New favorite candidate: Pete Buttigieg

[joko104]

Mayor of a small Indiana city whose qualifications for President is that he's gay and has done nothing worth mentioning. :roll:

 

[roughdraft274]

Xelor started a poll asking if we would let any politicians into our inner circle of friends. For the most part my answer would be "not really," because I can imagine if I had a beer with them (I apologize for resorting to that cliché), it would just be them stating what their positions are. And that's not for nothing. I've talked to politicians before and their thoughts on issues were certainly enlightening, but I could see myself having a conversation with Buttigieg.

I know my representative well enough that he knows my name. Not good friends but we went to the same small highschool and have seen eachother at many alumni functions. Hes a likable enough guy if you arent discussing politics. But has a mode he switches into if it comes up. His hands come up and he starts getting animated. Its really hard to see it happen and not just put a hand on his shoulder and tell him "theres no need for that just talk to me like a person"

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

Mayor of a small Indiana city whose qualifications for President is that he's gay and has done nothing worth mentioning. :roll:

Don't vote for him then.

 

[justabubba]

Buttigieg surges to third place in new Iowa poll | TheHill

Buttigieg surges to third place in new Iowa poll
... Overall, Buttigieg placed third behind Former Vice President Joe Biden, at 25 percent, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), at 24 percent.

the poll only tabulated 246 caucus goers

 

[Surrealistik]

Thinking in terms of "his being gay may hurt him" falls (unintentionally) into a toxic mindset that will hurt us, and listening to the interview really illustrates how much more important sincerity is than in falling into a rabbit hole of over strategizing. As Buttigieg said, Democrats' biggest problem is they think too much in terms of strategy. The result of this in 2016 is we got a candidate perfectly molded for the center but resulting in something that didn't feel sincere. Sincerity was a driving force of 2018 and we took back the House.

I can't say this enough: if Democrats want to win, they absolutely have to be who they are, say what's important to them, own their policies and engage the voters.

Thus far, the candidates who most clearly fit all of these descriptions are Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and O'Rourke, and this is why I think one of them will ultimately be the Primary winner. I know I left out Harris and I'm sorry about that, but it when it comes to raw sincerity, she just doesn't compare to the others.

Booker is sincere, but there's something missing and I can't put my finger on it.

What makes you think O'Rourke is particularly sincere when he's infamous for a progressive veneer at stark odds with his voting record? When his opening speeches were little more than strung together platitudes and his platform has been frustratingly vague? When he initially (and tellingly) refused to disclose his total number of donors and average donation amount despite beating even Bernie's 24 hour fundraising record (it was later revealed he had only slightly more than half the total number of Bernie donors despite outraising him by $200,000)? Legitimately curious.

 

[azgreg]

Buttigieg surges to third place in new Iowa poll | TheHill

the poll only tabulated 246 caucus goers

Still a good sign for Buttigieg fans.

 

[SheWolf]

those who would not support him for such a reason largely constitute the tRump base
and that base will be voting tRump

i believe his achilles heel will be sound bites. Buttigieg is thoughtful. sound bites don't communicate depth and thoughtfulness ... as we witnessed in 2016

I know swing voters who voted for Obama and now Trump, and many of those older voters are not for LGTB rights. I know people can change, but just not sure. I think it would be good for a candidate like him to run regardless.

 

[Luckyone]

He's better than some of the vying nominees, but ultimately uninspiring and leaves much to be desired; nothing about Pete particularly galvanizes or impresses.

You sure don't know how to read people, do you?

I had never heard of Pete until about 2 weeks ago and I have now heard him 3 times since and I am impressed. He sounds more Presidential than any of the other candidates. You hear him talk and immediately you get the impression that he not only knows what he is talking about but would be extremely successful at conveying confidence to others to follow him.

I like him!

 

[Surrealistik]

You sure don't know how to read people, do you?

I had never heard of Pete until about 2 weeks ago and I have now heard him 3 times since and I am impressed. He sounds more Presidential than any of the other candidates. You hear him talk and immediately you get the impression that he not only knows what he is talking about but would be extremely successful at conveying confidence to others to follow him.

I like him!

I don't pretend to speak for others on the matter of Pete, but I personally find him uninspiring and not particularly charismatic, even if he comes off as knowledgeable at times. In this capacity he is much like Elizabeth Warren who I very much like, but who I also feel is without the force of personality and broad appeal to successfully represent the Dem party in the general. Having said that, to be fair to him, of the people currently in the race for nominee, only Bernie really has that quality, at least at this time.

 

[Luckyone]

I think it's not a question of could, only a question of percentages...



I agree with your low opinion of Don and his mud slinging. It's never a good idea to compete with someone who acts like a child and enjoys making mud pies. As much as I like Saunders and love his proposals, I think Sander's would be the weakest candidate vs Trump. I think he's doing a great disservice to the Dem party.

Regardless of what the Dems, do, say, or nominate, they couldn't possibly energize The Cult more. Don has wound the stem of The Cult's watch until it won't move. They've never had someone who expresses their fear and hatred so often and crudely and it makes their hearts soar like an eagle.

Both sides are as energized as they can get. Dem nominees don't need to inspire or motivate their base with far left proposals. They're going to vote for anyone but Don regardless of whoever's on the ballot. If both sides are spoken for, it's all a question of how the majority of moderate conservatives and independents vote.

Pander to them, tell them what they want to hear, whatever it takes. We need them, the fate of our country is literally in their hands. Thankfully after watching the clown show for two years, we have most of them sewn up. Let's try not to piss them off with radical proposals, this isn't the time. We have to get our foot in the door before we can start moving the country in a better direction.

We won't know who'll have the best shot against Don until four to six months before the Dems choose their nominee. Let's wait until then before we make our decision. And for God's sake, I hope it's a practical, not inspirational choice.

Btw, why are only Dem candidates referred to by their first names? For Dems it might be an endearment thing, for The Cult, I think it's more of a unconscious or intended lack of respect thing, like calling a black man a boy...

I disagree with your assessment of Sanders. I don't know if you remember but when the previous campaign between Hillary and Bernie was occurring, the polls showed Hillary was about 5%-8% points favorite to beat Trump but Bernie was about 13-15% favorite to beat Trump. I don't believe Bernie has done anything to make those numbers go down. I also agree that Trump will be unable to rile Bernie or do anything to him other than call him a Socialist and calling Bernie a Socialist is not the way to win an election because there are more voting people that will vote for Bernie's Socialism than there are people voting for Trump's Capitalistic Segregation-from-the-world Lyingism (new word I just made up).

 

[Luckyone]

I don't pretend to speak for others on the matter of Pete, but I personally find him uninspiring and not particularly charismatic, even if he comes off as knowledgeable at times. In this capacity he is much like Elizabeth Warren who I very much like, but who I also feel is without the force of personality and broad appeal to successfully represent the Dem party in the general. Having said that, to be fair to him, of the people currently in the race for nominee, only Bernie really has that quality, at least at this time.

Once again, I don't agree. Pete is not necessarily inspiration (like Obama for example) but there is something about him and the way he talks and expresses himself that is like a magnet. I do hate to toot my own horn, but I am very good at reading people, not only from what Pete is but moreso about how Pete will draw people in to him to believe him. It is a very rare talent and there is absolutely no one else other than perhaps Biden that exudes that aura. The problem with Biden though, is that he is old (will not appeal to the young) and does have baggage that will make it very difficult for him. Pete has none of that and most people that hear him talk will be drawn to him, much like they were drawn to JFK. He has that kind of aura.

 

[Surrealistik]

Once again, I don't agree. Pete is not necessarily inspiration (like Obama for example) but there is something about him and the way he talks and expresses himself that is like a magnet. I do hate to toot my own horn, but I am very good at reading people, not only from what Pete is but moreso about how Pete will draw people in to him to believe him. It is a very rare talent and there is absolutely no one else other than perhaps Biden that exudes that aura. The problem with Biden though, is that he is old (will not appeal to the young) and does have baggage that will make it very difficult for him. Pete has none of that and most people that hear him talk will be drawn to him, much like they were drawn to JFK. He has that kind of aura.

I would have to disagree, and doubly so on Biden who has petered out time and time again in past primaries, with the only difference between then and now being name recognition which is his single greatest asset, aside perhaps, from a presently fawning media. At best, Biden has the magnetism, but not the substance and Pete has the substance (most of the time anyways) but not the magnetism; again my personal impression, but I don't see him coming close to Bernie or Biden should the latter decide to run. Of these qualities, Bernie has both, and is the only one who really does thus far, even though he's not an orator on par with Obama (I don't think anyone has come close to the latter's charisma since Bill). Having said that, absolutely no one here is in the league or even ballpark of JFK so far as appeal goes, haha.

 

[Luckyone]

I would have to disagree, and doubly so on Biden who has petered out time and time again in past primaries, with the only difference between then and now being name recognition which is his single greatest asset, aside perhaps, from a presently fawning media. At best, Biden has the magnetism, but not the substance and Pete has the substance (most of the time anyways) but not the magnetism; again my personal impression, but I don't see him coming close to Bernie or Biden should the latter decide to run. Of these qualities, Bernie has both, and is the only one who really does thus far, even though he's not an orator on par with Obama (I don't think anyone has come close to the latter's charisma since Bill). Having said that, absolutely no one here is in the league or even ballpark of JFK so far as appeal goes, haha.

You may be right but that is what I have personally felt in listening to Pete talk. He has a quiet kind of seriousness and purpose that I felt about JFK. He made me feel he is in control of the situation and understands what needs to be done. I am not the kind of a person that is easily moved as I am by nature skeptical as I know that most people are full of sh** and to a certain point incompetent for the job of President but I felt none of that with Pete.

 

[SoCal]

I disagree with your assessment of Sanders. I don't know if you remember but when the previous campaign between Hillary and Bernie was occurring, the polls showed Hillary was about 5%-8% points favorite to beat Trump but Bernie was about 13-15% favorite to beat Trump. I don't believe Bernie has done anything to make those numbers go down. I also agree that Trump will be unable to rile Bernie or do anything to him other than call him a Socialist and calling Bernie a Socialist is not the way to win an election because there are more voting people that will vote for Bernie's Socialism than there are people voting for Trump's Capitalistic Segregation-from-the-world Lyingism (new word I just made up).

You have some damn good points and you're right, Don's Lyingism rating is thru the roof. I don't know if America is ready to elect someone so easily labeled as a socialist, but if so, :bright:

These are 10 of 46 reasons not to vote for Sanders;

1.He’s not the most progressive — Kamala, Warren, Booker, and Gillibrand are all more progressive than him on crucial votes.
2.He’s not a guaranteed win against Trump — Kamala and Booker are far more likely to take NV, FL, and NC than Bernie. And Klobuchar is more likely to take the Midwest.
3.Bernie is the second richest person running (google candidate names followed by “net worth”)
4.He’s the only one who won’t release his taxes (well and Trump).
5.He’s the establishment — he’s been a politician for 39 years (longer than anyone else running). A vote for Bernie is emphasizing that we shouldn’t ever have “new blood” or term limits.
6.He’s not accomplished. In 29 years (the house and senate) Bernie has only gotten 220 bills/amendments passed into law and most weren’t big deals — like renaming a post office. Whereas Elizabeth Warren has passed 45 bills/amendments into law in 6 years, Gillibrand has passed 92 in 12 years, and Klobuchar 125 in 12 years. So, he’s the least accomplished running.
7.He doesn’t have a progressive voting history on the most important issues such as voting against the brady bill and other anti gun legislation multiple times.
8.He voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 (easing regulations on Wall Street) which caused the Great Recession.
9.He voted to end the 3–10 year ban on immigrants who overstayed their Visa by supporting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
10.He’s a war hawk: Sanders supported the war on Serbia in the 90’s, and voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), allowing Bush to wage war whenever he wanted.

So I still stand by my post. If Sanders is polling as the best candidate to beat Don a few months before the Dem primary, he should be our man. I'd love to see Sanders win in 2020, but still believe all Dems and left leaning primary voters should vote and support the candidate who polls the best against our treasonous, un-American, dictator wanna-be, regardless of how progressive she/he is...

 

[Surrealistik]

You have some damn good points and you're right, Don's Lyingism rating is thru the roof. I don't know if America is ready to elect someone so easily labeled as a socialist, but if so, :bright:

These are 10 of 46 reasons not to vote for Sanders;

1.He’s not the most progressive — Kamala, Warren, Booker, and Gillibrand are all more progressive than him on crucial votes.
2.He’s not a guaranteed win against Trump — Kamala and Booker are far more likely to take NV, FL, and NC than Bernie. And Klobuchar is more likely to take the Midwest.
3.Bernie is the second richest person running (google candidate names followed by “net worth”)
4.He’s the only one who won’t release his taxes (well and Trump).
5.He’s the establishment — he’s been a politician for 39 years (longer than anyone else running). A vote for Bernie is emphasizing that we shouldn’t ever have “new blood” or term limits.
6.He’s not accomplished. In 29 years (the house and senate) Bernie has only gotten 220 bills/amendments passed into law and most weren’t big deals — like renaming a post office. Whereas Elizabeth Warren has passed 45 bills/amendments into law in 6 years, Gillibrand has passed 92 in 12 years, and Klobuchar 125 in 12 years. So, he’s the least accomplished running.
7.He doesn’t have a progressive voting history on the most important issues such as voting against the brady bill and other anti gun legislation multiple times.
8.He voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 (easing regulations on Wall Street) which caused the Great Recession.
9.He voted to end the 3–10 year ban on immigrants who overstayed their Visa by supporting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
10.He’s a war hawk: Sanders supported the war on Serbia in the 90’s, and voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), allowing Bush to wage war whenever he wanted.

So I still stand by my post. If Sanders is polling as the best candidate to beat Don a few months before the Dem primary, he should be our man. I'd love to see Sanders win in 2020, but still believe all Dems and left leaning primary voters should vote and support the candidate who polls the best against our treasonous, un-American, dictator wanna-be, regardless of how progressive she/he is...

A lot of this is silly, and a clear attack piece from a notorious Kamala shill who virtually always checks in with establishment Dems (go check out Trevor Church's other articles).


There's a ton to unpack here and I personally don't have the time or inclination to go through every ludicrous charge/accusation/smear, but let's start with the hilariously absurd gaslighting that of the people in the race, he's 'not the most progressive'.

For starters, we're talking about a single organization's ranking predicated on a difference of less than a rounding error.

For another, this assessment of 'most progressive' is entirely specific to bills that were actually put up to a vote, and moreover don't seem to be particularly concerned with weighting the relative progressivism (or lackthereof) of bills; progressive legislation in the league of say Medicare for All, and the like whom Bernie was the original and biggest advocate of, ideas once concerned 'radical' and are now mainstream thanks to his dogged persistence, campaigning and oratory, and has never seen the light of day in terms of voting, at least not until recently. Where was Kamala Harris on MFA or singlepayer 10, 5 or even 2 years ago? Booker? What about the latter voting against Canadian drug imports per some dubious rationalization that it would be 'unsafe' that he later backpeddled on because it was so indefensibly ludicrous? Etc.


Second, the idea that he's less likely to take certain states than certain candidates is somewhere between premature and flat out asinine, nevermind that he doesn't source, this being apparently purely his opinion and he actually mentions Klobuchar, while failing to acknowledge her almost certainly tepid performance elsewhere.


Calling Sanders a war hawk when his overall record on war and foreign intervention is head and shoulders above the vast, vast majority of Democrats is likewise painfully absurd. The least qualified when we have a mayor of a small city in the runnings? And on and on it goes.


At this point it should be glaringly obvious the author is a hatchetman and is grasping at the most tentative of straws to put down a candidate he clearly doesn't like in favour of his dog in the race.

 

[Surrealistik]

You may be right but that is what I have personally felt in listening to Pete talk. He has a quiet kind of seriousness and purpose that I felt about JFK. He made me feel he is in control of the situation and understands what needs to be done. I am not the kind of a person that is easily moved as I am by nature skeptical as I know that most people are full of sh** and to a certain point incompetent for the job of President but I felt none of that with Pete.

I really like Pete, but I just don't think he presently has the star power, and to a lesser extent I feel he lacks the requisite experience. However the latter isn't so much an issue for me given his obvious intelligence and ability to learn, and the former is something he can win me over on in time; we'll see how he pans out.

 

[Luckyone]

You have some damn good points and you're right, Don's Lyingism rating is thru the roof. I don't know if America is ready to elect someone so easily labeled as a socialist, but if so, :bright:

These are 10 of 46 reasons not to vote for Sanders;

1.He’s not the most progressive — Kamala, Warren, Booker, and Gillibrand are all more progressive than him on crucial votes.
2.He’s not a guaranteed win against Trump — Kamala and Booker are far more likely to take NV, FL, and NC than Bernie. And Klobuchar is more likely to take the Midwest.
3.Bernie is the second richest person running (google candidate names followed by “net worth”)
4.He’s the only one who won’t release his taxes (well and Trump).
5.He’s the establishment — he’s been a politician for 39 years (longer than anyone else running). A vote for Bernie is emphasizing that we shouldn’t ever have “new blood” or term limits.
6.He’s not accomplished. In 29 years (the house and senate) Bernie has only gotten 220 bills/amendments passed into law and most weren’t big deals — like renaming a post office. Whereas Elizabeth Warren has passed 45 bills/amendments into law in 6 years, Gillibrand has passed 92 in 12 years, and Klobuchar 125 in 12 years. So, he’s the least accomplished running.
7.He doesn’t have a progressive voting history on the most important issues such as voting against the brady bill and other anti gun legislation multiple times.
8.He voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 (easing regulations on Wall Street) which caused the Great Recession.
9.He voted to end the 3–10 year ban on immigrants who overstayed their Visa by supporting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
10.He’s a war hawk: Sanders supported the war on Serbia in the 90’s, and voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), allowing Bush to wage war whenever he wanted.

So I still stand by my post. If Sanders is polling as the best candidate to beat Don a few months before the Dem primary, he should be our man. I'd love to see Sanders win in 2020, but still believe all Dems and left leaning primary voters should vote and support the candidate who polls the best against our treasonous, un-American, dictator wanna-be, regardless of how progressive she/he is...

If nothing else, the choosing of the Democratic candidate will be interesting.

 

[tres borrachos]

I really like Pete, but I just don't think he presently has the star power, and to a lesser extent I feel he lacks the requisite experience. However the latter isn't so much an issue for me given his obvious intelligence and ability to learn, and the former is something he can win me over on in time; we'll see how he pans out.

He was on Chris Hayes' show last night, in the same segment as Bernie Sanders. Once again, I was blown away by Buttigieg. That man is so incredibly eloquent. I also found out he speaks multiple languages. He taught himself to speak Norweigan, and he's conversational in about 6 others (besides English). Played in a symphony. He is just such an interesting person. Every time I see him, I'm mesmerized.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Wow, just heard of this guy. Very promising!

 

[SoCal]

A lot of this is silly, and a clear attack piece from a notorious Kamala shill who virtually always checks in with establishment Dems (go check out Trevor Church's other articles)...

At this point it should be glaringly obvious the author is a hatchetman and is grasping at the most tentative of straws to put down a candidate he clearly doesn't like in favour of his dog in the race.

I hope you didn't have the inclination or spend much time unpacking my post. You may have me confused with someone else. I don't think I've ever mentioned Harris, let alone shill for her. I have a link to the article that came up with the 46 ludicrous charges, accusations and smears. Although I agree with a few, that wasn't my list.

The bright smiley face was meant to show my approval of Sanders and I said he should be our man if he's polling well against Don;

You have some damn good points and you're right, Don's Lyingism rating is thru the roof. I don't know if America is ready to elect someone so easily labeled as a socialist, but if so, :bright: ...

...If Sanders is polling as the best candidate to beat Don a few months before the Dem primary, he should be our man. I'd love to see Sanders win in 2020, but still believe all Dems and left leaning primary voters should vote and support the candidate who polls the best against our treasonous, un-American, dictator wanna-be, regardless of how progressive she/he is...

I guess you missed my point, I agree with 95% of Sander's proposals and believe he's level headed enough to handle the job. But I hope most Dems will nominate the candidate who has the best chance of winning, be it Sanders, Harris, Booker, etc., etc. And we won't know that until a few months before the Dem primary.

As of now, I don't know if Sanders is our best shot at having Sanders' policies enacted...

 

[Surrealistik]

I hope you didn't have the inclination or spend much time unpacking my post. You may have me confused with someone else. I don't think I've ever mentioned Harris, let alone shill for her. I have a link to the article that came up with the 46 ludicrous charges, accusations and smears. Although I agree with a few, that wasn't my list.

The bright smiley face was meant to show my approval of Sanders and I said he should be our man if he's polling well against Don;

To be clear, I was referring to the hit piece article and the article's author, Trevor Church, not you. The vast majority of that list is essentially reducible to things deliberately taken out of context, gas lighting that seeks to engage in laughable misrepresentation/exaggerations, outright falsehood or some combination thereof; I've highlighted some of the more glaring and egregious examples in that post you quoted.

When you pair this with the content of Trevor's other articles, including his sickly, nigh unnuanced praise of Kamala, the man's angle is clear.

I guess you missed my point, I agree with 95% of Sander's proposals and believe he's level headed enough to handle the job. But I hope most Dems will nominate the candidate who has the best chance of winning, be it Sanders, Harris, Booker, etc., etc. And we won't know that until a few months before the Dem primary.

As of now, I don't know if Sanders is our best shot at having Sanders' policies enacted...

Again, I think you're confused as to who/what I was addressing. That having been said, if you're being earnest with me about your stance, you should know better than to cite an obvious hit piece.

 

[SoCal]

...That having been said, if you're being earnest with me about your stance, you should know better than to cite an obvious hit piece.

Thanks for clearing that up.

This 'hit piece' is only the beginning. As ugly and damaging to all the candidates it'll be, as the primary approaches you can count of reading a lot more of them from most the candidates and their supporters.

Other than what makes national news, I haven't educated myself on Sanders' positions and policies because I never thought he was a viable presidential candidate. As such, I really have no way of determining which of the 46 reasons are misrepresentations or exaggerations. So I'm just curious, for example which of the first 10 reasons are not true?

 

[Surrealistik]

Thanks for clearing that up.

This 'hit piece' is only the beginning. As ugly and damaging to all the candidates it'll be, as the primary approaches you can count of reading a lot more of them from most the candidates and their supporters.

Other than what makes national news, I haven't educated myself on Sanders' positions and policies because I never thought he was a viable presidential candidate. As such, I really have no way of determining which of the 46 reasons are misrepresentations or exaggerations. So I'm just curious, for example which of the first 10 reasons are not true?

I've already explained three; the other in that ten are about equally superfluous, but sure, I guess I can keep it short and sweet, omitting the ones I've already addressed in my prior post:

3.Bernie is the second richest person running (google candidate names followed by “net worth”) - Even if true it's irrelevant and about equally a function of his wife.

4.He’s the only one who won’t release his taxes (well and Trump). - That remains to be seen. I have no doubt that when it actually comes time to release his taxes traditionally, he will.

5.He’s the establishment — he’s been a politician for 39 years (longer than anyone else running). A vote for Bernie is emphasizing that we shouldn’t ever have “new blood” or term limits. - Establishment is a function of policy and group think, not political tenure.

6.He’s not accomplished. In 29 years (the house and senate) Bernie has only gotten 220 bills/amendments passed into law and most weren’t big deals — like renaming a post office. Whereas Elizabeth Warren has passed 45 bills/amendments into law in 6 years, Gillibrand has passed 92 in 12 years, and Klobuchar 125 in 12 years. So, he’s the least accomplished running. - Shoddy reasoning to start with per an at best extremely tentative and shaky definition of 'accomplished' (personally I would consider about singlehandedly causing a massive paradigm shift in US political thinking and the Overton window in less than 2 years extremely accomplished beyond his legislative history), nevermind any lack of weighting as to the substance of bills passed save that Bernie passed some superfluous ones (they all have). Further reading: Bernie Sanders was the roll call amendment king from 1995 to 2007 | PolitiFact

7.He doesn’t have a progressive voting history on the most important issues such as voting against the brady bill and other anti gun legislation multiple times. - A handful of gun control bills aren't the most important issues remotely, nor is voting against them necessarily progressive. Laughable.

8.He voted for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 (easing regulations on Wall Street) which caused the Great Recession. - A disingenuous old chestnut. Badly needed (and missing) context: The Most Disingenuous Attack on Bernie Yet

9.He voted to end the 3–10 year ban on immigrants who overstayed their Visa by supporting the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. - Need some more time to look into this (at work), but I'm certain it is missing key context per #8.

 

[azgreg]

He was on Chris Hayes' show last night, in the same segment as Bernie Sanders. Once again, I was blown away by Buttigieg. That man is so incredibly eloquent. I also found out he speaks multiple languages. He taught himself to speak Norweigan, and he's conversational in about 6 others (besides English). Played in a symphony. He is just such an interesting person. Every time I see him, I'm mesmerized.

Agree. I think he's going to blow people away in that first debate in June.

 

[Cardinal]

He was on Chris Hayes' show last night, in the same segment as Bernie Sanders. Once again, I was blown away by Buttigieg. That man is so incredibly eloquent. I also found out he speaks multiple languages. He taught himself to speak Norweigan, and he's conversational in about 6 others (besides English). Played in a symphony. He is just such an interesting person. Every time I see him, I'm mesmerized.

That's kind of his problem, actually. He may be too smart. There's an unnervingly large percentage of the population that inherently distrusts highly educated and intellectual people.