Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

NY Times goes after Pete: Buttigieg’s Untenable Vow of Silence

Pete Buttigieg worked nearly three years for the consulting firm McKinsey & Company, and he has presented that experience as a kind of capitalist credential — distinguishing him from some rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, and inoculating him against Republican attacks.

“They’ll try the socialist thing,” Mr. Buttigieg told an Iowa audience in September, referring to a likely line of attack by President Trump and his allies against whichever Democrat emerges as his opponent in next year’s election, “but the thing is, I got started in the private sector.”

The thing is, Mr. Buttigieg has said precious little about his time at McKinsey. He has not named the clients for whom he worked, nor said much about what he did. He says his lips are sealed by a nondisclosure agreement he signed when he left the firm in 2010 and that he has asked the company to release him from the agreement. It has not yet agreed to do so.

This is not a tenable situation. Mr. Buttigieg owes voters a more complete account of his time at the company. Voters seeking an alternative to Mr. Trump should demand that candidates not only reject Mr. Trump’s positions, but also his behavior — including his refusal to share information about his health and his business dealings. This standard requires Mr. Buttigieg to talk about his time at McKinsey. It similarly requires Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders to stop dragging their feet and release their health records to the public.

In Mr. Buttigieg’s case, the most straightforward solution is for McKinsey to release him from his vows of silence — or at least to substitute a significantly more permissive agreement.

-------------------

Biden and Sanders buried deep in the editorial so they can claim it's not about Pete

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 255December 12, 2019 4:41 AM

They talk about him like he was Trump or something!

by Anonymousreply 1December 6, 2019 2:40 PM

Aha! More truth revealed about that worm. Regardless how much tea is spilled, the fact remains that Pete Buttigieg is not qualified to be President.

by Anonymousreply 2December 6, 2019 2:47 PM

It's been revealed now that this McKinsey hit came from the Warren camp (NYT is her personal mouthpiece at this point), which is super rich because 1) Warren was one of McKinsey's clients and 2) her daughter was a senior manager there. This is a better article, since it didn't come from the editorial board.

They now want Pete to break his NDAs (there are several of them) because he worked PowerPoint presentations on grocery store prices there. A guy who is still paying off his student debt and will now have to enroll in Obamacare after his mayoral stint ends in December. I wonder who they expect will foot the bill of those lawsuits for him? Also, he gave his word not to break his NDAs - you really want as president someone who breaks his word because it's politically expedient in the moment?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3December 6, 2019 2:52 PM

This takedown was great, and richly deserved.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4December 6, 2019 2:55 PM

r1 The journos at the New York Times have [italic]always[/italic] been irrationally obsessed with McKinsey - they resent the fact that their colleagues went there straight after university and started making the big bucks, while they toil away at that rag.

Let's not forget that McKinsey is a massive company with 120+ offices and 27,000+ employees. It's not like it's just one office that helps ICE catch the brown folk.

by Anonymousreply 5December 6, 2019 2:55 PM

LOL Pete has got so many people PRESSED. You know you’re doing good if people are threatened by you.

by Anonymousreply 6December 6, 2019 2:57 PM

r4 What takedown, lol? This makes them seem desperate, if anything. I'd rather hear about Warren's speech at the Federalist society, or see her tax returns from when she was representing corporate clients. She's not currently worth $14 million because she was going after the millionaires her entire life, after all.

by Anonymousreply 7December 6, 2019 2:57 PM

You know you're a lying little shit when people finally catch on and start calling you out.

by Anonymousreply 8December 6, 2019 2:59 PM

r6 Yes, they're cornered and screaming to high heaven, love it! Notice how no one is putting these hits out on Amy or Booker.

by Anonymousreply 9December 6, 2019 2:59 PM

R4 thanks for your link. That's excellent. However, I respectfully disagree with your opinion about phonebooks. Sorry that you could get one because I can't. I pinpointed Pete's deception long ago and have been crucified on this site for calling it out. The truth is often painful. Regardless, the bottom line is he's not qualified.

by Anonymousreply 10December 6, 2019 3:01 PM

Who cares.

by Anonymousreply 11December 6, 2019 3:02 PM

Don't they have an old Disney movie to accuse of racism?

by Anonymousreply 12December 6, 2019 3:02 PM

r12 That made me chuckle. You captured their mentality and priorities perfectly. 😅

by Anonymousreply 13December 6, 2019 3:04 PM

The New York Times has a problem with Presidential hopeful and Mayor Pete Buttigieg? What's the problem? Mayor Pete doesn't brag on Twitter about how he loves to torment elderly white males?

New York Times has an issue with someone? Here is the list of fucks that I give:

I give no fucks.

by Anonymousreply 14December 6, 2019 3:06 PM

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

by Anonymousreply 15December 6, 2019 3:08 PM

R9 Exactly.

by Anonymousreply 16December 6, 2019 3:11 PM

There have been so many apologies and retractions issued because people just follow the Twitter outrage instead of looking up the full quotes, I've lost count by now...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 17December 6, 2019 3:12 PM

Thanks NYT! You just mad people want to vote for me for no other reason than their hatred of you!

by Anonymousreply 18December 6, 2019 3:12 PM

R17 sounds possible to me. Hardly anyone can get their heads out of those damned evil little devices and actually pay attention and read. As former CIA Director Allen Dulles said, Americans don't read.

by Anonymousreply 19December 6, 2019 3:14 PM

Who cares what clients he worked for as a junior consultant years ago?

by Anonymousreply 20December 6, 2019 3:15 PM

Thanks, R3. I thought I was crazy, because I distinctly remember Pete talking about having worked on grocery store pricing while at McKinsey. That is never mentioned in any of the "concern" articles about his work there, so I thought that maybe I imagined it.

by Anonymousreply 21December 6, 2019 3:17 PM

R18 keep living in that fantasy world like other Data Lounge users. Typical Americans do not want to vote for Pete Buttiigieg and shall not. I know the majority of voters in my state shall not.

by Anonymousreply 22December 6, 2019 3:17 PM

Warren has some nerve. McKinsey was one of her clients when she was a corporate lawyer. She refuses to release her tax returns from the time she was not an elected official because she clearly made bank.

Bitch, please! Pete will not break his NDA to satisfy you or your supporters. He was also a tiny little cog in the McKinsey machine and worked there for 2 years in his fucking 20s before he quit to start a public service life (including military service). He released his tax returns, and they show he made very little as a McKinsey employee (not much more than $100k).

by Anonymousreply 23December 6, 2019 3:23 PM

His campaign has asked McKinsey to release him from his NDAs several times now, but they refused. Pete on NPR today has publicly called on them to release his client list. His comms director has reiterated several times that they are working on it and will have something soon.

I do understand why McKinsey would want to be cautious here - it's a slippery slope and they clients might freak.

by Anonymousreply 24December 6, 2019 3:27 PM

*their clients

by Anonymousreply 25December 6, 2019 3:28 PM

r23 She also called on him to release his bundlers list, which he has already and will release an updated one soon. It's a bad call in a string of bad calls; she should just stick to policy issues instead.

by Anonymousreply 26December 6, 2019 3:31 PM

Did everyone know that Warren is the 3rd richest Dem running (after Steyer and Bloomberg obviously) from money she made as a corporate shill?

by Anonymousreply 27December 6, 2019 3:35 PM

As noted in linked thread, NYT is getting FRIED in the comments section.

Gist of most comments is this "He was junior employee. All he did was make spreadsheets and Powerpoints. He had zero control over anything and probably limited insight into any of the actual projects--he just worked on his little piece, so WTF?"

As someone in that field, those comments are 100% correct.

Not sure what the NYT is doing, but like WokeTwitter, they only seem to be moving more people TO Pete rather than from him.

And R5 is spot on too. Journos are incredibly pissed off that people who they went to high school and college with are making so much more money.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 28December 6, 2019 3:35 PM

He needs to show some balls and just break the non disclosure agreements. Presidents take risks and don’t let trifles stop them.

by Anonymousreply 29December 6, 2019 3:36 PM

So glad I unsubscribed from the NYT. First, they're partially responsible for Cheeto's rise with their Hillary email obsession. Now they're picking their faves in the Dem race. Fuck them.

by Anonymousreply 30December 6, 2019 3:37 PM

As also noted in the abovelinked DL thread, weirder still was that the Times had an actual NEWS STORY about his time at McKinsey the same day that tried to get around the NDA by getting people to talk about what he might have been doing and came away with nothing-- junior level people are just number crunchers. His total insight is "X is trending upwards in Q3 which is notable because during that same time period Y is trending down. Here's a cool Powerpoint slide that illustrates that trend"

by Anonymousreply 31December 6, 2019 3:38 PM

As long as you're willing to pay his legal bills when they inevitably sue him, R29. Oh, and also make sure to call for E Warren to break attorney-client privilege by discussing exactly what she worked on for McKinsey while they were her client. The country needs to know.

by Anonymousreply 32December 6, 2019 3:39 PM

They would sue him in a heartbeat R29 and be relentless about it to prevent others from doing the same.

McKinsey's clients don't want their own clients and their investors to know that they spend millions on high priced consultants.

And unlike Pete they have millions to spend on lawyers.

by Anonymousreply 33December 6, 2019 3:39 PM

R22 You are making a huge mistake by count Buttigieg out. I think he has got what it takes.

"President Buttigieg is giving his acceptance speech while the First Husband looks on..."

by Anonymousreply 34December 6, 2019 3:46 PM

Silly R34

R22 clearly hast spoke the the Majority of Voters in his state and hast heard them sayeth "Pete Buttigieg. We shall not voteth for him!"

by Anonymousreply 35December 6, 2019 3:50 PM

R34 I always say everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I've been following political history since age 5. I began actively following politics at age 12. I'm not God, but I doubt this country will give Pete 270 electoral votes as required to win the presidency. This country is so screwed up, it's difficult to predict anything with accuracy. Highly doubtful my red state will vote for the Dem candidate. Pete is at the bottom of the list. If people will look past the scenery, they'll also understand my primary thesis that Pete is not qualified to be POTUS.

R10

by Anonymousreply 36December 6, 2019 3:55 PM

[quote] It's been revealed now that this McKinsey hit came from the Warren camp

Really? It's been "revealed"? Is that what you call wild speculation now? You know what I think? I think the shine is fading from your boy and you're looking for some other candidate to take it out on.

by Anonymousreply 37December 6, 2019 4:08 PM

[quote] I've been following political history since age 5. I began actively following politics at age 12. I actually met General Washington at his inauguration and President Jefferson signed my parchment for me!

by Anonymousreply 38December 6, 2019 4:13 PM

OPs photo of Buttigieg shows how ugly his profile is...

by Anonymousreply 39December 6, 2019 4:28 PM

R38 you must be about 11 now or have a mind that age. Everyone has two ages: biological and psychological.

by Anonymousreply 40December 6, 2019 4:32 PM

She said Gay Rights! Queen and Former Actual Republican Liz Warren speaking with honor to the virulently homophobic and anti-choice Federalist Society in the 90s.

Why is this not a thing on Twitter? Oh right.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 41December 6, 2019 4:32 PM

R41 that argument is specious. I was just about to make a post about that. Don't any of you remember the sharp critique from your mother as a child: If all your friends jumped off a bridge into a river, would you insist on doing it also?

Dragging another candidate into the argument is the problem. What Warren did or did not do wrong or that Bernie is allegedly a socialist does not matter. This thread is about Pete Buttigieg. Involving another candidate in the argument demonstrates an immature mind or a mental problem.

McKinsey & Company is an unethical, disreputable corporation known for being involved in controversies. Practically everyone wants to make big bucks. Those who don't are the people who should be in public service.

R36

by Anonymousreply 42December 6, 2019 4:38 PM

[quote] Dragging another candidate into the argument is the problem. What Warren did or did not do wrong or that Bernie is allegedly a socialist does not matter. This thread is about Pete Buttigieg. Involving another candidate in the argument demonstrates an immature mind or a mental problem.

Exactly. People can decide on their own whether Warren is a phony and a hypocrite. When she is only brought up when Pete is criticized, it looks immature. And it's curious how many Pete supporters choose to focus on dragging Warren into the fray, versus someone like Bernie.

by Anonymousreply 43December 6, 2019 4:52 PM

So the media is finally calling Pete out? It's about time. I was starting to wonder how deep those corporate pockets of his are that he was getting such a free ride. The dude is a neoliberal who unquestioningly repeats Republican talking points, has no black support, is a corporate darling, flopped as mayor and is getting extra points for being a Rhodes Scholar as if there isn't another Rhodes Scholar on the podrum and being a vet as if there isn't a more decorated vet in the room. A manufactured candidate who is still in the factory processing room. A corporate plant.

by Anonymousreply 44December 6, 2019 4:53 PM

R44 I give credit where it's due. I wish I had Pete's resume' and background, except for combat and McKinsey & Company. He's not the right candidate for the job. He's not genuine, either. He was chosen. Anyone who's objective can see that.

by Anonymousreply 45December 6, 2019 5:03 PM

I found this just sitting on the interwebs. A McKinsey report on energy efficiency Pete worked on.

Its about Energy Efficiency. what a scandal LOL

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 46December 6, 2019 5:11 PM

I am a Dem and I like him MORE that he worked at McKinsey and I don't give shit who his clients were. Sheesh!

Tax records are a good demand. Health records - I don't really know about that. If it's just something simple like "he/she has a working heart and doesn't have cancer" I'm OK to demand such basic info.

by Anonymousreply 47December 6, 2019 5:13 PM

[QUOTE] They talk about him like he was Trump or something!

He's exactly like Trump. He's working to cut in line ahead of people approved by the Times whose turn it is. The gatekeepers don't like that.

by Anonymousreply 48December 6, 2019 5:33 PM

R48 that's not fair. Buttigieg is not exactly like Trump. I've almost never seen a piece of work as bad as Trump.

R45

by Anonymousreply 49December 6, 2019 5:41 PM

"SylviaFowler" is a CUNT.

by Anonymousreply 50December 6, 2019 5:48 PM

I get that many of you are in retail or work in clerical jobs, but to reiterate, a junior level employee at McKinsey is one of probably 100 people working on a project and Pete's job entailed spending 12 hour days crunching numbers and making spreadsheets and slides to illustrate the results of those spreadsheets.

So to use the example at R46, he likely crunched numbers on the amount of energy used in different climate conditions in a specific area to show the effect, e.g., 2001 was a warm summer in Chicago so energy usage was 12% higher than 2000, when the average temperature was 7 degrees lower; people who reported always using timers for their lights used 3% less energy than people who reported sometimes using timers and 5% less than people who reported never using timers.

He was in no way setting policy and quite likely only have a very limited sense of what the scope of the engagement entailed.

by Anonymousreply 51December 6, 2019 5:52 PM

[quote]It's been revealed now that this McKinsey hit came from the Warren camp (NYT is her personal mouthpiece at this point), which is super rich

It’s funny how anything negative that came out about Pete was always blamed on “the Kamala camp”.

Now that she’s out, suddenly everything is Warren’s fault.

by Anonymousreply 52December 6, 2019 5:52 PM

R51 I hope you're wrong because he didn't deserve $100K or more for that.

by Anonymousreply 53December 6, 2019 5:55 PM

F&F OP/R48. He's the anti-Pete troll.

by Anonymousreply 54December 6, 2019 5:56 PM

Welp, the long knives are out now that he's Iowa frontrunner.

by Anonymousreply 55December 6, 2019 6:00 PM

LOL I'm not wrong, I've done that and it's considered training for later work. You do learn how to interpret stats and to look for the sorts of shifts that result in changes that may have gone unnoticed.

by Anonymousreply 56December 6, 2019 6:02 PM

R55, Iowa is as significant to the USA as Liechtenstein is to world affairs, with all due respect that wonderful, beautiful principality.

by Anonymousreply 57December 6, 2019 6:05 PM

Of course a Harvard educated and Rhodes Scholar working as a Junior Associate is worth 100K or more. Wake up folks.

by Anonymousreply 58December 6, 2019 6:05 PM

R58 equal pay for equal work. He probably didn't have both of those on his resume' when he was there. I only looked at his campaign speeches and media appearances. The things you mentioned don't make him qualified to be POTUS. I've said he belongs in the private sector.

by Anonymousreply 59December 6, 2019 6:18 PM

I'd like to know. Disclosure is important. It's history. We should know. Or is he hiding something?

I want to know everyone Warren represented as well. All of them.

by Anonymousreply 60December 6, 2019 6:21 PM

He earned that salary pretending to be straight. Why should anyone trust him?

by Anonymousreply 61December 6, 2019 7:36 PM

[quote] He probably didn't have both of those on his resume' when he was there.

He did.

Try again Troll

by Anonymousreply 62December 6, 2019 7:38 PM

The knives were out at the moment and openly gay man entered this race. Don’t let anyone try and Str8splain away their homophobia. Pete or bust.

by Anonymousreply 63December 6, 2019 7:55 PM

[quote]He earned that salary pretending to be straight. Why should anyone trust him?

You wrote that while pretending to be objective. Why should anyone trust you, R61?

by Anonymousreply 64December 6, 2019 8:30 PM

The Pete-haters have officially entered grasping-at-straws territory. Really, you're very, very concerned about what clients Pete did basic data analysis for, over 10 years ago? Oh my stars, Pete also didn't go to his junior prom in high school... where was he, who was he with, and what were they doing? It must have bearing on a potential political candidate. After all, every presidential candidate since Niixon has released their tax re...

Never mind.

by Anonymousreply 65December 6, 2019 8:38 PM

I didn’t go to my junior prom either.

by Anonymousreply 66December 6, 2019 9:28 PM

He just released this statement about his work there.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 67December 6, 2019 11:25 PM

Timeline of his work there. Doubt it'll satisfy the rabble.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 68December 6, 2019 11:26 PM

Okay, so where is the horrific scandal involved in looking at energy efficiency?

What are these people going to do if McKinsey releases the information and it turns out they were all either boring projects or related to climate change and other causes?

by Anonymousreply 69December 6, 2019 11:34 PM

I demand to know if Pete likes BEER and if he's ever had a friend called Squee!

by Anonymousreply 70December 6, 2019 11:36 PM

r69 They're already preemptively spinning it on Twitter, asking why he ever chose to work for McKinsey in the first place when it's inconsistent with his values. Of course, they're completely glossing over Warren's and her daughter's work there in the process. 🙄

They won't be satisfied unless he breaks his NDAs and even then they'll wonder whether he's making it up and what the possible truth could be that McKinsey is still hiding. And I can't believe Warren as a former Harvard law professor is asking him to break a binding legal agreement.

by Anonymousreply 71December 6, 2019 11:39 PM

Lawrence O'Donnell is also being a huge turd - a supposed journalist urging someone to break a legal commitment seems... unethical and unprofessional. He needs to calm the fuck down.

by Anonymousreply 72December 6, 2019 11:46 PM

And yes, the Twitterati are now asking to see the NDA itself. If he shows them the NDA, they'll probably ask for the long-form NDA next. And on and on and on. Truly the birthers of the left.

by Anonymousreply 73December 6, 2019 11:49 PM

Oh, I would love to steal an account from McKinsey. I would just love it.

by Anonymousreply 74December 6, 2019 11:52 PM

So exactly what I said.

"I worked for a grocery and retail chain, analyzing the effects of price cuts"

Pete spent his days making spreadsheets that showed

* When milk was on sale, did people buy more ice cream.

* When chopped meat was on sale, did ketchup sales go up? Bread?

* Did price cuts on dairy items lead to increased overall sales per customer?

* Which day of the week did price cuts on dairy items have the greatest effect? Were those effects similar from month to month?

Then, after two months of crunching all sorts of scenarios, he pulled the spreadsheets together into a powerpoint with slides like "Cutting prices on frozen foods has greater impact on Mondays than on all other days" with corresponding chart.

Like I said, Been There, Done That.

And fuck the trolls on Twitter. They are the mirror images of Trumpanzeees. Like Hitlerites and Stalinites in the 30s

by Anonymousreply 75December 6, 2019 11:52 PM

To those who want him to break his NDA: Trump broke America's word to the world when he withdrew from the Paris Agreement. Do you really want another president who doesn't keep his word and honor his commitments? Which is exactly the trap Warren wants him to walk into.

by Anonymousreply 76December 6, 2019 11:56 PM

Pocahontas said what?

by Anonymousreply 77December 6, 2019 11:58 PM

r68 That visit to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 to increase people's employment and entrepreneurship there so they wouldn't join a militia is already spawning conspiracy theories – he was ACTUALLY visiting black ops sites there and helped the CIA go through its hit list. 😅

by Anonymousreply 78December 7, 2019 12:07 AM

Warren is a lot smarter than him.

by Anonymousreply 79December 7, 2019 12:08 AM

Hmmm

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 80December 7, 2019 12:11 AM

r79 Doesn't look like it at the moment. She should've stuck to discussing policy issues, instead of these weak hits that make her look desperate and duplicitous.

[quote]Asked what it means for Senator Elizabeth Warren to call him out by name in the last 24 hours, Pete Buttigieg told @jeffzeleny in Grinnell, IA, "Well, it could be a sign that we’re winning the policy argument, but I’ll leave it to the analysts."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 81December 7, 2019 12:12 AM

Yes, Avenatti is the worst, but even a broken clock and all that...

[quote]I want to make sure I’ve got this straight. We are now going to kick the shit out of @PeteButtigieg because of his work for certain clients when he was in a starter job at McKinsey in his 20s and had no real ability to pick which clients he worked for? GTFOH.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 82December 7, 2019 12:13 AM

R82, Michael is right .

by Anonymousreply 83December 7, 2019 12:16 AM

Lawrence O'Donnell: "Release your entire Hinge conversation history with Chasten, coward! Or are you hiding something ?!1!?"

by Anonymousreply 84December 7, 2019 12:18 AM

r84 To be fair, they could have been discussing CIA black ops details in those conversations...

by Anonymousreply 85December 7, 2019 12:20 AM

R81, Pete is the queen of shade. He could give Mariah Carey a run for her money.

by Anonymousreply 86December 7, 2019 12:21 AM

I have evidence Pete singlehandedly masterminded the opioid crisis! Watch my show tonight!

by Anonymousreply 87December 7, 2019 12:23 AM

[quote]We are now going to kick the shit out of @PeteButtigieg...

Well yes. The presumptive top 3 don't want Pete taking any of their spots, and it's crystal clear that the primary directive for the time being is to completely destroy him. Especially with Kamala now out of the race.

Biden, Sanders and Warren supporters are practically salivating at the thought of Pete getting roasted at the next debate, especially since it didn't happen at the last one. C'mon guys, Smear the Queer!

by Anonymousreply 88December 7, 2019 12:26 AM

I think Pete (and many of his "fans" here) would be happier as a Log Cabin Republican.

by Anonymousreply 89December 7, 2019 12:26 AM

r80 Nate isn't necessarily that great of a pundit, but he does drop these insightful little gems on Twitter sometimes.

by Anonymousreply 90December 7, 2019 12:26 AM

[bold][italic] I

G

N

O

R

E

T

W

I

T

T

E

R [/bold][/italic]

by Anonymousreply 91December 7, 2019 12:30 AM

r89 Go fuck yourself for even contemplating comparing him and us to those gross hellish quislings. He was a gay mayor in a red state under Mike fucking Pence, served in the military under DADT, and if elected would be the most progressive president in the past 40+ years. The fuck have you done in your life, cunt?

What a grotesque deplorable mind you have. I would spit in your fucking face if you dared say that to me in real life. Little bitch.

by Anonymousreply 92December 7, 2019 12:32 AM

[bold] The One Where Trolls Realize They Can Get A Rise Out Of Earnest Eldergays By Trash Talking Something The Eldergays Feel Strongly About, Knowing They Will Rise And Take The Bait EVERY SINGLE TIME [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 93December 7, 2019 12:35 AM

[quote] Pete is the queen of shade. He could give Mariah Carey a run for her money

Were he a DL’r (is he?) I think he’d score a lot of WW.

by Anonymousreply 94December 7, 2019 12:37 AM

r93 But this isn't Twitter, this is DL, a supposedly homosexual site. It is crazy to me that we're getting called Log Cabin Republicans (I vomited in my mouth just typing that out) on DATALOUNGE. What the fuck?!

by Anonymousreply 95December 7, 2019 12:38 AM

They're just trolling you R95.

Ignore them and they will stop. They only do it to get a response.

by Anonymousreply 96December 7, 2019 1:07 AM

Like Pete. But consultants are worse than Satan.

by Anonymousreply 97December 7, 2019 1:11 AM

r97 What? Governments, companies, individuals... need consultants because we can't all be experts in everything. That sort of mentality is so bizarre to me. Same as blaming Facebook programmers for Russia's interference or FB's advertising policy. Demonising en entire segment of the population like that is rarely wise or productive.

by Anonymousreply 98December 7, 2019 1:14 AM

*an entire

by Anonymousreply 99December 7, 2019 1:15 AM

These anti Buttigieg threads are no doubt the work of the Bernie Bots.

I'm more convinced than ever they will likely sabotage this election as they did the last one.

They are worst than Trump!

by Anonymousreply 100December 7, 2019 1:20 AM

R100 that's preposterous. I oppose Pete and I oppose Bernie.

by Anonymousreply 101December 7, 2019 1:29 AM

At least for the Democratic nominee for POTUS. I'm not excited about any of the current candidates, which is sad. We must defeat President Trump or the GOP nominee. I'll say it again, Pete isn't qualified and Americans will not vote for him.

R101

by Anonymousreply 102December 7, 2019 1:31 AM

R100, people in the NYT comments section weren’t having it. They saw nothing wrong with Pete crunching numbers in a starter job. They related to their own shitty starter jobs.

by Anonymousreply 103December 7, 2019 1:57 AM

All these white people problems are just further distancing the mayor from the black electorate!

by Anonymousreply 104December 7, 2019 2:12 AM

[quote]I'm more convinced than ever they will likely sabotage this election as they did the last one.

Well, of course. Think about it - this is Bernie's final chance. Aside from Biden and Buttigieg, Father Time is his number one enemy. Tick tock.

The Bros are out for blood, and Lord help anyone who is in or gets in their way.

by Anonymousreply 105December 7, 2019 7:48 AM

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 106December 7, 2019 8:52 AM

If Warren is tied to big corporations, her left wing supporters will go to Bernie. That could finish her, and help Bernie.

Not a Bernie fan myself, but the holier than thou types are not going to a moderate.

by Anonymousreply 107December 7, 2019 8:59 AM

Is working in a big corporation a sin right now ? Why not just select a black homelessness person who has been unemployed since 90s as the candidate ?

by Anonymousreply 108December 7, 2019 10:27 AM

I know who one of his clients was : Chicago Public Schools because I was an analyst at CPS at the time. It was all very benign stuff. After Arne left, his successor hired Boston Consulting Group. Again, BCG looked at ways to save kids' lives and how to improve educational outcomes. Nothing shocking.

by Anonymousreply 109December 7, 2019 10:52 AM

R79 Warren is not smarter than Pete. She's just very comfortable lying.

by Anonymousreply 110December 7, 2019 11:02 AM

Delaney is the first candidate to address this issue.

[quote]This whole story is a waste of time. @petebuttigieg worked at McKinsey right out of school. He didn't run the place, he wasn't a partner & I'm sure he was simply assigned clients to work on. It has no bearing on anything, truly. Let's focus on the issues.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 111December 7, 2019 8:47 PM

^^ Apart from Pete and Warren, I mean.

by Anonymousreply 112December 7, 2019 8:59 PM

Woke twitter folk are as stupid as deplorables, and even more self-sabotaging. The voters and the election will be trolled into a puddle of slime.

by Anonymousreply 113December 7, 2019 9:05 PM

Someone called it "caterwauling from the very online left" recently and it really is just that. Makes little difference in the real world.

by Anonymousreply 114December 7, 2019 9:12 PM

It's fascinating to watch how Liz and the UberWokeTwitterLeft are making a gay Millennial palatable to older, independent and moderate voters.

Funny how that works.

by Anonymousreply 115December 7, 2019 9:21 PM

Beto walked into the trap of trying to appease the VERY LOUD Twitter rabble, Kamala was next... and I'm wondering whether Warren might be slowly getting to that point as well. Lord knows she's been spending big money courting former Kamala supporters with ads on social media.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 116December 7, 2019 9:25 PM

^^ I should have thrown Castro and Booker in there as well, though they were never big contenders anyway. They've both been leaning into identity politics A LOT these past few weeks. And Booker just recently announced he's in the race until the end - just like Castro - even if he doesn't make the debate. He previously insisted that failing to qualify for debate would spell the end of his campaign. That attention you get from überwoke Twitter must be some hard shit to quit. 😄

by Anonymousreply 117December 7, 2019 9:31 PM

R113 one of the most intelligent men I know says Twitter is for twits. I'll state again that Pete Buttigieg was grossly overcompensated for the for the work he did for McKinsey & Company, an unethical and controversial company. American politics are filthy and have been for too long.

by Anonymousreply 118December 8, 2019 3:59 AM

[quote]I'll state again that Pete Buttigieg was grossly overcompensated for the for the work he did for McKinsey & Company

$80,397 in the first year and $122,680 the second year. He got the same salary as other newbies there. If he was "grossly overcompensated", so is everyone else who starts working there. Which they probably should be, because they tend to hire the best of the best.

[quote]an unethical and controversial company

Yet 27k+people still work there, and at Facebook, the CIA, the NSA... all considered unethical and controversial. 'Tis the American way.

by Anonymousreply 119December 8, 2019 4:20 AM

R119, yes that's grossly overcompensated for the work Pete did, especially that many years ago. That might be "the American way" some places, but that doesn't make it ethical and just. Interesting that the examples you mentioned are all known by intelligent, involved people as the most disgusting examples of institutions that have their own policies that violate the U.S. Constitution and Americans' rights. They're not considered unethical and controversial; they are. I've met former CIA employees and military sniper, amongst other interesting persons. They have interesting tales. Please see my post elsewhere about the childhood anecdote about our mothers warning. Hopefully you'll understand it and the direct correlation. You're not going to jump off a bridge into a dangerous river just because that's what all your friends did!

R118

by Anonymousreply 120December 8, 2019 4:37 AM

Yes, $80k is a true overcompensation. It's barely middle class in major cities. I swear to God, you Bernie Bros and Warren bots)will make sure that if your candidate becomes nominee, they would have done so in such an ugly and deceitful way that Cheeto will end up being reelected.

by Anonymousreply 121December 8, 2019 6:39 AM

Pete Buttigieg working as a lowly employee for a hedge fund in his mid-20s is no more indicative of his overall politics than it is of any other 20-something trying to earn a living and pay back student loans. That's a far cry from someone like Mitt Romney running a hedge fund AS THE BOSS (CEO) starting in 1985 and making many decisions which look, in hindsight, to be somewhat ethically challenged. However, even there, Bain Capital was not as mercenary as many other hedge funds which used leveraged buyouts to acquire companies and then ran them into the ground through massive layoffs, etc. Buttigieg did not also amass a fortune in the hundreds of millions from his time at McKinnon. It sounds like jealousy that some people here are complaining about Pete's salary - which is in the typical salary range in the financial services industry in NYC. (Also in range in Silicon Valley and a very few other places in the US). If you're looking at his salary in comparison to what a bank teller in Columbus Ohio would earn, then yes, it looks excessive.

by Anonymousreply 122December 8, 2019 6:57 AM

[quote]Why not just select a black homelessness person who has been unemployed since 90s as the candidate ?

Whatever happened to The Rent is Too Damn High party?

by Anonymousreply 123December 8, 2019 8:34 AM

R123 I really like that guy! He's hilarious and it's true everywhere! Have you seen the reports and surveys released?

by Anonymousreply 124December 8, 2019 8:47 AM

Confirmation from voters in Iowa: "We don't give a shit about no stinkin' NDAs."

[quote]JoAnn Collins, 70, of Cedar Rapids, said she was surprised about Warren’s comments, which she felt were unfair to Buttigieg. “I like her, but that disappoints me,” Collins said.

[quote]Iowa voter Kay Jahnel said she hadn’t heard about either the questions over the NDA or the fundraisers. The Cedar Rapids retiree defended Buttigieg, whom she described as “truthful. It’s petty-picking at little things... I think what’s more important are the bigger issues.”

[quote]Carlson applauded Buttigieg for not breaking the NDA. “It says he’s willing to honor the things that he said he would honor,” Carlson said. “But he’s also willing to communicate to say, ‘Are there other options?’"

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 125December 8, 2019 4:04 PM

R125, as I wrote way above, Iowa doesn't matter one damned bit to the USA and politics. Things will change in a big way in CA. The DL is obsessed with a worm named Pete.

by Anonymousreply 126December 8, 2019 4:09 PM

Just who is it on a gay website that refers to a gay man as a “worm”?

by Anonymousreply 127December 8, 2019 4:54 PM

Pete, I trust you will not renew the subscription to that right-wing rag when you're in the White House.

by Anonymousreply 128December 8, 2019 5:16 PM

R127, I'm sorry, I'm not a typical fag until I'm on my knees deep-throating dick.

by Anonymousreply 129December 8, 2019 5:23 PM

r127 Name calling should be reserved exclusively for those 40% who are deplorables and are going to vote for Trump no matter what. Not fucking Dem candidates, regardless of how much you might disagree with them. Okay, maybe for Bloomberg and Steyer as well, for obvious reasons.

by Anonymousreply 130December 8, 2019 5:25 PM

R130 I just tell the truth. I know what Pete is. Other than that, he's not qualified to be POTUS.

by Anonymousreply 131December 8, 2019 5:34 PM

All anyone learns in congress is how to fuck over their constituents. I prefer a dc outsider personally.

by Anonymousreply 132December 8, 2019 5:42 PM

"Warren also helped write a petition to the US Supreme Court for LTV Steel in the 1990s, assisting the former industrial conglomerate in its fight against a congressional requirement that it pay millions of dollars into a fund for its retired coal miners’ health care"

Dirty corporate whore!

by Anonymousreply 133December 8, 2019 6:09 PM

R133 you need to learn who the owners of LTV Steel were...

by Anonymousreply 134December 8, 2019 6:10 PM

Was he doing shady deals and ripping off people? No! Nothing to see here.

by Anonymousreply 135December 8, 2019 8:24 PM

The NY Times is pissed off because Pete has ethics. If I paid that company he worked for or any other company and they had an employee/ex employee talking about me and the work they did for me to the press, that would be the last fucking they ever did before I sued the hell out of them and the company

by Anonymousreply 136December 8, 2019 8:42 PM

Shit just got super real for Warren, honey. 😄

[quote]News: McKinsey has allowed Buttigieg to disclose his clients

[quote]From a spokesman for the firm: "After receiving permission from the relevant clients, we have informed Mr. Buttigieg that he may disclose the identity of the clients he served while at McKinsey from 2007 to 2010."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 137December 9, 2019 8:37 PM

^^ Oh-uh.

[quote]"Additionally, the McKinsey spokesman confirms "the clients Mr. Buttigieg described in his statement on Friday, December 6 are all of the clients he served during his time at McKinsey."

by Anonymousreply 138December 9, 2019 8:39 PM

Full statement from McKinsey.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 139December 9, 2019 8:39 PM

Pete now allowing press into fundraisers, will name bundlers, and is to disclose McKinsey clients after being released from his NDA.

How will Warren & co. attempt to move the goalposts this time? She continues to refuse to release her tax returns from when she was a corporate lawyer and hasn’t actually released a full list of those clients. She also hasn’t disclosed the donors that made up the $10 million nice chunk of change she was able to transfer from her 2018 Senate campaign to fund her presidential one.

She has insisted on making transparency and the crusade against big donors/corporations pretty much the foundation of her campaign but she seriously doesn’t have a whole lot to stand on for what she has the nerve to turn around and preach to others.

by Anonymousreply 140December 10, 2019 12:28 AM

r140 You're spot on, though her proxies are already crowing that she has shamed Pete into being transparent, all the while obliquely calling for a truce. They do NOT want the reporters digging into the $3 million (adjusted for inflation) she accrued over three decades of representing corporate clients, in addition to her Harvard salary.

Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag. The reporters have indeed started digging into her corporate past and have discovered - among other things - that in one case, she was fighting to limit liability of a company selling defective breast implants. Bad look, honey.

ALL of that could have been easily avoided... if only she kept to policy issues instead of launching that McKinsey hit on Pete. Sucks for her, though many foresaw that she'd eventually get hoisted by her own purity tests.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 141December 10, 2019 12:40 AM

Yup, R141. Clearly Pete is the better chess player.

by Anonymousreply 142December 10, 2019 1:18 AM

She talks about the rich taking advantage of the poor because the rich are her peers.

by Anonymousreply 143December 10, 2019 1:21 AM

Centrist is the new middlebrow.

by Anonymousreply 144December 10, 2019 1:23 AM

Liz isn't so smart with her school marm finger pointing. But we've always pegged her as such. And scolding school marms always have their own dirty sordid skeletons.

Her beer in the kitchen was so ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 145December 10, 2019 1:26 AM

Dear Crazy Matt, go take your meds.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 146December 10, 2019 1:28 AM

Dear R146, go fuck yourself.

by Anonymousreply 147December 10, 2019 1:29 AM

Pete or bust. No matter what happens in 2020, Trump needs to be the last heterosexual president. And if Pete is not on the ticket in some form, you can kiss the election goodbye right now. And if you can't beat Trump in 2020, you're doomed.

by Anonymousreply 148December 10, 2019 1:31 AM

Stop it. Whoever is the nominee will get all of our support.

r145 I just don't understand how someone with her corporate past and $10 million of dark money transferred into her presidential campaign could think she's in a position to point fingers at anyone. I know fighting corruption is her main message, but still. Boggles the mind. Like, no shit you're going to lose this fight with Pete. She displays such bad political instincts sometimes - the first red flag being when she got goaded by Trump into releasing her DNA results.

by Anonymousreply 149December 10, 2019 1:37 AM

Pile on the female candidates. That's the American way - the most backward democracy on the planet. People see what you do. Lucky that Pete is a gay fantasy of the ugly boy made good. He hasn't a chance in the real race and goes on like a lil bitch when a man challenges him. Biden or Bernie could destroy him in one discussion. His issues are still on display. He wants to please daddy.

Warren's 'issues' are nothing but a desire to change the direction of the nation. She's ambitious and seismic in her goals. She never wavers in the face of disrespect or personal attacks. She's quite pure. She has a message and plans. More than that - a philosophy. She's far stronger than anyone else but Bernie. So the media must attack her relentlessly for being a woman, just like some old fag here does. Make no mistake that the DL PETE troll is OLD.

Tiny Pete has no chin and thin skin. He's a racist white boy and warmonger. A republican. Pete Buttigieg will never be president of anything but his local log cabin orgy potluck.

by Anonymousreply 150December 10, 2019 1:42 AM

R150, the USA is not a democracy. It's a representative republic.

by Anonymousreply 151December 10, 2019 1:48 AM

[quote]Pile on the female candidates. That's the American way

The "American way" handed Hillary the popular vote, making the first female candidate the choice of the people. But nice try blaming any criticism of Warren on sexism.

by Anonymousreply 152December 10, 2019 1:50 AM

Most of his fangurls are straight frauleins who 'ship any beige gay "celebrity". Gives them something to obsess over and project onto. And they are also the first ones to rip another woman to shreds, particularly a smart and accomplished one. Hence "a schoolmarm" and similar nonsense, probably envious of any woman who took math and economics classes instead of home ec.

by Anonymousreply 153December 10, 2019 1:50 AM

R150 Liz "I was a Republican until my late 40s" Warren ain't 100% pure. I'm sorry, sweetie.

by Anonymousreply 154December 10, 2019 1:52 AM

I don't like the "schoolmarm" thing either just like I don't enjoy that poster saying Pete is "ugly boy made good." There's no good reason to go personal when we can just stick to talking about their job performance as politicians.

by Anonymousreply 155December 10, 2019 1:53 AM

Who is the IQ 85 cunt who talks about any candidate as PURE. As if. And Liz Warren? Oh, honey.

by Anonymousreply 156December 10, 2019 1:54 AM

R153 oh fuck off - she's an incredibly accomplished woman. No one is trying to deny that. You know what else she can be though? a fucking hypocrite.

by Anonymousreply 157December 10, 2019 1:56 AM

No one candidate is pure and they don't need to be pure. We're looking for someone who is going to do a decent job in the White House, not for the next Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 158December 10, 2019 1:56 AM

[bold] The One Where DLers Start To Take Any Criticism Of Their Favorite Candidate As If Someone Had Just Insulted Their Entire Family And React In An Insane And Over The Top Manner. Looking At You R150 [/bold]

by Anonymousreply 159December 10, 2019 1:58 AM

The One With The Race Car Bed that Releases Toxic Fumes and Kills the Douchebads Who Keep Writing The One With Posts.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 160December 10, 2019 2:08 AM

Yeah, I know R151. Stop with your tiny corrections and your little lines. The US is the most backward 'democracy' in the world. Not only the developed world. The United States is a shithole racist country that ranks low in education and healthcare, quality of life and progressive action to salvage the planet. It's a gather and greed war mongering society bully land that hired a white supremacist dictator. You still don't have hate laws, nor the ERA amendment, or women's full control of their bodies. Y'all were pretty late to marriage equality too. A dumbass country that divides itself into colors of red and blue. Gross amounts of patriotism and religion from historically ignorant citizens. Across every platform. Everybody hates the U.S. Little angry ineffective small pete can't fix dick. Don't fuck with me dude. If you don't believe your land is sexist and racist, then you deserve Trump again. You best get on the right side of the better candidates.

Don't get bold R159. I see you too. You're the nutty ancient fag looking to correct his entire life story through the election of Pete ButtGig. Your opinion is unimportant. Pete ain't nothing. Take a break. Your BOLD post seems pretty over the top. Did I insult your long dead family? I meant - entire family.

by Anonymousreply 161December 10, 2019 2:09 AM

At Cornell University they have an incredible piece of scientific equipment known as the tunneling electron microscope. Now, this microscope is so powerful that by firing electrons you can actually see images of the atom, the infinitesimally minute building blocks of our universe. If I were using that microscope right now, I still wouldn't be able to locate my interest in Mayor Pete and his "policies".

by Anonymousreply 162December 10, 2019 2:13 AM

This thread is great for testing the ignore button.

by Anonymousreply 163December 10, 2019 2:14 AM

[quote]I pinpointed Pete's deception long ago and have been crucified on this site for calling it out.

Actually, you've been "crucified" mostly for being a drama queen, like using the word "crucified" just because people are calling you out on your bullshit. And speaking of bullshit:

[quote]Typical Americans do not want to vote for Pete Buttiigieg and shall not.

[quote]they'll also understand my primary thesis that Pete is not qualified to be POTUS.

[quote]He's not genuine, either. He was chosen. Anyone who's objective can see that.

[quote]He probably didn't have both of those on his resume' when he was there.

(Psst... yes, he did, as you would know had you bothered to look.)

[quote]I've said he belongs in the private sector.

Yeah, and it was just as stupid the first five times you said it.

[quote]I'll say it again, Pete isn't qualified and Americans will not vote for him.

Uh-huh, and I'm sure that you'll say it 100 more times. And not back it up a single time.

[quote]I'll state again that Pete Buttigieg was grossly overcompensated for the for the work he did for McKinsey & Company

Now if you only knew anything at all about that industry or that company or the work that the people did there, people might actually pay attention to you. You don't, of course, which is why you get "crucified."

[quote]yes that's grossly overcompensated for the work Pete did, especially that many years ago. That might be "the American way" some places, but that doesn't make it ethical and just.

Oh, do tell us just what is "unethical" and "unjust" about paying someone the market rate for the work they do?

[quote]The DL is obsessed with a worm named Pete.

Actually, the obsession is on your side, not on ours, as you've posted dozens, if not hundreds, of posts attacking Buttigieg, not one of which contained any actual facts.

[quote]I'm sorry, I'm not a typical fag until I'm on my knees deep-throating dick.

[quote]I just tell the truth. I know what Pete is. Other than that, he's not qualified to be POTUS.

[quote]Can't anyone see Pete Buttigieg doesn't have compassion for the American people and our Constitution?

Why would anyone "see" something so clearly false?

[quote]every President-Elect must take an oath, which is in the U.S. Constitution. I've posted it previously in The DL. I don't believe for a second that Pete Buttigieg intends to take that oath with honesty and to abide by it as required by law.

You really do need to get over your obsession with Buttigieg.

by Anonymousreply 164December 10, 2019 2:15 AM

You're the one who's obsessed trying to keep a gay candidate down, R164.

by Anonymousreply 165December 10, 2019 2:18 AM

r161 You're just awful, aren't you?

by Anonymousreply 166December 10, 2019 2:19 AM

R161 whenever I try to make a case for the legitimate items you mentioned, I'm attacked as "anti-American". The American people didn't hire President Trump. The majority of us voted for Senator Hillary Clinton, but our Constitution has the Electoral College, which I worked with other groups to eliminate. Americans weren't interested, so they suffered again. Like you, I'm probably wasting my time and energy, but will keep up the good fight as long as possible.

R164 I'm not a drama queen, you are and you're projecting, which is obvious to even a non-expert observer. Appears you're obsessed to have a POTUS because he's gay, although he's not qualified.

by Anonymousreply 167December 10, 2019 2:20 AM

Oh, wait ... there's more:

[quote]He may be "only" 37, but he looks awful. I won't reveal my age, but he looks as old or older than me. That says something about a person besides genetics. What's he going to look like in the future under the high stress of American politics and can his body handle them? The bottom line is he's not qualified to be POTUS. Since this is basically a gay site, it has an unhealthy obsession with Pete Buttigieg.

LOL... This is hilariously inept trolling.

[quote]I'm only interested in facts

Really? And yet you never actually post any. Funny how that works.

[quote]and I'm attacked and crucified regularly. I was warned to expect that. I'm still here while those around me are alcohol abusers, prescription drug and illicit drug abusers.

LOL.... Oh, you poor thing.

[quote]Americans are more self-centered than they've ever been, while alcohol and illicit drug abuse are at a record high. I don't touch either. And I'm called crazy?

Based on your posts here? I'd say the accusation is spot on.

[quote]Keep dreaming and making excuses!

[quote]Buttigieg will never get my support unless he is the Dem nominee. I know whose ass he's kissing and it's not Chasten's.

And he wonders why people call himi "crazy" and "crucify" him.

by Anonymousreply 168December 10, 2019 2:21 AM

It's Pete's haters who are the ones who are obsessed because he has disrupted "the narrative" about what a gay man is supposed to be.

by Anonymousreply 169December 10, 2019 2:21 AM

R168/R169, "what a gay man is supposed to be" isn't someone who claims to certain people he's had a "partner" for decades and tells others he's single, takes PReP and gets fucked by strangers at every opportunity.

by Anonymousreply 170December 10, 2019 2:25 AM

[quote]Appears you're obsessed to have a POTUS because he's gay, although he's not qualified.

He has more years in elected office than Warren even though he's almost half her age, and eight more years of executive experience than Warren or Obama when he assumed office. Bernie only started working until he was something like 30. Only one who served in the military. Only one among those mentioned who has been elected in a red state. Bitch, don't even try it with this qualification bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 171December 10, 2019 2:26 AM

[quote]You're the one who's obsessed trying to keep a gay candidate down

Nah, just posting some hilarious drivel from a Pete hater, R165. Case in point:

[quote]I'm not a drama queen

Uh-huh, because it's just totally normal to talk about being "crucified" when someone has the audacity to disagree with you.

[quote]you are and you're projecting

LOL... "I know you are but what am I" stops being effective at about age 4. You really do need to grow up.

[quote]which is obvious to even a non-expert observer.

Meanwhile, to the "expert" observer, it's obvious that you have no argument to make and that going on the attack is your only option.

[quote]Appears you're obsessed to have a POTUS because he's gay, although he's not qualified.

Actually, I haven't said whether I support or don't support Buttigieg. And I've posted less than a tenth of the number of posts on him that you have. So which of us is "obsessed" again? As with your other pronouncements, you're simply making shit up. You do have a habit of doing that, don't you?

by Anonymousreply 172December 10, 2019 2:26 AM

There are many different types of gay men. Pete isn't qualified to be president of a country AND he's super weird too. I don't intend to fuck him. He's unattractive and unwanted in any position. Stay mayor until they fire you lil pete. Be president of your future co-op board. Serve some BOD to Wall Street.

by Anonymousreply 173December 10, 2019 2:30 AM

[quote] you are and you're projecting

[quote]LOL... "I know you are but what am I" stops being effective at about age 4. You really do need to grow up.

The latter quote proves the former's point.

by Anonymousreply 174December 10, 2019 2:30 AM

This just keeps getting more and more delicious...

[quote]Warren hired McKinsey alums for senior CFPB positions but now criticizes Buttigieg work at firm

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 175December 10, 2019 2:30 AM

R171, don't bother. This idiot is absolutely obsessed with Buttigieg. The interesting thing about the "unqualified" or "inexperienced" attack is that none of them really think this through.

First, every President has said the same thing: there is no "experience" that prepares you for being President. It's like no other position, political or otherwise. You learn on the job, regardless of how much "experience" you have.

Second, none of these idiots ever come up with a list of things that make someone "qualified" or "experienced," mostly because people will point out just how silly the list is.

And finally, what they conveniently ignore is that there is no correlation between "experience" or "qualifications" and performance in office. On paper, the most "qualifed" President of my lifetime was probably the elder Bush. But he was, at best, a mediocre President. For every qualification or bit of experience you can find, you'll find a good President who doesn't have it and/or a bad President who does.

What you really need are attributes, not experience.

by Anonymousreply 176December 10, 2019 2:31 AM

[quote]The latter quote proves the former's point.

Meanwhile, out here in the real world, it's simply a statement of the childishness of the attack. Do try again, won't you?

by Anonymousreply 177December 10, 2019 2:31 AM

You brought it on yourself by accusing him of what you yourself are doing to him.

by Anonymousreply 178December 10, 2019 2:32 AM

So you're saying that "I know you are but what am I" isn't childish, R178? Got it.

by Anonymousreply 179December 10, 2019 2:34 AM

I'm saying it's an accurate statement.

by Anonymousreply 180December 10, 2019 2:35 AM

It's certainly accurate that he said, effectively, "I know you are but what am I," r180, Thank you for confirming that.

by Anonymousreply 181December 10, 2019 2:37 AM

Damn, WaPo is pouncing on her now, honey!

[quote]Memo from 1990s pollution case shows Elizabeth Warren in action as corporate consultant

[quote]“Warren was not arguing on behalf of vulnerable families, nor was she offering the sort of stinging rebuke of corporate greed... Rather, Warren was representing a large development company that was trying to avoid having to clean up a toxic waste site.”

But she opened this can of worms, so...

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 182December 10, 2019 2:38 AM

No, it's accurate that he's projecting by accusing others of doing it.

by Anonymousreply 183December 10, 2019 2:39 AM

R181 hasn't changed since the 1980s when Pete was just a babe in arms:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 184December 10, 2019 2:40 AM

You really have no idea who said what, do you, R183?

by Anonymousreply 185December 10, 2019 2:40 AM

I got enough to know that it's you who is engaging in psychological projection and doubling down on that by accusing others of doing it by pointing out when you do it to them.

by Anonymousreply 186December 10, 2019 2:42 AM

Pete is winning the only poll that really counts:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 187December 10, 2019 2:44 AM

[quote]It's Pete's haters who are the ones who are obsessed because he has disrupted "the narrative" about what a gay man is supposed to be.

I've been scratching my head about this. What is the "narrative?" What kind of gay man do these people want? Pete is like so many gay men, myself included. And that goes beyond race. Just a middle-class guy who's worked hard and has lived a pretty normal life. Like millions of other gay men of all races. I don't get the hate about him not being the "right" kind of gay man. Any input about this would be appreciated.

by Anonymousreply 188December 10, 2019 2:46 AM

LOL... Whatever you say, R186. Feel free to chime in again any time you have no clue as to what's going on.

by Anonymousreply 189December 10, 2019 2:46 AM

More projection. I know exactly what is going on.

by Anonymousreply 190December 10, 2019 2:47 AM

R188, I actually read a comment here that Pete isn't good looking enough to support, and suggested REICHEN, of all people, instead.

I get the sense that some gay men would rather see someone like Brian Sims in his place.

by Anonymousreply 191December 10, 2019 2:50 AM

Not good-looking enough? We're voting for President, not the GayVN Awards.

by Anonymousreply 192December 10, 2019 2:54 AM

R176 your statement that probably the most qualified candidate was the elder Bush was ridiculous. Hopefully you know he was the first CIA operative who had an office in the White House, that of former President Nixon. The vast majority of you are attempting to discuss politics when you're out of your leagues.

I haven't endorsed any other Democratic candidate and won't until one who can defeat President Trump enters the race.

The Washington Post ceased being a decent newspaper circa 2013. What Warren has allegedly done against Pete is irrelevant. Dragging that through the mud demonstrates the characters and motivations of people who do it.

That my anonymous comments were "clipped" and quoted proves that this website is unethical, tracks and targets people, as well as releases confidential information. That's being handled my appropriate authorities.

R167

by Anonymousreply 193December 10, 2019 2:59 AM

Corrections to R193: Remove "vast" from the last sentence of Paragraph One. Remove "other" from Paragraph Two. Replace "and" with "and/or" in Paragraph Three. Replace the last "my" with "by" in Paragraph Four. Thank you,

R193

by Anonymousreply 194December 10, 2019 3:12 AM

Well whether he was a terrible person working as a low-level McKinsey serf, or not, we can all agree: the rich are a constant pain in the ass and need to be taxed heavily and relentlessly until they stop being such a relentless pain in the ass. At least we should stop building an economy around the idea of giving rich people more money.

by Anonymousreply 195December 10, 2019 3:12 AM

[quote]That my anonymous comments were "clipped" and quoted proves that this website is unethical, tracks and targets people, as well as releases confidential information.

You fucking dumb cunt, the Ignore button collects all the posts a person makes. There's no conspiracy against you by the webmasters. Nobody cares enough about you to track you.

by Anonymousreply 196December 10, 2019 3:13 AM

R195 I only agree to the extent that the USA must return to sensible progressive taxation policies enacted by the FDR and Truman Administrations. Those fair and logical policies resulted in the American middle class and the USA being the powerful country in the world, both militarily and economically.

by Anonymousreply 197December 10, 2019 3:15 AM

[quote]your statement that probably the most qualified candidate was the elder Bush was ridiculous.

And yet you are unable to come up with anyone more qualified or explain why my statement was "ridiculous." Ex-Congressman, ex-ambassador, ex-CIA head, ex-VP. Yes, he was the most "experienced" President of my lifetime. And he was not a particularly good President.

[quote]The vast majority of you are attempting to discuss politics when you're out of your leagues.

LOL.... Oh, the irony, given your comments. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[quote]That my anonymous comments

Your ignorance of DL is not our problem. Your comments here are readily visible to anyone who cares to see them with two simple clicks. As are mine and everyone else's. It's a public forum. What part of "public" are you having trouble understanding?

[quote]were "clipped" and quoted proves that this website is unethical

If you're so ashamed of your comments, then perhaps you should not have written them in the first place. There is nothing unethical about quoting your own comments back to you. What would have been "unethical" would have been making shit up, as you have done.

[quote]tracks and targets people, as well as releases confidential information.

Oh, you poor thing. There is nothing "confidential" about public posts on a public forum.

[quote]That's being handled my appropriate authorities.

ROFL.... Oh, I do love the absolute cluelessness of this idiot. Free clue: taking this to the "appropriate authorities" will get you nothing but derisive laughter.

by Anonymousreply 198December 10, 2019 3:16 AM

R198 And you're waste a lot of valuable time to track what you or someone else ignored in cahoots with another ID or another party to clip and paste those ignored posts to attack someone later? That certainly proves a lot that's beyond sad.

by Anonymousreply 199December 10, 2019 3:21 AM

R198, no authorities have laughed at or turned me away yet. They're still asking questions and collecting info.

by Anonymousreply 200December 10, 2019 3:22 AM

[quote]R198 And you're waste a lot of valuable time to track what you or someone else ignored in cahoots with another ID or another party to clip and paste those ignored posts to attack someone later? That certainly proves a lot that's beyond sad.

Sorry to disappoint you but it took no time at all to copy and paste your posts. And your rather incoherent statement here does indeed "certainly prove a lot that's beyond sad." [sic] Nor is anyone "clipping" your posts "to attack someone later." You really should learn more about DL (and other online forums) before you display your ignorance again.

[quote]no authorities have laughed at or turned me away yet. They're still asking questions and collecting info.

ROFL.... You do realize that we *know* that you're lying, don't you? This is fucking hilarious!

by Anonymousreply 201December 10, 2019 3:27 AM

Let's see if we can explain it to the poor deluded idiot:

1. When you sign in and post, DL automatically associates your posts with your login ID. That information is stored on DL's servers. This is common to all of the major online forums. All of your posts are stored on the DL servers for as long as DL chooses to keep them.

2. When someone presses the Ignore button for one of your posts, your posts are moved to their personal "Ignored" queue.

3. When the individual clicks on the Ignored icon in the menu bar, they can see the posts of that other poster that they have "ignored." It's not everything that poster has ever posted but it is everything that is in the current thread and in threads that both posters have recently visited.

4. Re-posting those comments is as simple as selecting them, copying them, and pasting them. From start to finish, the process takes just a couple of minutes.

Is any of this sinking in? None of this is "unethical." None of it is "illegal." None of it is "private." None of it is "confidential." None of it will be taken seriously by any legal authorities. It's a variation on the way that all of the major online forums work.

(Actually, most of the major ones won't let you be quite as anonymous as DL does and most of them would show more of your former posting history. You should be grateful that I only can see your posts from a few threads, as I suspect that your posts in other threads would be equally worthy of being mocked for their utter cluelessness.)

by Anonymousreply 202December 10, 2019 3:40 AM

All true R202. But not many other sites allow such misogyny and racism to go unchecked like Datalounge does. This site is famously hateful toward regular women and all POC. People can see what you post on other sites too. They can even be anonymous. But hate speech, misogyny, racism and personal harassment are not allowed. Many ancient white fags hide behind 'pointless bitchery' here - while they spew hate speech towards women, immigrants and black men and women. Every damn day. Not just in casual comments. Thread upon thread exalts misogyny and bigotry on DL. This site can be fun, but it's not correct. Pete is a weeny gay man with a complex. It's not a crime to say so. But why are there 20 new threads about him a day from the same central NUTJOB!!! Fags be crazy too.

by Anonymousreply 203December 10, 2019 4:14 AM

R201/R202, it's common knowledge that a certain lady and/or company have "discreet ways" to "identify users" so that others can "identify enemies". If you're too stupid, naive, drugged, or batshit crazy to comprehend that, sorry, not sorry because that has been confirmed.

by Anonymousreply 204December 10, 2019 4:31 AM

So, let me see if I understand this correctly, Pete fans.

Experience doesn't matter since nothing prepares you for the job of president, yet you tout Pete's legislative experience over Obama's and Warren's as a qualification for the job. Military experience doesn't matter, except when it comes to Pete, in which case it is invaluable. He won in a red state, even though he could only win a mayoral election in a blue pocket in a red state. And would in fact lose in a statewide election, because Indiana is a red state. You contradict every one of your selling points about him and also make up your own reasoning why people "don't like him". No one cares that he's not their idea of a gay man or even knows what the fuck that means.

by Anonymousreply 205December 10, 2019 4:34 AM

Most of the posters here are missing the point, which is that the vast majority of Dem. candidates are infinitely better qualified to be president than Donald Trump. No matter what's in their pasts, they are more honest, more mature, more intelligent, more curious, more knowledgable, better-educated, more ethical. Sure, have your favorites, but don't try to make their opponents seem worse than Donald Trump, because NONE of them are.

by Anonymousreply 206December 10, 2019 5:34 AM

R206, about that I'll agree, but the Democratic nominee must be able to defeat President Trump, if he's the GOP contender, which remains to be seen.

by Anonymousreply 207December 10, 2019 5:36 AM

R203. Datalounge is basically 8Chan for gay men. The reason Muriel makes the bare basic show of moderating the absolute worst is because DL owners are afraid that CDN providers will ditch them like 8Chans recently did. 8Chan is now relegated to the dark web because they allowed the bigots to take full control. DL is scared stiff they'll be next but then also don't want to chase away their core user group of hate-filled scum. Fun time ahead for this place. Lmao

by Anonymousreply 208December 10, 2019 10:16 AM

This thread is why open homosexuality should be a minimum qualification for both voting and holding public office.

by Anonymousreply 209December 10, 2019 11:21 AM

When is Warren going to explain who gave her that 10 million dollars she transferred to her presidential campaign? Pete better have his recipets stacked!

by Anonymousreply 210December 10, 2019 11:41 AM

Recipets? Is that a website where you find recipes for homemade dog food?

by Anonymousreply 211December 10, 2019 11:42 AM

Hardly R208. I've been here since DL started and it's always attracted some strange trolls but being almost solely self-moderating it's pretty easy to avoid any truly disgusting posters. Notice the lines thru OP's post. There is also the "block" feature which is why I'm missing so many posts. I've already blocked a lot of the more persistant trolls. The only big difference I've noticed is the quality of posts has gone down over the years as many of the old posters have departed or died.

by Anonymousreply 212December 10, 2019 11:45 AM

If people weren't so stupid, then there wouldn't be a reason to hate them.

by Anonymousreply 213December 10, 2019 11:46 AM

R213 too many people are stupid, but outright hate is wrong. The problem on The DL is people who are mental and stalkers. Muriel and company permit stirring the pot and race-baiting.

by Anonymousreply 214December 10, 2019 11:48 AM

R214 is just like all the other Pete haters projecting their own failures in life onto him.

by Anonymousreply 215December 10, 2019 11:49 AM

Senator McCaskill nailed the absurdity of Warren’s attack on Pete on Morning Joe today. She said Warren’s past corporate work or Republican registration are non-issues, but noted that she comes off as righteous in going after Pete. Then the rest of the panel piled on Warren for positioning herself as morally superior.

by Anonymousreply 216December 10, 2019 11:55 AM

People can't get off of that topic about Warren and what others say about "what she has done to" Pete. That's irrelevant about his campaign and his ability to be POTUS. Enough already! Who may think he or she is morally superior doesn't matter. What has Pete done wrong? Nobody wants to talk about that, but that is relevant. My point is, and has been, that focusing on someone else and refusing to talk about your darling candidate only highlights the obsession and refusal to discuss legitimate issues.

by Anonymousreply 217December 10, 2019 12:13 PM

[quote]R161 whenever I try to make a case for the legitimate items you mentioned, I'm attacked as "anti-American". The American people didn't hire President Trump. The majority of us voted for Senator Hillary Clinton, but our Constitution has the Electoral College, which I worked with other groups to eliminate. Americans weren't interested, so they suffered again. Like you, I'm probably wasting my time and energy, but will keep up the good fight as long as possible.

R164 I'm not a drama queen, you are and you're projecting, which is obvious to even a non-expert observer. Appears you're obsessed to have a POTUS because he's gay, although he's not qualified.

Wow, I put this loon on block and it's obvious he's neither gay nor American. I'd suggest everyone else put him on block. His threats are hilarious though.

by Anonymousreply 218December 10, 2019 12:14 PM

[quote]The problem on The DL is people who are mental and stalkers.

No one is stalking you, you paranoid loon. Is someone outside your' place of employment or dropping by your house? That's stalking. Merely reposting your comments is not stalking, you poor deluded foreign troll.

by Anonymousreply 219December 10, 2019 12:21 PM

That's from the '90s R41? It looks like the '70s. No offense to Liz Warren but that's not the best look for her.

by Anonymousreply 220December 10, 2019 12:26 PM

Is this just Matt again on one of his bipolar meltdowns?

by Anonymousreply 221December 10, 2019 12:36 PM

These two are alienating themselves from the voters with this beef, and they will just end up cancelling each other. The average American will only frown upon them going back and forth over cushy jobs they held years ago.

People have real problems to deal with and don't have time for this nonsense. That is why Biden will likely crush them in the polls after January, despite being like someone's great grandpa with a touch of dementia.

by Anonymousreply 222December 10, 2019 1:08 PM

R221 I'm not, but there are 2 Matts who are batshit crazy.

by Anonymousreply 223December 10, 2019 1:14 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 224December 10, 2019 1:16 PM

What "beef" R222? Between the two Matts?

by Anonymousreply 225December 10, 2019 1:44 PM

Pete or bust. This is the Party’s last chance and white people’s last chance.

by Anonymousreply 226December 10, 2019 1:54 PM

Warren would make a good DOJ head for Pete. I don't see any other prospective cabinet members in the current lineup.

by Anonymousreply 227December 10, 2019 6:08 PM

As I said in the Joe Biden thread a few minutes ago, anyone who believes Bernie or Pete will get to the Oval Office in January 2021 is living in a dream world.

by Anonymousreply 228December 10, 2019 6:15 PM

[quote]head for Pete

Not tonight, I have a headache.

by Anonymousreply 229December 10, 2019 7:30 PM

[quote]it's common knowledge that a certain lady and/or company have "discreet ways" to "identify users" so that others can "identify enemies". If you're too stupid, naive, drugged, or batshit crazy to comprehend that, sorry, not sorry because that has been confirmed.

So we can add being ridiculously paranoid and batshit crazy to the list of your many sins here. You got caught saying something ridiculously stupid, including your hilarious comments about "appropriate authorities." You really are remarkably clueless, even for DL. This is some hilarious shit.

by Anonymousreply 230December 10, 2019 8:37 PM

McKinsey interview is out.

[quote]In an exclusive interview, the presidential candidate reveals the clients he worked with, what he did for them, and how the experience shaped the way he solves problems.

Maddow reading this and salivating all over the screen, no doubt.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 231December 10, 2019 10:13 PM

^^

[quote]Nothing here comes anywhere close to supporting the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Pete Buttigieg’s McKinsey work, some of which are like the one that Mister Rogers was actually an expert sniper in Vietnam.

😅

by Anonymousreply 232December 10, 2019 10:17 PM

[quote]"To the extent that I was uniquely qualified on something, it was definitely Canadian grocery prices."

Heh. I've already seen some conspiracy theories last week that he was part of the bread price fixing scandal uncovered last year, and so made Canadians poorer in the process. 😆

by Anonymousreply 233December 10, 2019 10:20 PM

[quote] he was part of the bread price fixing scandal uncovered last year, and so made Canadians poorer in the process

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 234December 10, 2019 11:30 PM

Jokes aside, that bread price fixing was going on for 14 years before it was uncovered. He worked there for six months. Don't tell the trolls on Twitter, though.

by Anonymousreply 235December 10, 2019 11:33 PM

Sharpen up your pitchforks, folks - this homosexual is out of control!

by Anonymousreply 236December 10, 2019 11:37 PM

WaPo columnist Jennifer Rubin doesn't much like Warren and I am so here for her tweets today.

[quote]on assignments for the Post Office, for a green group, for a grocery store chain. Oh the horror! At least he did not work for a firm that manufactured defective silicone breast implants or a real estate company that tried to get out of cleaning up a rail yard.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 237December 10, 2019 11:41 PM

Loblaw started fixing bread prices back in 2000 when Pete was graduating high school.

Putting this out here because some are seriously saying Pete's work on spreadsheets there directly led to starving Canadians.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 238December 10, 2019 11:47 PM

Nobody's starving in Canada, they're getting as fatassed as Americans.

by Anonymousreply 239December 10, 2019 11:51 PM

[quote]he was part of the bread price fixing scandal uncovered last year

So what does all this have to do with the price of tea in China?

by Anonymousreply 240December 11, 2019 12:05 AM

r240 It's the latest attack from the very online super left on Twitter.

by Anonymousreply 241December 11, 2019 12:06 AM

One of The Squad is already on Twitter, attacking him for allegedly contributing to layoffs at that Michigan non-profit he worked at for three months as his first job. Conveniently omitting the fact that a) his first job was literally moving the logo back and forth on the PP presentation, and b) the layoffs began two years later, when the fucking recession started!

I can't believe I used to worship The Squad; I feel so foolish now. 😩

by Anonymousreply 242December 11, 2019 12:12 AM

Alright I’m officially done won’t the fucking “squad” ... spreading disinformation as proven fact by retweeting a speculative thread by a tinfoil hat hack. This from a sitting democratic congresswoman in an attempt to smear another fellow democrat. Doing Bernie’s dirty fucking bidding.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 243December 11, 2019 12:17 AM

r243 It is so crazy to me that a sitting Democratic Congresswoman is spreading crackpot conspiracy theories on Twitter. What the actual fuck?

Ayanna Pressley endorsed Warren and is the only one of The Squad who hasn't gone after Pete by name. AOC and Omar who both endorsed Bernie have attacked him on free college, and Katie Porter who endorsed Warren has attacked him for not promising to appoint a donor as an ambassador.

by Anonymousreply 244December 11, 2019 12:25 AM

Just so we're clear here, a certified Bernie Bro is crying about private insurance companies losing workers when Medicare for All would basically dismantle them all. This is where we are now.

by Anonymousreply 245December 11, 2019 12:34 AM

[quote][bold]Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan:[/bold] Working in Michigan for my first study, I worked on a project for the non-profit health insurance provider for approximately three months. I was assigned to a team that looked at overhead expenditures such as rent, utilities, and company travel. The project I was assigned to did not involve policies, premiums, or benefits. [bold]Because this was my first client study, it largely involved on-the-job training to develop skills in the use of spreadsheets and presentation software.[/bold]

You wanna try that again, Rashida?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 246December 11, 2019 12:38 AM

The blowback on Warren is intensifying. They're finally digging into her own record.

WATCH: Elizabeth Warren Railed Against ‘Fancy Corporate Defense Lawyers’ in Toxic Waste and ‘Shoddy Product’ Cases

Massachusetts Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is currently defending her work on behalf of corporate clients in toxic waste and product liability cases, but in a 2016 speech, railed against that exact sort of “fancy corporate defense lawyer.”

Warren is facing renewed scrutiny this week for her part in a 1996 toxic waste case, just one of several cases for corporate clients that have come under criticism over the past several months. But during a June 10, 2016 speech, Warren railed against corporate lawyers who took the exact same sorts of cases that she participated in during her years of legal work for corporations.

At the 2016 American Constitution Society National Convention, Warren was criticizing then-Senator Jeff Sessions over his questioning of Paula Xinis, President Barack Obama’s nominee for a district court judgeship.

“During her confirmation hearing to be a District Court judge this year, Senator Sessions insulted Paula Xinis, a former federal public defender and civil rights lawyer who worked on cases of police abuse. He asked if she could ‘assure the police officers … that might be brought before your court that they’ll get a fair day in court, and that your history would not impact your decision-making’”, Warren said.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 247December 11, 2019 12:46 AM

r247 She has a long history of being duplicitous. I still recall her saying she was "troubled" by Obama's speaking fees back in the day. 🙄

by Anonymousreply 248December 11, 2019 12:49 AM

Trump just said at a rally he's dreaming about Pete. Is Trump... one of us? A homosexual? 👀

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 249December 11, 2019 12:51 AM

R243 I'm sorry I know I shouldn't think this but: what a lying fucking cunt.

by Anonymousreply 250December 11, 2019 12:56 AM

I didn't realize how much of America (and the world) has been Trumpified. It's a bit shocking seeing Democrats spread conspiracy theories and leave behind their dignity and reputations so their cult leader can win at all costs. It's almost like Bernie is Trump's shadow on the Left.

by Anonymousreply 251December 11, 2019 1:05 AM

r251 Some on the left look at Trumpian tactics, they see that they demonstrably work, and they just can't fucking resist. It's beyond unfortunate.

by Anonymousreply 252December 11, 2019 1:20 AM

Canadian retailer actually had to put out this statement today because the Twitter loons on the left have been putting bread emojis into their profile names, saying Pete contributed to starving out old people in Canada as a result of the bread-fixing scandal.

[quote]Loblaws, the Canadian grocery store chain that was one of Buttigieg’s clients at McKinsey, said Wednesday that the would-be presidential candidate played no role in the grocer’s 14-year bread price-fixing scheme. Loblaw spoxs: “We retained McKinsey in 2008 to better understand how we could lower prices for customers across a number of categories. ... That was the extent of their work with us during that time.” Asked if Buttigieg had any role in bread price fixing, the spox said, “No.”

A manager at that Michigan insurance nonprofit also put a similar statement yesterday. Next conspiracy theory: he was actually depleting third-world countries of their resources while working abroad for Department of Defense to increase employment and entrepreneurship among Iraqis and Afghanistanis so they wouldn't join a militia. No, I am not joking. 🤦‍♂️

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 253December 11, 2019 10:36 PM

Just to add, I'm now seeing some Pete supporters have adopted the bread emoji because they're so fed up with these conspiracy theories. 😅

by Anonymousreply 254December 11, 2019 10:37 PM

[quote] I'm now seeing some Pete supporters have adopted the bread emoji

So he's won the Loafers demographic

by Anonymousreply 255December 12, 2019 4:41 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!