud that a gay man is this far in the race. But rather than doing that, we are just blatantly criticizing every negative thing that he does. Like I’m srsly tired of seeing a Pete dragging every day either on Twitter or here by the gay community. Rather than showing up for each other we just drag each other. Not just even Pete. We are just not supportive of each other. ESPECIALLY gay men. Sam Smith just announced that he is using they/them, did an incredibly queer photoshoot but we weren’t talking about it. This is a pattern of internalized homophobia showing itself towards other gay people. And it just gets me so sad. The only community that is supposed to understand us is the most “critical” one. And you seem to take my response personally and you’re super defensive for some reason. This thread is just an example for constant dragging of the community - either for the right reasons or wrong - . It just seems to happen that when a gay person does something impressive, important such as Pete’s advance in his campaign, it doesn’t matter. But when they do something that’s draggable, that is the whole talk. I mean where were we when Lil Nas X announced that he was gay? I’m complaining about something general, and disagreeing with the article you shared at the same time. Is this a reason to get triggered?

1 hour ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Log off, dude. Jesus christ.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

18 minutes ago, herassisfamous said:

If you read the thing I wrote again, you would see that I said you don’t have to vote for him. I’m just saying why can’t we just be proud that a gay man is this far in the race. But rather than doing that, we are just blatantly criticizing every negative thing that he does. Like I’m srsly tired of seeing a Pete dragging every day either on Twitter or here by the gay community. Rather than showing up for each other we just drag each other. Not just even Pete. We are just not supportive of each other. ESPECIALLY gay men. Sam Smith just announced that he is using they/them, did an incredibly queer photoshoot but we weren’t talking about it. This is a pattern of internalized homophobia showing itself towards other gay people. And it just gets me so sad. The only community that is supposed to understand us is the most “critical” one. And you seem to take my response personally and you’re super defensive for some reason. This thread is just an example for constant dragging of the community - either for the right reasons or wrong - . It just seems to happen that when a gay person does something impressive, important such as Pete’s advance in his campaign, it doesn’t matter. But when they do something that’s draggable, that is the whole talk. I mean where were we when Lil Nas X announced that he was gay? I’m complaining about something general, and disagreeing with the article you shared at the same time. Is this a reason to get triggered?

There’s a difference though between Sam Smith and Pete. One is a musician and the other is trying to become the leader of the executive branch of government. Pete is and should be vetted as a candidate. If he brings too much baggage, maybe he shouldn’t be president. 

[Bt1 5,213]

56 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

There’s a difference though between Sam Smith and Pete. One is a musician and the other is trying to become the leader of the executive branch of government. Pete is and should be vetted as a candidate. If he brings too much baggage, maybe he shouldn’t be president. 

That's not the problem. There are people in this race with more baggage, but it seems people target only some candidates. And when I say people, I'm talking about progressives. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

47 minutes ago, Florin said:

That's not the problem. There are people in this race with more baggage, but it seems people target only some candidates. And when I say people, I'm talking about progressives. 

The progressives have a point. The personification of centrism and moderation went up against Trump and lost. 

[Guillaume Hamon 7,025]

20 hours ago, Florin said:

Cool. If Sanders can go up, so can Pete. 

As I said Sanders wasn't having a race-related scandal as an handicap to get the black vote. His main connection towards the black community was his fight for african american civil rights in the 60's so nothing negative like Pete, the opposite actually.  So saying that "if sanders was able to go up so can Pete" is seing things the way you chose to see them let's say cause it's not similar situations...

20 hours ago, Florin said:

Btw, there are a lot of polls outhere. By googling the topic, I found more polls showing Bernie at 4 than at 2, but ok.  :)) choose the truth you want cause u are good at that. 

4th for the black vote? I didn't find him at 4th place in a poll for the black vote.  Well, I'm ready to believe you lol, just don't hesitate to provide some proofs instead of just saying it. Cause he was higher than that in the black vote polls I saw so it's hard to believe he's doing as bad with black voters as you say he does.

20 hours ago, Florin said:

and continue to talk about other things. I say that moderates could "demonize" Warren, you continue to talk about progressives.  How many times I need to tell you that progressives like Warren? Its that so hard to understand? 

But actually progressives are not as in love with warren as you seem to think and they're quite numerous to do to her what you wrongly call "demonizing".  Not as much as they do with Pete but since she switched on her healthcare plan it went bigger just like it went bigger on Pete after he switched on his.

20 hours ago, Florin said:

About the fact that Bernies voted mostly for Hillary : at the difference that made Trump president, it is important who didnt vote. If 1 of 10 voted for Trump and so many more didnt vote, it's clear that those progressive people were an important factor that made Trump president. U can be in denial how much u want, that it's the truth.

I never said that not voting for HRC against Trump wasn't helping Trump to win since it logically is. I said that sanders voters were very loyal overall therefore didn't deserve the loyalty trial from some hypocrite moderates who aren't more loyal than them when they have to.

Also you say "and so many didn't vote" but actually not plenty of sanders voters stayed home so you unfairly present things when you frame events like that...

20 hours ago, Florin said:

Mentioning Clinton - McCain is stupid considering that most of those votes came in states where Obama didnt won and the fact that there is an important factor here that u ignore : racism. 

Just like HRC had a harder time getting sanders voters in states where he won. It's always like that. By the way, even if Obama lost to her in these states that doesn't mean locals democrats weren't ALSO supposed to line behind him when it came to avoid a republican president at the end.

I don't ignore it but considering it influenced things grandly or not would only be assumptions cause we can't actually know.

20 hours ago, Florin said:

U cant trash a candidate for months and then expect that moderates or independents didnt hear anything what u said, especially since republicans will make sure they do.

You talked about being among the "grown ups" but looking back shows campaign including candidates of the same party dissing each other is pretty much the norm. Trump dissed every of his opponent, HRC was dissing sanders and Obama, Obama was dissing HRC, Kerry was dissing Bush and so on and on...  They all critiqued each other whatever it was tough attacks or just about throwing blames so candidates just can't avoid it.

Yes the attacks are recycled by their opposent afterwards but it works both ways and  candidates have to fight against that. It's typical of presidential campaigns, nothing new. If you don't want to see too much  of that then go for a candidate with less shady stories in his/ her past.  

20 hours ago, Florin said:

Spread the hate or spread the love. It's your choice. Bye. 

You say it after posting a dismissive answer following some unfair generalizations on sanders voters, you don't even realize the irony about preaching that we should "spread the love" don't you?  

[Guillaume Hamon 7,025]

13 hours ago, herassisfamous said:

I mean where were we when Lil Nas X announced that he was gay? 

We like GGD members? They were cheering in a post made for it. If you mean gay folks overall I only saw people saying nice things about it now I didn't dig on Twitter or places like that where you'll always find negative reactions, even for great events lol.  

13 hours ago, herassisfamous said:

I’m just saying why can’t we just be proud that a gay man is this far in the race.

Actually the very first reaction to Pete when he was still mainly know as "a gay guy running" were positive cause gay people like the idea that a gay could be president.

You also said Clinton was worst yet was giving the excuse the excuse of being a politician but Pete is still FAR to have take the level of criticism so I don't think we can't say she got a pass while he doesn't.

The ones using this argument to defend HRC will probably be the same ones using it to defend him if they feeling like voting for him imo.^^

 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 hours ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

As I said Sanders wasn't having a race-related scandal as an handicap to get the black vote. His main connection towards the black community was his fight for african american civil rights in the 60's so nothing negative like Pete, the opposite actually.  So saying that "if sanders was able to go up so can Pete" is seing things the way you chose to see them let's say cause it's not similar situations...

4th for the black vote? I didn't find him at 4th place in a poll for the black vote.  Well, I'm ready to believe you lol, just don't hesitate to provide some proofs instead of just saying it. Cause he was higher than that in the black vote polls I saw so it's hard to believe he's doing as bad with black voters as you say he does.

But actually progressives are not as in love with warren as you seem to think and they're quite numerous to do to her what you wrongly call "demonizing".  Not as much as they do with Pete but since she switched on her healthcare plan it went bigger just like it went bigger on Pete after he switched on his.

I never said that not voting for HRC against Trump wasn't helping Trump to win since it logically is. I said that sanders voters were very loyal overall therefore didn't deserve the loyalty trial from some hypocrite moderates who aren't more loyal than them when they have to.

Also you say "and so many didn't vote" but actually not plenty of sanders voters stayed home so you unfairly present things when you frame events like that...

Just like HRC had a harder time getting sanders voters in states where he won. It's always like that. By the way, even if Obama lost to her in these states that doesn't mean locals democrats weren't ALSO supposed to line behind him when it came to avoid a republican president at the end.

I don't ignore it but considering it influenced things grandly or not would only be assumptions cause we can't actually know.

You talked about being among the "grown ups" but looking back shows campaign including candidates of the same party dissing each other is pretty much the norm. Trump dissed every of his opponent, HRC was dissing sanders and Obama, Obama was dissing HRC, Kerry was dissing Bush and so on and on...  They all critiqued each other whatever it was tough attacks or just about throwing blames so candidates just can't avoid it.

Yes the attacks are recycled by their opposent afterwards but it works both ways and  candidates have to fight against that. It's typical of presidential campaigns, nothing new. If you don't want to see too much  of that then go for a candidate with less shady stories in his/ her past.  

You say it after posting a dismissive answer following some unfair generalizations on sanders voters, you don't even realize the irony about preaching that we should "spread the love" don't you?  

 

1. Pete problems with afro-American community are just an exageration  of some small mistakes than he did. Pocahontas story is more damaging in my eyes than any of Pete problems when it comes to minorities. Btw, I like Warren the most and still can say this.

2. Google it. Its simple. If I found the polls where he is second, you should also be able to find the ones where he is 4th. 

3. Trump won by very small margins in some states. If u cant see how Bernies who voted Trump made Trump president, I'm sorry, I can't help you.  u are very selective with what I write. Nothing about racist voters who didnt vote Obama because of that reason, no?

4. We cant know how the moderates would have voted, because Bernie didnt win the nomination. Independents vote whoever they want. 

5. u can criticize a candidate, just dont demonize it like Bernies did with Hillary ( =/neverhillary reminds you of something?) and how progressives do with Pete in this race. Look again at the title of this topic and maybe u will get it. what he said many years ago is what Harris said last month and it's something that every sane person on this world would agree if it would be said about their local community. 

Go into a poor community, black or white, and find out for yourself the lack of succesfull people, who can inspire a person to get his degree or something similar. Go, find them and comment back. 

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

25 minutes ago, Florin said:

 

1. Pete problems with afro-American community are just an exageration  of some small mistakes than he did. Pocahontas story is more damaging in my eyes than any of Pete problems when it comes to minorities. Btw, I like Warren the most and still can say this.

2. Google it. Its simple. If I found the polls where he is second, you should also be able to find the ones where he is 4th. 

3. Trump won by very small margins in some states. If u cant see how Bernies who voted Trump made Trump president, I'm sorry, I can't help you.  u are very selective with what I write. Nothing about racist voters who didnt vote Obama because of that reason, no?

4. We cant know how the moderates would have voted, because Bernie didnt win the nomination. Independents vote whoever they want. 

5. u can criticize a candidate, just dont demonize it like Bernies did with Hillary ( =/neverhillary reminds you of something?) and how progressives do with Pete in this race. Look again at the title of this topic and maybe u will get it. what he said many years ago is what Harris said last month and it's something that every sane person on this world would agree if it would be said about their local community. 

Go into a poor community, black or white, and find out for yourself the lack of succesfull people, who can inspire a person to get his degree or something similar. Go, find them and comment back. 

 

With regard to Bernie’s electoral success, the aggregate of polls were only off by 1%. Same pollsters that tested Bernie and he had a 10% lead over Trump. For 2020, despite all of the overwhelming negative media about him, he is still beating Trump by 8 points. Bernie would have won in 2016. It would have been an electoral college victory & that’s all there is to it. If you choose to deny that fact, that’s on you. 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

It's a sad day when the prerequisite for voting for a candidate becomes "because he's gay" 

 

[Bt1 5,213]

1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

With regard to Bernie’s electoral success, the aggregate of polls were only off by 1%. Same pollsters that tested Bernie and he had a 10% lead over Trump. For 2020, despite all of the overwhelming negative media about him, he is still beating Trump by 8 points. Bernie would have won in 2016. It would have been an electoral college victory & that’s all there is to it. If you choose to deny that fact, that’s on you. 

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

The Democrat who won the primary was supposed to beat easily Trump. Anything more than that I dont know and u dont know and I didnt even said anything about something like this. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

1 hour ago, Florin said:

The Democrat who won the primary was supposed to beat easily Trump. Anything more than that I dont know and u dont know and I didnt even said anything about something like this. 

What I’m pointing out is that Hillary didn’t win by big enough margins. Bernie would have won. You don’t win a national primary by 10% and lose the electoral college. You can win the National primary by 2% and lose the electoral college when a huge portion of your win are in the likes of CA and NY. 

 

Also, something people like to conviently forget is that Hillary Clinton and Trump were equally disliked. In fact, per the below, after the 08 primary she had lower favorability than after the 2016 primary (albeit its 1%) and she still lost. The fact is that the more people saw of Hillary the more they didn’t like her. Also, just another idea: the first democratic debate didn’t happen until October 2015 and we were already at our 4th debate for 2020. I guarantee you (because the data showed as the primary went on Bernie was so close to beating her nationally) if they chose to have debates much earlier, Hillary would have never won the primary. All I’m saying is that the warning signs were there the entire time and majority of the democratic voters ignored it & they didn’t bother to save her ass on Election Day and stayed home. You can make whatever argument you want on why that is but I don’t think you can deny the signs that would happen were there all along. 

 

https://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

[Whispering 18,865]

22 hours ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

 

If you're anti-militaristic, Warren isn't the candidate for you. She voted to expand Trump's military budget by nearly a trillion dollars. The only candidate that is making the case for radical cuts to the military budget is Sanders.

 

The defense policy bill (National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) has passed 56 years in a row, and this time the vote was nearly unanimous, with both Republicans and Democrats.

Bernie voted YES to the NDAA in 2002, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013. Bernie has voted YES for Military Budgets. 

Bernie has his own record on voting for bills that supported war. He voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq which had long lasting and devastating consequences in the nineties. He voted in favor of the war on Serbia: once, twice… and on April 28, 1999, he did it again. This was the astounding 213-213 tie vote, which meant that the House of Representatives repudiated the war on Serbia. Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization for Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which “pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted”. 

Sanders clings to his death-dealing F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. As Andrew Cockburn reported in Harper’s, Sanders and his Vermont colleague Patrick Leahy waged a fierce bureaucratic fight to bring the jet to the Burlington Air Base as the premier weapon of the Green Mountain Boys, the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. At $191 million per aircraft, the F-35 represents a technological wish-fulfillment for the defense lobby. So, while Bernie Sanders is saying we should cut military spending to fund free college for everyone, his defense of the F-35 means that despite everything else, Sanders is still just a politician.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 hours ago, Whispering said:

The defense policy bill (National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA) has passed 56 years in a row, and this time the vote was nearly unanimous, with both Republicans and Democrats.

Bernie voted YES to the NDAA in 2002, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2013. Bernie has voted YES for Military Budgets. 

Bernie has his own record on voting for bills that supported war. He voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq which had long lasting and devastating consequences in the nineties. He voted in favor of the war on Serbia: once, twice… and on April 28, 1999, he did it again. This was the astounding 213-213 tie vote, which meant that the House of Representatives repudiated the war on Serbia. Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization for Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which “pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted”. 

Sanders clings to his death-dealing F-35 Lightning II fighter jet. As Andrew Cockburn reported in Harper’s, Sanders and his Vermont colleague Patrick Leahy waged a fierce bureaucratic fight to bring the jet to the Burlington Air Base as the premier weapon of the Green Mountain Boys, the 158th Fighter Wing of the Vermont Air National Guard. At $191 million per aircraft, the F-35 represents a technological wish-fulfillment for the defense lobby. So, while Bernie Sanders is saying we should cut military spending to fund free college for everyone, his defense of the F-35 means that despite everything else, Sanders is still just a politician.

Just a small correction unless I’ve missed it. Bernie doesn’t plan on funding free college through defense cuts but rather a .01% tax on Wall Street speculation.

Bernies FP record is a mixed bag and has problematic votes he should be pushed on. He has since moved consistently to the left since even but still needs to go further. Tulsi is the only candidate in the race that is consistent on foreign policy or have laid out views that are remotely anti-imperialist since the primary began (unless you include Gravel, at which case you should definitely go back and watch him tell Obama and Clinton how bad they are in the 08 primary). 

[Whispering 18,865]

4 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Just a small correction unless I’ve missed it. Bernie doesn’t plan on funding free college through defense cuts but rather a .01% tax on Wall Street speculation.

Bernies FP record is a mixed bag and has problematic votes he should be pushed on. He has since moved consistently to the left since even but still needs to go further. Tulsi is the only candidate in the race that is consistent on foreign policy or have laid out views that are remotely anti-imperialist since the primary began (unless you include Gravel, at which case you should definitely go back and watch him tell Obama and Clinton how bad they are in the 08 primary). 

Tulsi volunteers to serve in the wars she complains about. She makes money from these wars she says are wrong. That’s not consistent, that’s a hypocrite. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

18 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Tulsi volunteers to serve in the wars she complains about. She makes money from these wars she says are wrong. That’s not consistent, that’s a hypocrite. 

She volunteered to serve as a result of Iraq—and continues to serve. Iraq as you know is a war where the American people were lied to by the military and foreign policy establishment and so we’ve been there ever since. 

Youre basically saying anyone who defends our country is an imperialist and are hypocritical if they say they aren’t warmongers.

youre also indirectly saying the same of both Pete & my husband and I think you’re opinion on this issue is really misguided.