Mayor Pete

Whatever you say, Bernie Bro.

Yes. He has zero policies listed in his website, no experience at the national level and already is courting corporate donors left and right. He’s an empty suit that can speak 7 languages. Whoopie. And before you call me a “Bernie Bro”, Sanders is not my preferred candidate for the upcoming election. Of course some asshat is going to call me a Russian Bot in 1...2...3

R2 I don't get why the 7 languages thing is relevant either.

The fan girls are excited to learn he’s gay. They could care less about his political stance on issues.

The Claim: Pete refuses to provide details on his policy proposals so that moderates and progressives can project onto him whatever they want to hear. He is deliberately vague to avoid accountability. He is all fluff and no substance.

The Reality: Pete has repeatedly stated that he is making a deliberate decision not to lead with policy minutiae. Since his days at Harvard, he has believed that Democrats are too quick to jump into policy minutiae without explaining to voters the values that motivate the Democratic policy platform. As mayor of South Bend, he has found that when he explains his values first, his Republican colleagues and constituents may not agree with his decisions but can at least respect them, as they understand that he is ultimately motivated by good values. He is therefore focusing this stage in his campaign getting voters to understand who he is and the values that motivate him. For those that are interested in more policy detais, he has answered questions with specific policy ideas in numerous Q&As, which are nicely compiled and searchable at meetpete.org. His campaign has announced that it will begin to officially publish policy details starting in May.

How can anyone still mention Grampa Sanders with a straight face? Maybe Ivanka is money-laundering rubles into his account for Vlad.

The Claim: Pete has received big dollar donations from billionaires and hedge fund managers, so he must be bought.

The Reality: Individual donations are capped at $2800 per federal candidate. Big dollar donations are defined as contributions from $200-$2800, while small dollar donations are defined as <$200. According to this article, Pete is tied with Yang in second place for the share of campaign contributions that are from small donors (64%; Bernie leads the pack with 74%), which suggest robust grassroots support. Pete may have received $2800 contributions from wealthy individuals, but so has Bernie Sanders, who for example has received funding from billionaires like Tom Steyer. It is a lazy argument to suggest that accepting just $2800 from a wealthy donor automatically makes the candidate beholden to the donor's interests. So long as a candidate has robust grassroots support and is not desperate for money, they can maintain their integrity without making quid pro quo concessions for financial support. Pete has pledged not to take money from corporate PACs, and has additionally signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.

Hope and Change, R5. He got it from Obama.

His proposal for changing how Supreme Court justices are selected would require ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution. Given the difficulty of that, the proposal - whatever its merits - is a cop out. It's never going to happen, so he will never be held to it. And he NEVER mentions that his proposal is currently unconstitutional. He lets it sound like something he would do. He can't.

R8 That annoys me too. The Repugs will also never let us add seats to the Court even if it were constitutional.

The fawning media coverage makes me suspicious

He's made enough public appearances and done enough interviews that we can piece together his policy positions: Buttigieg has endorsed a single-payer health care system, although he proposes starting out with a transition policy like a public option or all-payer rate setting. He’s said the Green New Deal is a “sound framework” for tackling climate change and called for a withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. He has defended Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for a 70 percent effective marginal tax rate, though he stopped short of openly committing himself to a particular rate.

He’s been most specific, though, about structural change and electoral reform.

Like Elizabeth Warren, Buttigieg supports abolishing the Electoral College. He’s also endorsed automatic voter registration and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, and signaled openness to abolishing the Senate filibuster.

But his most interesting idea, which he detailed in an interview with the Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan, is to radically overhaul the Supreme Court.

“One solution that I’ve been discussing in recent weeks is structuring it with 15 members, but five of whom can only be seated by a unanimous consensus of the other 10,” he said to Hasan. “Anything that would make a Supreme Court vacancy less of an apocalyptic ideological struggle would be an improvement.”

The amen chorus of people agreeing so quickly in this thread makes me suspicious.

Buttigieg also said there should be an examination of changing the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said that while the “exact right model” may yet be unclear, “I think the debate must begin.”

“It’s not a debate on how to make the court more progressive. Obviously, I’d like to see a court that is in line with my values. So would everybody else,” he said.

“The question to me is how do we arrest the decline in the perception of the court toward being viewed as a nakedly political institution.”

One idea that should be at least reviewed, he said, is increasing the number of justices from nine to 15 and perhaps rotating justices to the high court from the appellate level.

He said he finds “most intriguing” a structure in which five justices are appointed by Democratic presidents, five are appointed by Republican presidents, and then those 10 justices must unanimously agree on appointing the five additional justices, who would come from the appellate bench.

He said the idea was put forward by the Yale Law Journal.

“It takes the politics out of it a little bit, because we can’t go on like this where every time there’s a vacancy, there’s these games being played and then an apocalyptic ideological battle over who the appointee is going to be,” Buttigieg said.

“If we want to save that institution, I think we better be ready to tune it up as well.”

I started the other Mayor Pete thread (same threaded head but with a period after Pete). I fell into a hole watching all of his appearances while stuck in the hospital last week w bronchitis. I am now starting to question the total polish as well. I still like him. A lot. But I am beginning to wonder if it's not all too polished. Something seems very contrived. I also wonder about the dynamics of his marriage also. I don't know if I trust that his husband is all perfection like Pete seems to project.

He's done NOTHING. Mayor of small town. Speaks 7 languages, big fucking deal. Talk to me after you've governed NYC for at least 5 years. I'm more qualified than him.

Omg he’s gay! The first openly gay president! Yay! Who cares what he thinks about the economy or anything else!

Stupid. Visionary. I don't trust him.

Of course, if I were running for president, part of my agenda would be secret so as not to warn the targets of it. I would nationalize the oil companies and seize their assets to pay the national debt. That would have to be secret until the day it happened or else it wouldn't work.

That kind of policy initiative I can imagine, but packing the Supreme Court to make it non-ideological is silly and impossible anyway. You can't imagine away ideological conflict in this world.

R14 ask them to bump up your meds there at the hospital. You are getting paranoid for no reason! You are overthinking all this..

He has no relevant experience for the job, such as hosting a high-rated, reality-based game show. He should just give up now.

He’s gay. So what?!!! I would NEVER vote for a candidate based upon his sexual orientation.

R18. I still think he is amazing. He will talk more policy over values soon enough (May it sounds like) and his rise has been too quick to revise rhetoric on the go. Most of all, his humility alone is most welcome.

For Christ's sake, the man probably has a genius level IQ. What makes Americans hate highly intelligent candidates like Gore, Hillary, Jeb and Romney?

This thread is kind of making me change my mind about him... perhaps I was too quick to judge. Mostly I am just glad no one called me a Russian Bot for once. But I will consider voting for him ONCE his policy proposals are posted online. It’s still too early to tell.

One of the Murdoch sons is his donor. make of that what you want. Anti-Trump Republicans' worst nightmare is that someone like Harris, Warren, or even Sanders is the candidate in 2020. They want to promote a centrist DINO.

[quote] Jeb and Romney.

Yeah, the real Algonquin round table, those two.

Actually the disdain for partisanship is the political equivalent of gay self-loathing. The Republicans have no shame at all about putting their gang ahead or even against what is best for the nation. To say, "we can agree to disagree" is to not face the reality of where we are now. The public may disdain partisanship, but the public is easily misled and more ideological than they admit.

OMG R24, get real. Sanders would be CRUSHED if he became the nominee. Don't you wonder why Fox offered him a forum?

Crushed by whom?? Trump?

He is far from perfect but a really great candidat that could put the USA back on track of being the good guys.

Mayor Pete is unelectable.

Elizabeth Warren is unelectable.

Bernie is a socialist nutbag. Way too old and also unelectable. And his wife will not stand up to scrutiny.

We need to find a centerist . Beto and there are others.

One candidate, one movement.

If not, 4 more years of tRump.

He’s the arrogant little overachiever from high school who couldn’t shut up about how accomplished and successful he was going to be because he got into an Ivy League School.

Tracey Flick with a dick.

You need someone who's out of fucks to give, who'll stoop to the level of Trump and tell him in plain language, understandable to all, that he's a fucking disaster (while giving ample examples). That I could see Warren and Bernie doing. If the Slovenian hooker withstood the scrutiny, I think spouses of the rest of them should be OK.

And, no, no fucking Beto. He has marginally more to show for than Mayor Pete, but who doesn't?

r29, which is exactly why Biden has been leading the polls. Yeah, he's too old and he's not exciting, but a lot of voters just want a return to sanity at this point--and Biden seems safe to them.

[quote]What makes Americans hate highly intelligent candidates...?

Tall poppy syndrome.

What is wrong with k Harris?

No, I'm not sick of Mayor Pete and/or his fan club here on DL. But do carry on and get it all out of your system.

I just wish his husband wasn't so effiminate.

The people here to bitch about Pete hate him because he's so comfortable, self-assured and centered. He may not make it this time, but he will eventually.

[quote] [R2] I don't get why the 7 languages thing is relevant either

It’s relevant because it’s evidence that he’s brilliant. The current President isn’t fluent in even one language and makes claims of being brilliant, “having, like, a big brain”, and the world’s greatest memory, but who presents no evidence to this effect, and plenty of evidence to suggest that he’s an idiot.

It he’s really as bright as he seems, he’ll be a great improvement on Trump.

I hope we hire someone who’s intelligent, educated, and experienced, next time. Not a con man.

R36, how is that relevant in any way to anything?

[quote] What is wrong with k Harris?

She won't play well in the Midwest/Rust Belt states that are critical to victory.

R40: Based on what? And I'll answer for you: nothing. Stop promoting this nonsense.

[quote] R8: His proposal for changing how Supreme Court justices are selected would require ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution. Given the difficulty of that, the proposal - whatever its merits - is a cop out. It's never going to happen, ...

It’s a process. Maybe he knows it won’t be ratified in his Presidency but he thinks it is good policy, and cares about policy and the country, and not just on his own term? Everybody’s great idea has to start somewhere.

Similarly, Hillarycare, and Obamacare, may be precursors for a Medicare plan for all, something which would never be anybody’s first choice. That makes those plans a success, as a necessary babystep in the process.

[quote] Based on what?

Based on the fact that she's from California, and people in the Midwest are always suspicious of Californians. Can you really see Harris looking comfortable mixing it up with farmers and factory workers and state fair goers in the Midwest? She'll be lucky if she makes it into the Top 5 in the Iowa caucuses.

Americans sure are fearful of people with intelligence, which is why we have the dotard in chief that we have. And why we had that overgrown frat boy, Dubya, who couldn't even control who own Vice-President, much less run the country.

Minorities won't vote in any numbers for a white guy, particularly one so boring (and then there's the African-American churchy anti-gay thang). It's just a fact; they'll just stay home. And we need minorities desperately to win in 2020.

Yup. It takes real brilliance to run a Podunk city in the middle of nowhere. /s Seriously, his answer on McKinsey in the New Yorker podcast interview is chilling. He essentially shrugs his shoulders and says not my problem if they worked for dictators.

R44 We have to work with the electorate we have.

I know that Trump has lowered the bar for ANYONE in the future. No more needing experience or accomplishment.

But let's be honest: Trump won because he was running against Hillary, the worst politician the world has ever seen. I would bet money there was not any other person in the political world he would have won against.

So really, in 2020, I don't think you can say all bets on experience and accomplishment are off. That being the case, I ooubt very seriously a Harvard degree, Rhodes Scholarship an speaking 7 languages is going to make any headway with the 67% of the population that is sick to death of American elitism. Take a look at Roseanne Barr's youtube channel. She has ALWAYS understood the mainstream and her latest rants against the condescending professorial class really are exactly correct.

If the Democrats wind up with someone like Buttigieg, they will just hand another term to Trump. The man has done nothing, nor has he demonstrated any particular skill or ability. He is the f&%king mayor of South Bend, IN. Are you kidding? TRUMP had more claim to the presidency than that. And what does it say about a 37 year old who thinks he is ready for a run for the oval office BASED ON THAT?!?!?

Something screwy here.

[quote] Like Elizabeth Warren, Buttigieg supports abolishing the Electoral College.

There are two parts to this issue:

The main purpose, today, for the Electoral College, is to keep a profoundly unqualified person from ever being elected. It failed at this with Trump ‘s election. For this reason, it should be abolished. If they aren’t going to use their best judgement, and merely serve as a rubber stamp of the raw election results, we could eliminate them and just use the vote tally. This really will have no effect unless other changes also are implemented.

The main issue is how the States tally their election results. The winner take all outcome in most states is the real problem. I think a better idea is assigning electoral votes by congressional district, not statewide. Another idea is ranked preference ballots. There are other ideas, but the electoral college isn’t the problem or solution.

My issue with Kamala Harris is that I don't know why she's running--other than--wow--she's a talented WOC politician and good-looking to boot. But I don't know what her vision is for the country.

Pete Buttigieg is unqualified--particularly since Trump is spectacularly unqualified and will leave the executive branch in a disastrous state.

The next president needs to know how the presidency works--so experience. IMO that means choosing among Biden, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Booker and maybe Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar. This isn't a great time for the flashy, but inexperienced politician who's never held statewide or federal office. Harris has served very little time in the Senate, which is why she's not on my list.

Just because Trump is unqualified doesn't mean I should vote for someone who's also unqualified.

The only one in the current bunch I feel has any chance of beating Trump is Tim Ryan. He's an alpha male who can read Tweety to filth.

The person has to be able to intelligently, categorically, methodically list all of Trumps mistakes, weaknesses, etc. over and over. Tweety's head would explode to have someone basically portray him as a failure, a loser in front of a national audience. I really believe that Trump would physically attack that person on live TV.

And he has to appeal to the angry old white men wearing John Deere caps.

Of course, he's running about last in raising money.

[quote] R17: Of course, if I were running for president, part of my agenda would be secret so as not to warn the targets of it. I would nationalize the oil companies and seize their assets to pay the national debt. That would have to be secret until the day it happened or else it wouldn't work.

I initially felt that Obama was too forthcoming with some of his policies, such as how he conducted the 2 wars he inherited. Over time, I found that it was not at all detrimental, and that transparency is important in a Democracy. It’s another thing I admire about Obama.

Trump famously says he wouldn’t announce his policies in advance, especially on how he handles the wars, because he says, it aids the enemy. Now we know that the real reason is that Trump has no policies, no plans, and no understanding of what he’s doing, and that’s why he can’t articulate his “plans”.

R36 typed that with a lisp and limp wrist.

I agree with R50. I don’t agree with Biden’s politics but at least he’s experienced. We need whoever gets in 2020 to be experienced enough to clean up Trump’s mess.

[quote]IMO that means choosing among Biden, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Booker and maybe Warren, Gillibrand and Klobuchar.

Do any of them have executive experience? No, they're mostly all parliamentarians. That's not what the president does - he meets people and pushes through legislation with the help of the congressional majority. This is such an American phenomenon of thinking congress people are somehow preeminently qualified to hold the top spot. Do you even know what they do on a daily basis? They vote the way their party/base demands and meet lobbyists and donors all day long, that's it. Mayors and governors do actual, concrete shit.

Having said that, he lost me completely with the compulsory military service idea. That's a red line for me, on the same level as criminalising abortion.

If you want experience, then you want...wait, what's his name again? Oh yeah, Wayne (Who?) Messam!

R50 that's the thing. Pete knows how the presidency works . We all need civics lessons on the three branches of government to understand the limitations of a president in this system of government. and thanks R55 for beating me to it and putting in words what I am struggling to do! BUT he wants National Service, not military service. He wants completely out of Afghanistan and he is NOT a hawk by any stretch .

I’m not at all sick of him. I’m looking forward to learning more about him.

Whoever runs, they will need how to “manage” Trump in a debate. All the candidates in 2016 were simply not rude enough to manage him. Remember, Trump will constantly interrupt and will probably invite some of Pete’s former tricks to attend the debates.

The arrogance of R57 is outstanding. How on earth would this guy know how the presidency works?

no arrogance just fact.

[quote]Americans sure are fearful of people with intelligence

You mean Republicans. Democrats have nominated authentically brilliant individuals for president in every election in my lifetime (Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton). Oh and we won the popular vote in six of those seven elections, which makes your claim about Americans broadly even more suspect.

[quote] R59: The arrogance of [R57] is outstanding. How on earth would this guy know how the presidency works?

I’m not R57, but if Pete really is brilliant, he’s probably read presidential biographies; read the Constitution, actually be able to know what “the best people” means, aside from an empty slogan.

R61 well said. I would actually put Jimmy Carter in that list as well. I know, many think he stunk as a President; however, he was an intellectual and he got elected.

How many policy proposals did Trump list on his website? Yet he’s president.

Hillary loaded her website with policies. What she up to nowadays?

Did Trump say no to corporate donors? What’s he up to? Oh, being president

His positions are all listed here.

Here.

American hate intellectuals as president unless the candidates can play some their intelligence and pretend to be one of the regular folks.

OP = another frightened Trumper or Russian Troll. Not that there’s a difference.

[quote] Oh and we won the popular vote in six of those seven elections, which makes your claim about Americans broadly even more suspect.

And what has winning the popular vote 6 of 7 times gotten the Dems? Bragging rights. And that’s it

Lord have mercy this thread has made me realize we’re stuck with the Orange One for 6 more years.

He's the flavor of the month for now. After Joe enters the race next week, then his media coverage will significantly decrease. As I've said from the beginning, the race will be between Bernie and Biden.

Bernie will not be elected ever.

to me , Bernie is the opposite extreme of Trump. And would create as much rancor.

Tiresome just contemplating that

Trump isn't the one to worry about. He won't be winning the primaries.

Run for governor first.

I love him

He's doing amazingly well for someone from Indiana. He's smart yet folksy and got military service experience. I would pick him over flaccid old men like Biden and Bernie.

I imagine that a good number of the fangurls are actually fraus who have discovered the political equivalent of Clay Aiken.

R55, no, none of them are parliamentarians because we don't have a Parliament. Two of the ones I listed are governors, another was vice president.

If you're going to give your opinion on another country's politics, know how the country works. You clearly don't know a fucking thing about it.

R78 Just like Bernie is the political equivalent of Cryptkeeper?

Hopefully he will crash and burn like Avenatti. Now he is talking impeachment to pander to the new left millennials who don't understand that the senate won't convict Trump, which then will only backfire and give Trump a second term.

R81 Keep telling yourself that.

[quote] R81: Now he is talking impeachment to pander to the new left millennials who don't understand that the senate won't convict Trump, which then will only backfire and give Trump a second term.

It’s a process. The Republicans in the Senate might vote today to “not convict”, but this is why we need a House investigation. As evidence is discovered and revealed, more of the Public will be repulsed by Trump. Then, Republican Senators who are up for election in 2020 in particular, might be moved to vote to convict in order to keep their jobs. Maybe some will be swayed out of love for country and revulsion with Trump. We’re not there yet, but it’s coming.

But the situations with Bill Clinton and Trump are completely different. Briefly, the Clinton investigation pursued multiple “scandals” in series, in each case finding nothing to prosecute. It started with a questionable land deal, and ended with a blue dress. The public rightly thought the investigation repeatedly went far, far out of scope, prosecuted a trivial matter, and was a true witch-hunt.

With Trump, he faced investigation that was limited in scope and duration, on a weighty matter, with considerable evidence. People also widely know he’s dirty. No one perceives this as a witch hunt. And there will be no backlash against the Dems.

When Gore ran, there were Bill supporters who liked Gore well enough, but who voted for W because they were tired of scandal, even though Gore was clean. That’s what I see with Trump . People are already tired of his self-manufactured crises, and they’ll blame Trump for that, not the Dems.

Impeachment proceeding will reveal a lot more Trump dirt and put Republicans in the House and especially in the Senate on the hot seat about their loyalty to country over party. The only thing Speaker Pelosi has to weigh is whether they have enough damning evidence that the GOP can't equivocate away with their lies and smears. The Mueller Report says yes based on Trump's obstruction of justice behaviors, and there are most likely worse stuff that are not even in the report. Any logical person would say impeach... but political people must do their little calculations.

Boy, the Russian trolls are getting desperate.

The senate is well aware of Trump's criminal conduct R83. They are still supporting him and very unlikely will convict even if the democrats come up with numerous articles of impeachment. The senate is as corrupt and as immoral as Trump. If the senate won't convict Trump may well win a second term. Beside even if the senate convicts, Pence will be president and he will pardon Trump.

At this point Trump doesn't have a chance in hell to win in 2020 (as he didn't in 2016) when the election is fair. He never had a majority, but with spoiler candidates, voter fraud, gerrymandering, possible hacking and Comey, he slipped through. The dems need to uncover Mueller's report, have public hearings, etc. Make sure people vote Trump out. The the courts can deal with him and hopefully lock him up. Trump still can do a lot of damage once he is out, he had access to tons of intelligence he can sell to Russia, China, NK, the Saudis, Assad.

[quote]But let's be honest: Trump won because he was running against Hillary, the worst politician the world has ever seen. I would bet money there was not any other person in the political world he would have won against.

That worst politician in the world wiped the floor with Sanders, which makes him what... that worst of the worst of world politicians. And yet, I bet you voted for him and would vote for him again.

Anyway, what a crock of shit.

[quote] Bernie will not be elected ever.

If he becomes the Democratic nominee he will win. A great deal of the votes for President in 2020 will be anti-tRump votes. A Democratic nominee will have that on her/his side.

[quote]when the election is fair

That’s a huge qualifier and has anything been done to guarantee the same shit won’t be a factor in the next election?

[quote] R86: The senate is well aware of Trump's criminal conduct [R83]. They are still supporting him and very unlikely will convict even if the democrats come up with numerous articles of impeachment. The senate is as corrupt and as immoral as Trump.

Those in the Senate who may not care too much about Trump’s criminal conduct, may still be swayed to convict - provided that the House investigation influences voters, and those voters may be enough of a threat to those senators to flip their vote.

[quote] If the senate won't convict Trump may well win a second term. Beside even if the senate convicts, Pence will be president and he will pardon Trump.

Trump might try to pardon Trump, but I do not believe Pence will pardon Trump. Ford’s pardon of Nixon destroyed his re-election chances. I think that is the precedence. So, if Pence wants re-election, he won’t do it.

Problem is you need 2/3 of the vote to convict. There aren't enough GOP senators who are will to buck the party and do that.

That said, Trump is on his way out--he's the most consistently unpopular president ever.

Mayor Pete is just too young to be president so soon, he needs more seasoning and experience in politics first.

The idea that even if Bernie somehow magically got the nomination, over the dead bodies of half the party, and then people that hate him with the heat of a thousand suns would be forced to vote for him, is wrong. People can’t be blackmailed or forced to vote for that selfish, amoral piece of shit against their will. They’ll just stay home.

He’s the left wing Trump, and he doesn’t give a damn if the whole country gets torn to the ground, he just wants say he’s President. Exactly like Trump. Neither one of them gives a shit what happens next. They’ll both promise everyone everything to get elected.

We have to say “President Trump” because that piece of shit’s worshippers voted for Trump or stayed home to get their revenge on Hillary for having the audacity to get more votes. How dare she. They’d do anything but vote for Hillary, because Bernie made a big show of throwing a tantrum at the DNC convention and made his worshippers think Hillary was a monster for daring to get more votes. Then later he half heartedly did a few campaign stops for her, after people asked again and again, he promised to campaign for her, now where is he? Finally he reluctantly dragged himself out and acted like somebody was holding a gun to his head. Fuck him.

I even think it might be worse for him to be President. Because all the crazy spending and incompetent foreign policy would be blamed on Democrats, even though he is not one. If America has to be destroyed, let a Republican be to blame.

We have Trump because of Bernbots saying “they’re all exactly the same.”

Pete cult

The magical thinking that made both Trump and Sanders possible infuriates me, r93. People on social media are saying they won't support a candidate who isn't for Medicare for all. I'd like just one of the ones who is promoting to say exactly HOW they plan on making that happen in a political atmosphere in which even Obamacare is in constant danger. That and free college tuition and taxing Wall Street are the far-left versions of the wall. The Sanders freaks are already agitating for open primaries, which should tell you everything you need to know about how they just want to relitigate 2016.

I look forward to "far left" making the conservative flyover eldergays' heads explode. Go AOC!!

Pete is going to appear on The Tonight Show on May 13th. He did this funny little clip with Fallon.

There is no such thing as “far left” . You are either liberal or you aren’t. Your ideas are either progressive or they are Republican-lite.

I think a lot of people are realizing they aren't "liberals" and are reassessing their politics. It's an interesting time in America.

No, there is a far left. Open borders and free money for people who aren't willing to work seems pretty 'far left' to me.

Jimmy Fallon as Pete. Pete speaks Dothraki in this one.

He's young and got nothing to lose. At the very least, he is building himself a name on the national stage.

I don’t know the candidate ‘s plans, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to work up a plan that allows people, say, 55 and older, to buy into Medicare for the full cost,, with Obamacare type subsidies for the poor. Then lower the eligibility bracket by two years every year. Something like that.

[quote]I imagine that a good number of the fangurls are actually fraus who have discovered the political equivalent of Clay Aiken.

Except that Clay Aiken could neither win [italic]American Idol[/italic] nor the NC House of Representatives race.

I think it's smart to get people to like you first before you start dividing voters with policies. Remember that election day is during November 2020. He still has a lot of time to convey his policies.

[quote] No, there is a far left. Open borders and free money for people who aren't willing to work seems pretty 'far left' to me.

Go to Breitbart, hon, I think you'd feel more at home there.

[quote] R100: No, there is a far left. Open borders and free money for people who aren't willing to work seems pretty 'far left' to me.

The Dems are in favor of “strong, secure borders”. Nancy has said so. She put money for it in the last budget, but Trump balked, because he wants to spend billions on an ineffectual fence.

I’m curious how you could be possible to not know this? Are you so Fox-washed that you’ll believe anything, or are you lying?

What R93 said.

Nancy Pelosi isn't far left, but the far left still exists. The entire democratic party clearly isn't insane.

First of all, I'm liberal. I don't watch Fox News. The far left exists...there are extremists on both sides. Antifa also exists.

R110, then stop repeating the right wing like that their adversaries want open borders. It’s just a lie.

Try talking to R110 in Russian.

Fie on intelligence! Down with decency! Fuck Pete! Viva Trump! Four More Years!

You guys need to read more current events or watch more TV if you don't think millions of liberals want open borders. I've read NYT articles advocating for such.

Define "open borders", R114.

Sorry, R111, I’ve heard the radical far left claim we should just open the borders and let every fucking person in. Poor Pelosi spends half her time trying to sit on dumbasses like that and let people know that’s not the party’s official platform, but those people are gleefully handing talking points to Fox News and don’t care that Nancy has to try and gloss over them somehow in an election year.

I’m glad to say most of those people aren’t holding elective office, but they’re activists, protestors and general loudmouths that want to paint the whole damn party with their brush and Fox is happy to agree. They’re playing into Trump’s hands and they don’t give a shit either.

They’re the same people that love Bernie, Jill Stein and every other “new age hippie” type out there who’s really a Russian operative or taking money from some shady source. They just want to burn it all down and don’t care what happens to the old, the weak, the poor and the vulnerable. And it’s an election year.

It’s like fighting with your feet in cement overshoes. They try to characterize the whole party like them when the vast majority is nothing like them. I wouldn’t be surprised of some of them took Russian money to stir up shit, or are such easily led sheep they just blindly follow along.

A lot of those people are in California, so if you’re in New York you don’t hear of them.

One example of supporting open borders is the existence of sanctuary cities.

How long did it take you to type that pseudo right wing drivel, gramps?

You’re not fooling anyone, R118.

Hippies? HIPPIES??

Now, here's the question only R116/R119 can answer: is 80 sexy?

[quote] r117: One example of supporting open borders is the existence of sanctuary cities.

A sanctuary city just means that illegal immigrants can call police about being crime victims; or call the fire department; or go to the ER, without fear of being reported to ICE. This protects all of us.

And this has nothing to do with “open borders” which is a term used to evoke the image of an invasion of millions of Mexicans storming a border crossing.

Illegal immigrants still benefit from government services like food stamps in these sanctuary cities. There is an evasion of millions of Latinos because they twist and pervert asylum in order to stay in the country. Millions of Latin American 'refugees' are liars.

invasion**

Nobody heard of Jimmy Carter 18 months out.

Patience, puppies, patience.

He has most of the keys of the WH.

#Pete2020

Polos for rowing!!?!!?! They should be showing more skin and bulge.

R120, I’m not 80, but I have idea what else you can call Jane Saunders. The woman looks like one of those old Earth Mother types that walks around barefoot in dirty 7-11’s and has gnarled feet and long toenails. Like a Hobbit.

Sorry, “what else you can call her” and Jane Sanders. My spell check is not working.

Pete very bad. Trump be best. No one vote for gay man. Protect America. Praise Trump. Vote Trump.

If he's elevated to the nomination, I'll vote for him, I suppose.

But I really wish he'd talk less religion. It's in bad taste.

[quote] The main issue is how the States tally their election results. The winner take all outcome in most states is the real problem. I think a better idea is assigning electoral votes by congressional district, not statewide.

You must be a Republican, because your idea would pretty much hand all of the presidential elections to the Republicans when you consider that congressional districts have become so gerrymandered to favor Republicans. Trump won more congressional districts than Hillary, so he still would have won under this system. Romney also won more congressional districts than Obama in 2012, so Obama would not have won a second term.

Pete big time racist. Bad mayor Fort Wayne. Vote Burney.

What's a "Burney"?

He'd be a great president.

Average Americans are perhaps too uneducated to vote in smart politicians. You get the president you deserve.

I've seen too many pro Pete posters troll on other threads to take them very seriously. Anyone who immediately starts in with defenses of their favorite candidate that are along the lines of "you're stupid if you don't love him" or "you're a homophobic BernieBro if you don't like him" are just looking for a fight and not worth engaging with.

R81, a lot of the resentful millennials know impeachment will not happen with a GOP Senate, and that's what they WANT. They want the Dema to fail so they can gloat. They've been transparent about it on Twitter.

[quote] They want the Dema to fail so they can gloat.

Who is Dema?

The Duma is the Russian parliament.

R135, that’s why they invented the Electoral College. Which is now full of morons too.

Bump. It looks like this guy is already a flash in the pan.

HIs last name is unfortunate; he'll never get elected on that alone.

Anyway, he's a young(ish) mayor who hasn't a clue how to run a fucking country. The drooling and delusional fanboys here are pathetic.

Please show how you came to that conclusion, r142.

He's important because even if he doesn't make it, his run will make it possible for another gay man.

What R2 wrote. I agree with some of his supposed policies but Pete is your classic narcissistic type. I speak/Read/write several languages myself but I have no desire to ever enter into politics. He also has no experience in major politics at all like R142 wrote.

[quote]I speak/Read/write several languages myself but I have no desire to ever enter into politics

Okay, so.....?

I have blue eyes myself but I have no desire to ever enter into politics.

Your turn.