I have to rule out Mayor Pete for one simple reason.

[RandySF]

I cannot vote to nominate a mayor when the city he runs is less than an eighth the size of San Francisco. Donald Trump is a shit show and his successor will have to be ready on Day One to fix his messes at home and abroad.

If he decides to run for Congress or a statewide office, I will be the first to raise money for him. As for President, I just don't think he's ready.

[woodsprite]

1. He'd be an awesome vp for Biden or Warren. nt

[Ohiogal]

6. Warren/Pete

Would be an awesome ticket, IMO

[Ponietz]

82. That's what I was thinking earlier today

Cool

[mr_lebowski]

10. No argument here ... I've said all along he'd be an awesome VP add to ANY ticket

The People who do 'care' ... will care a much less about a gay VP vs a gay POTUS ... just being real here.

[Grendam]

69. +1

I've had my reservations about him for the top spot for a variety of reasons, but I've long felt that he would make a great #2 for just about anyone.

[elleng]

15. Biden/Pete

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128768022

[LakeArenal]

59. Perfecto.

[bloom]

70. It's not a perfect combo. There needs to be a woman on the ticket.

Warren/ Pete

Harris / Pete

Sanders / Warren

Sanders / Harris

[LakeArenal]

71. Those are definitely not perfecto.

[BannonsLiver]

2. Great points

I like him a lot but he’s just too green IMO, and the stakes are just too high.

[jalan48]

3. Not to mention he's never held a state-wide or national office.

[33taw]

4. Barack Obama

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

[BannonsLiver]

9. He was a US senator

Who was more accomplished than Mayor Pete. Frankly the comparison is a tad insulting to Obama.

Also, it’s BARACK.

[mr_lebowski]

12. The OP mentioned size of a place he administered ... a Senator doesn't administer like a Mayor

or a Governor.

So it's a valid point.

[BannonsLiver]

13. Not really.

[33taw]

49. Obama was only known outside of Illinois because of the 2004 Keynote speech.

While their credentials may differ, they are both valid. Not being part of the Washington scene helps Mayor Pete. Personally, I am leaning Biden right now, but I’ll vote for the nominee regardless of their credentials. I also will not diminish any candidate, it will only serve to help the Republicans and I won’t go there. The original post offends me. Build up the candidates, don’t knock them down. There are plent of bots out there to do that.

[BannonsLiver]

50. There was nothing remotely offensive about the OP.

It’s a legitimate reason not to support him.

[33taw]

72. I believe this site is watched by Russian and Republican trolls. So, I want to be careful.

I do not want to give Trump ammo if my candidate does not become the nominee. I personally will not rule any Democratic candidate out. I like Mayor Pete and believe he would be a good leader regardless of age.

[oldsoftie]

14. Obama was a Senator for a very short time. Not an insult at all.

So if he gets the nomination, you'll stay home?

[BannonsLiver]

17. He was a senator for 4 years

And he knew how Washington worked because he had been there. Pete has none of that experience yet. At any rate it’s moot.

[marylandblue]

58. At the time he began his run, he had only been there two years.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 10:47 PM - Edit history (2)

And he chose to run when he did because he knew that the longer you stay in Washington, the harder it is to get elected. Since Carter, with the notable exception of first term Bush Sr., the eventual winner beat out people with more Washington experience both in primaries and general elections. Second term Presidents also beat people who had been in Washington longer than they had. People don't actually seem to want Washington insiders.

Of course, every election is different, and past is not prologue, blah, blah, but I decided after 2016 that I would ignore experience completely, looking only at the candidate's ability to campaign successfully, which is mainly based on controlling the media narrative. Despite it's potential disadvantages for job performance, it beats the alternative that usually fails - choosing a highly experienced insider "ready to govern" but not as good at campaigning.

[Hetto]

66. Abraham Lincoln was US Representative for 2 years

Not even a Senator.

[not_the_one]

80. "how Washington worked"

is a BIG part of the problem.

[BannonsLiver]

81. And yet and important skill set

Why? Because that’s where our government is.

[tblue37]

103. Carter, whom I greatly admire, wasn't able to get Washington to work for him

because he didn't know how to work it's levers. And he had been a governor before becoming POTUS.

[MadDAsHell]

76. President Obama wasn't a god, he was a person, just like Mayor Pete.

And I think he had something like 700 days in the 1st national job he'd ever had before he decided he was qualified to run the whole country. Why can't Mayor Pete do the same?

[LakeArenal]

60. Spell check. Barack Obama

[33taw]

75. Got it!

[Siwsan]

5. Pretty much how I feel, too

He needs to get some national mileage under his experience belt. I'd love to see him in a cabinet position, or have him run for a House or Senate seat.

[mr_lebowski]

7. Arguably it's not 1/8 the Size of San Francisco ...

It's 41 sq mi. vs 46 sq mi. for SF

Obama never ran anything even with 100K people ... and he stepped into a hell of a mess as well.

[BannonsLiver]

11. Yeah well Pete's not Obama

Though I did see one of his supporters compare him to Abraham Lincoln the other day which is even more ludicrous.

[bearsfootball516]

18. Obama wasn't Obama until 2008 happened.

Everyone who “makes it” was someone who hadn’t “made it” until they did.

[BannonsLiver]

19. You must have missed his 2004 DNC speech

Which is what made him a national figure. There was buzz for years leading up to his announcement. So that statement is demonstrably false.

[bearsfootball516]

22. I remember that speech, it was electrifying.

But they were both considered significantly underexperinced compared to the rest of the Democratic fields they were facing in their first national elections.

I’m not saying Buttigieg is destined to be president, because he’s got a long road ahead. But there are similarities between them, regardless of whether or not you choose to see them.

[mr_lebowski]

23. If the OP had added "and never held a statewide or federal office" we wouldn't be having

this conversation.

But they didn't.

You're a smart dude, I shouldn't have to explain 'the counter-argument' going on here.

[sheshe2]

28. Thank you.

I was just going to mention his DNC convention speech. I was on my feet clapping.

[BannonsLiver]

42. I get my hackles up

When people attempt to diminish President Obama by putting him on equal ground with the mayor of a small city because that particular mayor is their current pick.

They wouldn’t do it otherwise IMO. It’s lame whataboutism anytime someone questions Pete’s experience level.

[dawg day]

67. I'm not for anyone. And I'm all for experience.

I think Hillary Clinton should run-- she's got huge experience.

Look what that got her-- both times.

I think Obama was the best president for a generation... and I voted against him in the 2008 primary because he wasn't experienced enough.

I was wrong.

I'm not "comparing" Buttigieg to Obama. But Obama provides a very good example of someone who did not have Clinton-level experience who 1) got elected, 2) got re-elected, 3) did a pretty good job.

Let's not start counting anyone out. The best candidate in 2020 might not seem like it in 2019.

[mr_lebowski]

21. It's not ludicrous if based on the experience level prior to rising to the office of POTUS

Lincoln was absolutely one of the most obscure dudes to ever pull off that feat, with a very low level of 'experience for the job'.

[BannonsLiver]

24. It was about leadership

I think Mayor Pete supporters should probably brace for many critiques about his experience level.

It’s a fair critique that no amount of whataboutism is going to address. He’ll have to do that in the debates and in other settings where those questions will be asked. We’re in the warm fuzzy happy fun time of the campaign right now. That will change for him and everyone else.

[mr_lebowski]

26. I don't disagree ...

Only saying that people have been successful Presidents (like Obama, JFK, and Lincoln) with basically no serious Administrative Experience. The fact that SB is 1/8 the size of SF isn't especially relevant. The fact that he's 38 ... and this is his ONLY administrative job, and he's never held statewide or federal office ... that is important, taken as a whole.

Raising this criticism, in a void ... kinda implies that if the current Mayor of LA, or San Jose ... suddenly ran for POTUS, you could totally get behind 'em, cause those are BIG cities.

I don't think the city size matters all that much.

Nor is administering large populations in general, as many good POTUSes were never Mayors or Governors.

[brush]

51. Oh please. By size they mean population not square miles.

[mr_lebowski]

57. No, REALLY?

I was born in Oakland and been to SF like 1000 times, and know the population count there like the back of my hand from seeing it on the sign on the friggin Bay Bridge ... and have heard South Bend has 100K people over and over and over the past month.

Hence the 'arguably' and the winky icon

[Bradshaw3]

8. As much as I like him I think you're right

I've also been put off by his lack of specifics. His supporters say those will come later but I'm old-fashioend in wanting to know what a candidate would specifically do once in office regarding trade, the social safety net, and other important issues while he's running. He may come up with great solutions in the meantime but it worries me, along with some of his answers regarding impeachment.

Also, he has never run even a statewide race. I believe he would do well on a national debate stage against a repub but we just won't know until it happens. The Democratic debates will not prepare one for that stage.

[dsc]

20. he did run a statewide race

[Bradshaw3]

65. Sorry, for state treasurer

And lost. I don't think that quite compares to running for governor or senator. He is very impressive but I think it is taking a big chance to choose a nominee with so little experience. He could very well prove me wrong.

[Celerity]

90. He was 28 then, 2010 was a Rethug blow-out year, and he did get a higher % of the vote than

the other 2 Indiana statewide Dems did for Secretary of State and Auditor. (he got 37.5, they each got 37%).

The RWNJ Richard Mourdock, Mr. 2012 campaign "Life is that gift from God that I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." outspent him over 10 to 1 as well.

He also used the entire experience to learn from and really put it to use running for mayor and now for POTUS. He is a sponge.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/01/14/feature/could-pete-buttigieg-become-the-first-millennial-president/

But Buttigieg, who worked out of Chicago and specialized in energy and economic development, didn’t make a career of it. He left McKinsey after three years and two extended leaves to door-knock for Obama in 2008 and serve as research director for the gubernatorial campaign of Indiana Democrat Jill Long Thompson.

In 2009, he got his dander up when Richard Mourdock, the Republican state treasurer facing reelection in Indiana, sued the Obama administration to block the auto bailout. “This was an insane thing for an elected official in Indiana to do,” Buttigieg says. “That made me start asking: Why don’t I run against this guy?”

Buttigieg’s “Meet Pete” campaign never took flight. He blew through his McKinsey savings and still got “clobbered,” losing by 25 points. “But in a way,” he says, “it was my first experience in winning by losing.” The defeat stung, “but I learned how to organize a team,” he says. And he learned that smarts weren’t the only secret to political success: “It matters more to understand human beings and how to reach them, how to move them.”

[Autumn]

16. Crazy about him and that's my main concern too. I'll wait and see how he does. nt

[Karadeniz]

25. He's smart, a quick study. I think between his brains and selfdiscipline he could handle

it.

[Thekaspervote]

27. Agree.. jumping from mayor of a really small midwestern city to potus .. to big of leap

Expect to see more of him as time goes by

[dawg day]

30. I'd agree, but... Obama...

had far less executive experience and he was (IMHO) a pretty darned good executive. A thoughtful curious mind, a compassionate temperament, and the desire to learn go a long way when, as all presidents do, you have to learn on the job.

The issue with Trump isn't his lack of experience. It's his altogether terrible personality and morals, and his lack of caring for anything but himself.

No amount of experience will make up for that.

[BannonsLiver]

63. And no amount of Obama whataboutisms will inoculate him from what is a valid question.

[oldsoftie]

68. You'e so right. Think about the Mueller report; what would it be if trump wasnt such a dumbass?

If he hadnt kept running his mouth about stopping Mueller, this report would have said "They didnt conspire with Russia" and thats about it.
Instead, its not Russians who are his problem, its his own damn mouth. Which i actually predicted long ago.

[bitterross]

31. I disagree. Being President is about Leadership.

I think people forget just how little personal power a President has. We hated that when Obama was in office and we've loved it since Trump took office. The real levers of power in are Congress and the Judiciary. They make long-lasting decisions. I'm not saying the President doesn't. They do it though leading, guiding and negotiating. The President's EOs can be easily wiped out by the next President.

The real power of the Presidency the power lead and set direction. We know Trump isn't working at being doing anything other than selling his brand and making the country worse off.

Mayor Pete's lack of experience as an the Executive a state level or in Congress doen't concern me too much. I didn't say it is not a factor at all. I just don't think it's a big a deal as people would like to believe.

[Mme. Defarge]

32. The Democratic candidate MUST be

deeply knowledgeable of and the experienced in foreign relations and foreign policy.

[LakeArenal]

61. Amen.

[BannonsLiver]

62. +10000

Another weakness he will have to address.

[corbettkroehler]

33. I'm 100% Sanders But Remember What Clinton 42 Reminded Us

Paraphrasing, no one's ready to be president until taking the office.

[Celerity]

34. 8 years as an executive overseeing a larger group of employees and staff and a larger budget than

any Senator or Representative does. South Bend has a strong mayor system so the buck really did stop with him. He also had massive interfacing with the Federal and State governments as well, plus dealt with multivariate social, economic and public relations issues. Pete can scale it up just fine, and the POTUS also has a truly insane amount of support staff, so it is the big picture that matters, and he is aces in the big picture department.

[mobeau69]

35. If Pete held a state-wide office in Indiana

he would, by necessity, have to be be a lot less appealing to me.

[Celerity]

45. I love Thorstein Veblen, he and many other institutional economists informed many of my professors

overarching economic/political philosophies. Same for C. Wright Mills (although he is more known as a sociologist) Gunnar Myrdal, John Kenneth Galbraith, Ronald Coase, Elinor Ostrom, etc etc.

[JI7]

46. so why don't you support Warren instead of Biden ?

[spooky3]

64. She's a professor in the law school. Nt

[VarryOn]

37. I want my choice to have executive experience...

That includes, governor, mayor, VP, cabinet sec'y, and attorney general. We have all those from the current crop of candidates (assuming JB gets in). Even though Fort Wayne is on the smaller side, I'm still open to Buttigieg. Running a city is more impressive than occasionaly casting a vote in the US Senate.

And no, I wasnt for Obama initially specifically due to his lack of exec experience. Clearly, my system isnt foolproof! I was a John Edwards guy (face palm)!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. I'm more interested in knowing how well Mayor Pete did running the show.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[True Dough]

54. Let me help you with that...

From NPR, it seems fair and balanced to me:

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/14/712412977/pete-buttigieg-helped-transform-south-bend-as-mayor-but-some-feel-left-out


And from the Indianapolis Star, warts and all:

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/21/pete-buttigieg-democratic-presidential-hopeful-south-bend-indiana-turnaround-city/3165477002/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Okay, thanks for the links.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Doodley]

39. Character is what I look for. If Mayor Pete was president of the National

Stamp Collectors' Club, I'd still think he'd make a good president.

[True Dough]

55. I give this post

my stamp of approval!

[brooklynite]

40. Not the way you should think about it..

You should ask: what is his policy on XXX and do I agree with it?

Consider that a Mayor has a criminal justice policy, economic development policy, transportation policy, etc.

[SWBTATTReg]

41. Compared to rump, Mayor Pete, would run circles around rump and would truly do some good ...

for this country. I really believe honestly that he would. He would have compassion, he's been in the trenches, dealing first hand with the urban decay that affects so many cities. This speaks volumes to me, as I have lived in a urban area for almost 40 years, and to be frank, I have seen few outside the urban cities try to address the problems of rust belt cities. All I have heard, for the most part, is negativism regarding the urban cities, avoid the cities! Blah, blah, blah.

Part of this narrative is being driven by the sad fact that republicans own the countryside (in MO), but don't own the inner city populations (heavily democratic) so any help from the state is literally parceled out in tiny bits and pieces, almost worthless (the republican controlled legislature). Examples of this are over the country.

Mayor Pete is different somehow, and I can't really pin it down, as to why, other than the fact that I believe he's in full control already, with the mind he has, and so I want to give him a chance. I listened to him several times, and said to myself 'WOW'! Why not? He is well spoken and in control of his facts. He's not offensive (like rump is), and he seems to have a knack to work with all in trying to address the multitude of problems facing this country. And one can't deny it, his age draws people to him, and like he said (in my words), that things that are being done now will affect his generation and those later to come.

Maybe in a way, this generation (Mayor Pete's) is speaking to us now, hey, don't overlook us, listen to us!

If we don't, don't we run a risk here in ignoring them or not giving enough weight to their words?

Mayor Pete's generation does deserve a seat at the table too. Like some have said, here in DU land, he would be a good VP choice or something of the sort, but who knows? What happens if he wins honestly? I guess the primaries are getting more and more important, each and every day.

[Amimnoch]

43. Winning matters. Experience obviously doesn't.

What good is experience if it doesn’t get elected?

Community organizer, less than 4 years in a Senate seat and voted “absent” more than anything else on pertinent legislation. Yet President Obama is one of the greatest presidents since Kennedy.

And for those in this thread that are saying it’s not really comparable, many felt that way. This is just one of MANY articles written at the time of the primaries and leading into the GE of 2008:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2007/06/bloomberg-on-obama-not-enough-experience-002009

I’m still in it for Beto myself, because, well... Texas. But once the debates happen, I’m looking at who polls best against Cheetolini in the battleground states. 270 wins the Presidency, not the popular vote.. I’d think this would be painfully obvious by now, but seems people keep forgetting.

For our Democratic Party Presidential candidate going into the General Election, this is what matters:

1. Will be willing to sign any legislation that the Democratic Party members in Congress manages to get to her/his desk. Will veto those from tRumpublicons.
2. Will put together a small and experienced cabinet, and surround herself/himself with competent advisors.
3. Will make good appointment decisions.
4. Will use good judgement, using the smart advisors, in writing executive orders, and use of the bully pulpit.

Pretty much all of our candidates will do really well in all of those areas. Well, except for BS. He’d do well in all but #1. I have great concerns, given his history, that he might well Veto key Democratic Party passed legislation if it doesn’t measure up to his purity testing.

Pretty ridiculous imo to be spending so much time on issues, or experience, or age, or sex, or if they sniffed hair.. especially given what we have in the Whitehouse right now.. we already know what kind of character flaws we’re running against..

So, that leaves it at “who has the best chance of winning that will live up to the 4 points above?” Whomever that candidate is will be the one that I ultimately throw in for as this season progresses.

[Indygram]

44. I was just watching him answer questions in a town hall stream and am not impressed

He isn't very thorough in his answers and didn't really demonstrate enough knowledge about the issues he was asked about for my liking. The more I listen to him the less I get the appeal.

[Celerity]

74. lol, you come on so many Buttigieg threads and repeat the same slag-offs everytime

He isn't very thorough in his answers

didn't really demonstrate enough knowledge about the issues

Is just RIDICULOUS

[Indygram]

78. Actually, you are not being honest in that accusation

This is the first time I have ever said that I didn't find him thorough in his answers or that he didn't demonstrate enough knowledge on the issues for my liking. I know this because today was the FIRST time I actually heard him answer questions.

So...if you are going to toss around accusations kindly provide a link to back up what you are accusing me of or you can remove the accusation.

Thanks.

[Celerity]

85. doesn't have to be word for word the same thing, you give him stick a lot IMHO

in a number of different ways

the he is boring angle (and you say in this you are not a Democrat, that you are an independent)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128769838#post30




tossing height shade

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128776576#post8





that he is being pushed because he is gay

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128769838#pos11




that he is always dodging policy questions

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128770953#post1





gay angle again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128773598#post11



again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128769838#post8



non inspiring

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/128761695#post8




gay angle again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128773077#post8




oh the irony

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128773077#post13




lost interest after 5 minutes again, gay issue again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128767841#post13




Buttigieg threads are repetitive and getting worse than Bernies (LOLOLOLOL)

my thoughts Other than a few dupes, not many Pete threads are the same, he just does a lot of interviews and there are a lot of articles on him

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128771029#post9




doesnt give specifics meme

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128770953#post3



gay angle again

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128768810#post18




Pete is the Howard Dean of 2020 (you had other posts saying the same thing, about pump up)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128769270#post5





There were some more that I remember, but I think I have proven my point


I DO like your Beto posts

you do support your candidate

Beto is in my top 5

I just do not feel the need to trash any other candidates


cheers

[Indygram]

87. Not a single one of those posts are in any way "bashing" him

1.) I have tried to give him a chance and listen but I DO find him kinda boring, and I DID try to say that as politely as I could. That is NOT a bash. Not everyone is going to be enamored of every candidate and that is perfectly OK.

2. I AM suspicious of the MEDIA (not him, the MEDIA) pumping him up just to knock him down. They do it every election. How is that a bash of him?

3. I again TRIED to watch a video of him. He was in front of a car. I was surprised because I thought he was a lot taller than the video made him look so I asked how tall he is. How the bloody hell is asking someone's height a bash?

4. I said that I think some of his appeal might be that since he happens to be the first gay candidate that people really want to support him. Is that not true? And again...how the flippity frick is that a bash? Are people not allowed to or supposed to support people who are gay attempting to break barriers? And here I thought that was a good thing.

5) I was responding to what I believe was an interview where he was asked a question and he sort of changed the subject and never really answered it. I had seen some comments about him not talking about positions so I asked if that was normal. Again, how are people supposed to learn about him if his supporters get all bent out of shape when asked? Not a bash.

6.) I don't find him to be a very exciting candidate and he doesn't inspire me. How is that a bash? Am I supposed to lie?

7.) I pointed out that if he is the nominee that the Evangelicals are going to be more motivated to come out and vote against him because THEY are homophobes. I said I worry about that because the country can't handle 4 more years of Trump. It is a legitimate point for discussion and is no way a bash. Is he gay? Yes. Is he married to his husband? Yes. Did I say there was anything wrong with that? No. Will Evangelicals do exactly what I said? Yes. How is that bashing?

8.) You conveniently left the context out of the heckler comment. I was responding to someone who was implying that being heckled would give him a chance to make jokes or new points. I replied that doing that meant we were not talking about the important issues people care about like kids in cages and healthcare. Again...not a bash.

9.) You slipped in something that I didn't say. I did not do any LOLOLOL. I opened DU and came to Primaries and it was almost entirely filled up with Buttigieg threads. I counted out of curiosity...it's was 26 out of 35 and I stopped counting. And yes...at the time I posted that it WAS excessive. That was NOT a bash on Buttigieg...it was annoyance at people posting repetitive threads. It would not matter what candidate the threads were about...even my own favorite...it would be excessive.

10.) Someone asked me the specific question, "Do you think Beto gives more specific answers than Pete?" and I answered it. Not.a.bash.

11.) Yes, I believe that Republicans want Buttigieg to be the nominee because they need to GOTV with their religious right voters. That is not a bash. The man is gay...big effing deal. I don't care. No one here cares. We all know that Evangelicals DO care because they are freaking bigots and homophobes. Stating a fact is NOT A BASH.

12.) Yes I have said a few times that I think the media is pumping Mayor Pete up in order to tear him down later. Anytime I have said that has been in response that is relevant. And again...it is not a freaking bash.


The only point that you have proven is that you don't appear to recognize the difference between valid debate/discussion and bashing and I really don't appreciate the attempt to portray me unfairly.

[Celerity]

88. opinions differ, as they say

Also, I didn't slip in anything you didn't say, you can clearly see your own posts, and I added what you replied to in TWO cases, to give it context.

[Indygram]

91. After going back and looking I was wrong about you slipping something in

When I was scrolling through and replying I initially missed where you put my comment about the repetitive threads and I thought you were typing it out. I apologize for my error.

Everything else I stand by 100%. Discussion forums are meant to discuss things and share opinions. If you want any mention of your preferred candidate to be limited to a mere cheering section I would recommend you stick to his individual forum where only people who support him are able to post.

I did not bash him in any way. What little criticism I actually made of him I did my absolute best to do in as non-offensive and polite a way as possible.

If anything, implying that I am doing something wrong by simply engaging in a discussion and sharing ideas is a bit of an attack on me.

Kindly refrain from this kind of behavior in the future.

Thank you.

[mobeau69]

93. Most reasonable people know bashing when they see it.

I know you're hurting by that well deserved smack down but kindly refrain from playing the victim. There's enough of that going on these days.

[Indygram]

94. Again, NOWHERE did I bash Buttigieg

If you only want a pep rally on every thread about your candidate then perhaps you should post those threads in the candidates forum where only his fans are able to discuss the subject. This is getting ridiculous.

[George II]

95. That's a LOT of work to go after another member who disagrees with you. Hmmmm.....

[Indygram]

96. No kidding...

I'm still trying to figure out how I supposedly bashed the guy.

[Celerity]

97. Not really, simple search and cut n paste

They wanted examples, I gave them.

If I hadn't you and/or others would be calling me out for saying something with no backing evidence.

[Indygram]

98. None of what you posted is bashing

And you have unjustly accused me of doing something I didn't do. That's not OK and it's not a good look.

[Celerity]

99. I disagree, you have went on many Buttigieg threads and had a whack

Like I said before, opinions will vary. You asked why I said it, I responded. It is a discussion board. We are not going to agree on everything.

[Indygram]

100. To bash a candidate is to attack them. I did NOT attack Buttigieg.

I said that *I* find him boring. That is me owning my perception of him. An attack would be "He is boring!"

What is especially offensive and downright hurtful is how you implied that I was bashing him for being gay. I never did any such thing.

This is beyond ridiculous and frankly what you have succeeded in doing is making me not want to even see anything about Buttigieg from here on out.

So, congratulations, you have earned your candidate a permanent spot in my trash can right next to another candidate who apparently no one is ever allowed to discuss unless slobbering all over them.

[Celerity]

101. sorry about that

I thought I was rather civil about it, and closed it out with this

[George II]

105. Posting screen shots of 17 posts by another member here is........(I'll leave it there)

[Raven123]

47. It is a fair concern. More reason to ask for specific proposals. Debates will be important

Honestly, I felt the same about Obama. For all intents and purposes he spent 2 years as a US Senator. For the next 2 years he was a presidential candidate, and the President-elect. Not really much of a record. It showed when he thought he could have an intelligent televised discussion with legislative leaders about health care. It was painful to watch. Thank goodness for Pelosi, or the ACA may have never passed.

Experience does make a difference.

I do think Mayor Pete is sharper on the “values” issues than Obama.

[USALiberal]

48. LOL, ok! nt

[Botany]

52. The man is brilliant and would make a great President

End of Story.

Obama didn't have that big of a resume either and he turned out OK too.

[babylonsister]

104. Agreed! nt

[in2herbs]

53. A good manager (President) knows to delegate. I believe that Pete will delegate well-qualified

people/politicians to accomplish our stated goals. The work of a President is too enormous a load for one person.

[leftofcool]

73. Mayor Pete is the only candidate I am supporiting now and will support in the future

I don't believe there is another candidate that has his smarts, his kindness, or his youth and determination.

[democratisphere]

77. Good point. South Bend is Notre Dame University.

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2019, 04:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Definitely not the real world.

[marylandblue]

83. That's South Bend. And his appeal is not really about what kind of town it is.

Any more than Obama's appeal was about what sort of state Illinois or what he actually did while a Senator.

[mobeau69]

92. There is no "Notre Dame University".

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2019, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

It is The University of Notre Dame. An easy way to remember: Notre Dame translates to Our Mother so it would not be Our Mother University but The University of Our Mother.

BTW, The University of Notre Dame is not located in the city of South Bend it is located in Notre Dame Indiana which is an unincorporated community near South Bend.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

84. Experience is kind a

overrated. Just see 44 & 45.

[Celerity]

89. Add Nixon, Ford, and Reagan as well.