Maddow/Buttigieg rematch, 9/10/19

That will be interesting to see if she goes after Pete again, I don't mind a tough interview but when Rachel gives women such easy interviews and then was pretty rough on Pete last time you take notice.

She kicked his chicken-shit ass. I can't wait for Round 2.

The first interview.

Wherein Rachel notes that she was the first openly gay Rhodes Scholar, and Pete was a Rhodes Scholar also, but he didn't come out until he was much older. Rachel recites all the things Pete did before coming out and wonders why, because "I think it would have killed me to be closeted that long."

And of course I meant 12/10/19.

December 12! Ugh

I love Rachel maddow. Gay men are always intimidated by strong women. Their no different then misogynistic straight men.

If pete buttigieg can't handle Rachel, then he's definitely not ready for Trump or the presidency. He better get over the fact that Rachel is a solid interviewer, and grow a pair. No one wants a weak bitch in the white house.

[quote] "I think it would have killed me to be closeted that long."

Just look at her Caneface. Did she ever have an option but to not be closeted?

Yeah she did R6 she could have remained looking like this.

R7 Photo screams, May the Cane be with you.

Does she do tough interviews for her hero Elizabeth Warren?

No, she slobbers all over any Democrat who agrees to appear on her show.

Except Pete.

Why would he grace that shitty show with his presence again after the way she treated him the first time he was on AND at the debate?? He’s dumb for even wasting his time with her again because it’s obvious she only cares about the women running.

R8 Or “I play softball.”

Buttigieg shouldn't even be running for president. He's lucky he's even allowed on her show. He should be grateful, instead of ungrateful, along with his fangurls.

So tiresome.

EMERGENCY! HE MIGHT WIN IOWA.

Must.take.down.

Would it have killed you to have at least posted a picture or link OP? Would it? I mean would that have really been that hard? Would it? Why don’t you try to think more of others next time before you post? Can you give us a straight answer? At least be honest for once in your life and tell us why you were so inconsiderate?

I suppose his campaign wants to answer all the bitching from the candidates and media now that he's moving up the polls. It's obnoxious that Maddow and booker somehow feel slighted that no one mentions their Rhodes scholarship so they bring it up themselves.

In that original interview for some reason I find it snotty the way Maddow says "when I went up."

Like she's using some inside lingo that only Rhodes scholar use.

R13 FF for the anti-Pete troll who has started numerous pointless anti-Pete threads.

R16, has Maddow ever asked Booker why he's still closeted, since it would kill her to still be closeted?

No, because Rachel and Cory are friends ... from Rhodes Scholaring!

Maybe they WENT UP together.

Pete vs. Rachel: Electric Buttigieg

Pete, please don't do it. You know this is a just set up - it will be like the prom scene straight out of Stephen King's Carrie. Lawrence O'Donnell and Joy Reid will be off set ready to pull the rope and dump the bucket of pigs blood hanging from the ceiling all over your pristine white dress shirt and blue tie. DON'T FALL FOR IT.

Pete will handle himself well. He's not afraid to fraternize or attempt conversation with people who are critical of him or openly hostile towards him -- an admirable quality. Certainly better than the current POS in office who only surrounds himself with yes-men and needs constant validation.

Jesus his campaign is putting him through the ringer in prep for the death match that will probably be this next debate. First he had to sit down with that asshole who called him a lying MF and now he has to endure a conversation with the *first* openly gay Rhodes Scholar.

Oh snap this should be good!

My mussy is ready.

I think Pete's going to be ready to push back on Rachel if she cunts off.

And Buttigieg just released his McKinsey client list.

Score one for La Maddow.

I have this feeling she will zig when everyone expects her to zag. Less cunty and more even-handed.

There is the potential of a mutually beneficial relationship here.

Rachel's gonna eat him alive tonight! He better come prepared.

Minutes away ...

R29 She should know about eating...

Outside of Bernie Bro Twitter, people are rolling their eyes at the McKinsey client list, wondering whether they are going to ask other candidates details of their summer jobs as lifeguards and waiters "did she knowingly serve non-GMO beef to unsuspecting customers? Did he realize how much the chlorine in the pool hurts the environment?"

SMH

So far Pete has made everyone who "comes for him" end up looking bad instead. He's quietly excellent at turning the tables on people.

I think Rachel totally forgot he was on the show. She's still orgasming over the impeachment

I wonder if Pete passed Lawrence O'Donnell in the hall on the way to the Maddow Interview and they gave each other polite nod or if Lawrence did a 180 ...

Rachel's an idiot. This impeachment is going to help Trump so much. They need to just drop it.

I honestly can't watch this

She's already cunting - leading with his disclosure of "big donors."

r37, MARY!!!!!

Some of you Pete people seriously need a reality check.

She's already scowling. I like Rachel, but she hates when she's not the smartest person in the room.

She is a CUNT.

You can tell she hates having him there.

R39 Yes I know

Has she demanded he ANSWER THE QUESTION, FAGGOT - yet?

She always seems super competitive and insecure around Pete. Hes brilliant as usual.

That was just in the last debate, R44.

And it was, "I'm going to need you to answer the question, faggot."

She was folksy about it.

Working for a grocery chain...horrors!

You thought "LOCK HER UP" was bad?

Wait until the Republicans start yelling

FAGGOT!

FAGGOT!

FAGGOT!

And he looks like a schoolboy on top of everything else he has stacked against him.

Don't waste your time hoping, gentlemen.

Why is she picking at all the negatives — McKinsey, big donors — instead of talking about his plans for the country?

God I love hiim

R45 Honestly I think she looks at him and just thinks "if he can do this, why the fuck can't I?"

[quote] Rachel's gonna eat him alive tonight! He better come prepared.

He was in Afghanistan. I doubt he's worried one whit about what this television personality woman has to say.

He's doing great as usual.

He was a desk jockey in Afghanistan. Just sayin'.

Sorry Rachel, he was there a decade ago, and wasn’t exactly CEO.

The little homosexual boy did fine

R54 is a shop bottom

Just sayin’

Rachel is a Liz Warren gal and it shows. She's trying to nail him and he's kicking her ass. Her question about his research at McKinsey potentially being responsible for layoffs at Blue Cross was over the top and unnecessary. Get it together Rachel.

Gawd!

Rachel has reverted to FULL ON BERNER with her MANY Bernie Sanders talking point-focused questioning. She gets very focused and shrill when she corners a Democrat she thinks is a threat to Berner-style ideas(as she did with Hillary), questioning Buttigieg like a prosecuting attorney.

So disappointing that she's swallowed the M4All gibberish as espoused by Sanders, a guy not known for legislating anything other than renaming post offices amd helping elect Trump. Blechhh!

Now she's insinuating that because Pete consulted for McKinsey, who consulted for Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who later laid off people, he was responsible for their later layoffs.

CUNT!

How has she ever grilled Klobuchar, or Warren, or Booker, or Harris on their records in that way? She could have gone to town with Kamala's record as a prosecutor alone.

You people are nuts. She's not required to "go easy" on Pete just because she's a lesbian and he's gay.

Of course she's asking him probing questions, she's a journalist.

Of course he shares responsibility for the layoffs. Do you not understand what McKinsey & Company is?

I just sent him more money

He left McKinsey in 2007, I believe he said. She was asking whether his work affected layoffs in 2009. He says he doesn’t know.

Why don't people blame him for what McKinsey did in 2001? Or 1990? And how does some rookie employee know what the company is going to do years later?

That whole concept is ridiculous, but I’m sure Bernie Bros will insist Pete is responsible for every damn thing McKinsey ever did, as if he was the CEO, not the junior flunky.

Did Rachel seem disappointed?

[quote] Rachel is a Liz Warren gal and it shows.

I've seen her interview Liz and Kamala, and Rachel is glowing and smiling with them. Her nonverbals with Pete tell you how she feels about him as clearly as her words.

So -- what you're saying is that Pete isn't "man enough" to handle a tough grilling by that (oh, no!) mean, butch lesbian? She should soft-pedal and back off your darling boy?

How the fuck do you think he's going to handle Trump? Fox News?

Shes a worthless cunt.

Rachel did not bother to explain to ANYONE not in her teeny bubble just what type of business McKinsey even is, acting instead as if it were the leading purveyor of black market babies and meth!

r54 And what were you in Afghanistan, exactly? Just askin'.

She did not mention that most of his government consult was for the OBAMA admin.

She kinda soft balled him and did not bring down the beef curtains on him.

He stated that M4A is a great goal, but M4A Who Want It will get us there.

Game, set match to Pete!

[quote] How the fuck do you think he's going to handle Trump? Fox News?

He's already appeared on Fox News in interviews with their talking heads.

r67, I love Rachel.

She is a PRICELESS cunt.

Just to clarify: he worked at Blue Cross for three months in 2007, learning PP presentations. The layoffs happened two years later, in 2009, because of the fucking RECESSION in 2008!

All clear? Good.

It's entirely possible that McKinsey's advice and analysis led to subsequent layoffs at Blue Cross/Blue Shield. That said, I thought he came off well. He's clearly not easy to intimidate.

R66, he’s already been on Fox and he did fine.

The idea that you are personally responsible for everything anyone ever did at every company you ever worked for as a junior employee is ridiculous. If you were in management, I could see it. He wasn’t.

I worked for a bank once. I found out a couple years after I left, that the bank President embezzled a bunch of money. Am I responsible for that? I was a teller.

That’s how ridiculous this is.

He did a good job, but

JESUS CHRIST. The man is succeeding against all odds to win Middle Americans over to the idea that a gay person can be president, and the gay host won't spend a second on that, and instead grills him harder than Fox News would.

WTF?

[quote]Game, set match to Pete!

What fuckin' interview were YOU watching, R70?

She handed him his head.

Pete, single-handedly, is responsible for the Trail of Tears, the Crash of 29, the Challenger Explosion, culottes, Joan Crawford's drinking, Crash winning best picture, and the AMC Pacer .

r74 No, I'm betting on the global economic downturn, myself. Makes more logical sense. Also, he worked on presentations. Is the cleaner who kept the Blue Cross place clean responsible for those layoffs as well?

r77 You were watching the show in another, parallel reality where everyone - yourself included - is suffering from the Pete Derangement Syndrome. Condolences.

Somebody said that he is wicked smart. His Blue Cross answers shows that. Rachel "worried" that his time at McKinsey resulted in layoffs of insurance workers. He thought not, but pointed out to Rachel that some candidates' plans (Liz's, Bernie's) would result in a layoff off tons of private insurance workers under MFA.

Are you worried about that, Rach?

R79, yes! If he cleaned the toilets, he offered aid and comfort to the senior management.

Off with his head!

My guess would be that she doesn't want to be accused of favoritism because he's a "fellow gay"; thus she has to hit harder than usual.

r76 That's the coastal elites for you. Largely oblivious to anything that's happening outside the big cities.

Pete at his "desk job"

Lawrence O'Donnell did not approve of her coverage.

They spent their usual awkward long handoff yapping on bill markup process instead of her big interview, and he didn't lather her clit as much as usual.

No, silly. That's Pete at his modeling job.

What is it with MSNBC and their hate of Pete? It's like that network only employs hateful bitches.

R85, I’ve seen people on twitter claim nobody should vote for Pete because he was in the military service. Apparently they think that proves you’re evil.

People are crazy now.

another photo of Pete at his desk.

r81 They literally want to obliterate the entire insurance industry but they're now Super Concerned because his PP presentation might have contributed to some layoffs two years later during the fucking worst recession in living memory.

R91 that extreme irony was lost on Rach.

R91, At a time when everybody laid off staff desperately trying just to stay in business.

In 2008, I drove by two large strip malls near my house. Almost every store was out of business, including the anchor stores. I thought they would never come back.

How soon people forget.

Sorry, 2009^^

Did you also know that Pete told Ben that Gigli was a sure thing?

Even BCBS want to make it clear he was just the PowerPoint and Starbucks Coffee guy.

[quote]They literally want to obliterate the entire insurance industry but they're now Super Concerned because his PP presentation might have contributed to some layoffs two years later during the fucking worst recession in living memory.

Rachel completely loses perspective with Pete. It's like her internalized homophobia prevents her from communicating the full story about his candidacy and she has to overcompensate and drill down to the smallest minutiae to pick him apart. Which she never comes close to when she interviews other Democratic candidates.

With friends like these...

Pete told Mayim her op ed was a great idea, and would empower women.

Chris is a Bernie Bro

Rachel is a Warren Stan

Larry was all in for Kamala, not sure where he will land now

Pete told Columbus to enslave the Indians. “Go right ahead!” said Pete. “I don’t care what you do to the Indians!”

Larry may be annoyed with Rachel since she didn’t ask him about his “Democrats don’t care about the federal budget” remarks

This is probably more like it.

Who the fuck is Larry??

The Left has truly lost its mind. Reagan couldn’t get the Repiblican nomination today and FDR couldn’t get the Democratic. Both sides are just fringe.

Pete removed that tag from his mattress. Clearly, not a man of integrity.

[quote]The man is succeeding against all odds to win Middle Americans over to the idea that a gay person can be president, and the gay host won't spend a second on that, and instead grills him harder than Fox News would.

That’s exactly why she’s hard on him. Because she’s a lesbian, everyone expects her to go easy on the gay candidate.

It has come to our attention that Pete leaves the toilet seat up occasionally. Is this who we want running our country!?

There is a nasty Adam Green with the PCCC that seems to be doing Warren's dirty work and could be behind a lot of this crap.

Rachel thought she got him when she asked him if he had involvement with laying off employees. Pete prevailed as usual.

I am so done with this cunt.

What Rachel forgets too, is that lesbians like her and Ellen are perceived as a "cute" forgivable evil to most straight people. Unlike those AIDS spreading sodomy living perverted gay men. Ever think it might have been a little easier for you?

Plus he had Christian guilt.

R111, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

R111 is correct.

Mayor Pete's getting on my nerves too, R110.

Thanks a lot, bitch. Now he'll be looking to me for some physical release. I wanted to watch Game of Thrones...

Rachel is there as a reminder that stupid people get Rhode Scholarships too.

Where was Pete when JFK was assassinated? They never found the guy on the grassy knoll. I’m just saying.

It wasn't that whore Mrs O'Leary, it was Pete who started the Great Chicago Fire.

I’m pretty sure Pete was in New York within a few years of September 11, 2001. Which is very suspicious. 👀

R78, you left out that Pete was also responsible for the exploding Pinto gas tanks.

Also, it’s very suspicious that vaudeville died out, then only a few decades later, Pete was born.

Why, Pete? Why? What do you have against Burns and Allen? Gracie was a nice lady.

Pete told me not to wear the red ribbon.

R111? That's because straight men are dying to fuck lesbians ("I'm gonna be the man who turns her!").

They are NOT dying to fuck gay men.

I'll trade ya.

I remember an episode of the Patty Duke show, where either Patty or Cathy was the substitute teacher and she was extra hard on her cousin, just so that she did not show favoritism.

Pete told Nick Cannon, why don’t you diss Eminem? What could go wrong?

[quote] The Left has truly lost its mind. Reagan couldn’t get the Repiblican nomination today and FDR couldn’t get the Democratic. Both sides are just fringe.

Dear Bubbe, we told you to go to bed after your serving of kasha at 6pm. (0-year olds should not waste what little precious time they have left watching political debates at night.

Pete blew Richard Speck!

Pete and Squeaky Fromme were spending a lot of time together. I’m not saying he gave her the idea, but...

OK, I was a little off at r28.

Pete handled the man-hating lez perfectly. With that said, Pete would quit wasting his time going on this hateful cunts show.

You can tell that Rachel is one of those assholes who if their candidate doesn’t get the nomination, she would rather stomp her feet, be a crybaby and not vote at all.

I cant believe she couldn't see there was "no there, there" re: Mckinsey! It shows me her show is just about ratings and controversy, not facts

What fuckin’ show did YOU watch, R131?

She handed him his head on a platter.

About what? McKinsey gave him permission to break the NDA, so the “Pete is covering up his nefarious work at McKinsey” meme is gone.

He was a kid out of college, trying to pay college debt, and he took a high paying entry job. Who wouldn’t? What was he supposed to do, dig ditches to pay off his six figure loans? Pick grapes? Why go to college then?

And if you’re just out of college, they do not let you run the whole company or make major policy decisions for the company. And people do have to get corporate experience somewhere, or they’ll never be able to accomplish anything. Most young people that age can’t pick a career saving the whales as their first job and be able to go anywhere from there. You have to get experience to be useful.

All these people knocking him for learning to crunch numbers and do PowerPoint presentations are the same people that will benefit because he learned how to streamline large organizations and make them more profitable.

The government is the largest organization there is and it’s full of waste. But let’s not hire anyone that was trained to cut it. Oh no, that would be terrible.

Working for McKinsey is terrible, R133. Decent people don't do it.

That he would accept employment there tells us a great deal about Mr. Buttigieg, with little of it being good.

Warren's stuff as a corporate lawyer is 10× worse. Shes is the only candidate that I would vote for Trump against.

I get the feeling a lot of people have no idea how corporations work.

McKinsey did not “make” any company cut anything. Things like that are decided by the Board of Directors in a given company. They have data about their company’s profitability. If it’s not doing well, or if there’s a lot of waste, they are obligated to the shareholders or owners of the company to do better. They hired McKinsey of their own free will, nobody put a gun to their heads. The company itself decided to cut, not McKinsey. And McKinsey didn’t go there to work for free. They were paid because the Board in that company already decided that’s what they wanted to do.

Sometimes this is as a result of a bad audit, or because they’re not profitable. If management is seeing daily reports that they are losing money, or not getting paid by their clients, they have to do something. And having a company come in and tell them what will work best, as experts, is better than just groping around in the dark trying to solve it by themselves. A lot of corporations are run by cronyism, and the Board or staff don’t know what to do. That’s why they hire consultants.

From the description that been given, McKinsey has been auditing companies, identifying where they can save money, as making recommendations. Nobody has to follow them. But the people that run these companies realistically don’t know what else to do or how else to accomplish the same thing, so they follow the recommendations. That’s why they hired them in the first place.

Does that mean I personally am for layoffs? No. But I’ve been inside badly run companies and I know how it works. McKinsey is better than bankruptcy. They are not cheap, so somebody pulled the trigger on hiring them for a reason.

Many companies just go further and further off the rails because somebody’s brother in law is running it and he has no clue. Or board members spend company money riding in limos and going on paid vacations or laundering money. But you never hear about that. McKinsey isn’t responsible for the mess they find. That’s like shooting the messenger.

I disagree R97. Maddow is politically left enough that she's a fan of Sanders and Warren, and was if you'll remember pretty hard on HRC during the 2016 campaign, a few times crossing the line and pushing some of the conspiracy theories about how the DNC was rigged.

Buttigieg is a center to center-right candidate, whether you like it or not. He's pro corporation to the point of complaining about consumer boycotts (and insulting people who boycott CFA for their anti gay policies) and as mayor he instituted several policies (like 1000 homes in 1000 days) which targeted poor and mostly minority communities, not because he's racist really, but because he just wasn't thinking about the people.

Maddow isn't going to go for any of that. No one on the actual left will. Some center-left might, but even then there's going to be resistance.

Trying to reduce this all down to their sexualities is homophobic, and it doesn't surprise me to see it here on Datalounge where this kind of talk pervades every political thread these days, but it strikes me as odd that the same gays who say identity politics is wrong are ALSO saying that everything about Maddow's problems with Buttigieg boil down to her being a lesbian and him being gay.

Another issue that never gets talked about is embezzlement, which is as common as water in big corporations. There’s no way to find it but audits.

I worked in a large corporation where half the management ended up in prison. People think the one and only reason people hire companies to audit themselves is to lay off. That’s because people sign NDAs and the only thing you can see from the outside is layoffs. In real life, the highest levels of management are stealing, left, right and center. It has to be found and proven so they can be hauled off, and no, they’re not going to talk about it. Ever.

Why do you think they make all those people sign NDAs in the first place? You can’t hide layoffs, so that’s not it.

If you hate Rachel, as I do, just stop watching her. Btw, "when I went up" remark. Did she say it about Oxford? It is traditional in London to say you go "down" to other cities, you go down to Cambridge. Oxford is the only place you go "up" to from London. But it still sounds ridiculous and pretentious coming from her in that comtext. Also one "goes up" to any university to begin studying three. But again, for an American to use that Britishism on a supposedly progressive news show is pretentious.

Well said r137.

R137, Let's not rewrite history. Maddow was in the tank for Clinton just like everyone else in the corporate press.

Warren is not really progressive that's why she gets glowing press and a free ride. Bernie the true progressive gets ignored by the corporate press like Maddow because hes such a threat to the status quo.

Warren defended companies from having to pay damages to people that they gave cancer too. You cant get more " Dont care for the people" than that.

McKinsey are fancy shit diggers. When a company needs to lay off people, they bring in McKinsey to give it legitamacy, so the Board can claim due diligence. Everyone knows that. A lay off isn't Pete's fault. I don't hold that against him. They do have a bad rep. If you're not a top exec in a company and you hear McKinsey has been hired you know bad news is coming.

R137, anyone who says “and as mayor he instituted several policies (like 1000 homes in 1000 days) which targeted poor and mostly minority communities, not because he's racist really, but because he just wasn't thinking about the people” has no idea why that happened or what was going on.

Pete ran with that policy as part of his campaign and he won. He did not just drop it on people out of the blue because he hates blacks and wanted to steal the homes they lived in so white people could build a Starbucks there.

In real life, South Bend has been losing population since 1963. South Bend was a company town back then. Studebaker was a huge auto factory there and then it closed. That’s why there’s so many VACANT, abandoned homes there. Vacant being the operative word. They’ve lost a third of their population since then. South Bend is not New York City. No one was clamoring to live in a run down, abandoned crack house with the roof caved in. And no one wanted to live next to it either.

Something had to be done. There were abandoned houses everywhere. Pete gave owners of abandoned properties, mostly banks and out of state investors that were buying them for almost nothing at auction, a window to show they were going to fix them. If they weren’t going to maintain their property, it was torn down. There’s a lot of issues with living next to an abandoned property. Crime, homeless people, drugs, fires, lead paint in that area, vandalism. One big issue was thieves stealing copper pipes. In some cases the water just ran down the street and nobody knew who owned the house to call them. That’s unsustainable. Lead paint is a big issue there and kids had lead poisoning. Forty percent of the houses, houses that were actually lived in, were fixed up, many with the help of grants. No houses were torn down that somebody actually lived in, they were all vacant.

One of his biggest critics was a local black woman who bought six abandoned houses as an “investment” and then refused to fix them, claiming poverty. The city had been citing her for years. They finally gave up on her and tore them down. She’s had it out for a Pete ever since, although this started before he was there. She ran for his job and lost. She placed sixth.

That's what auditors are for, r138. That's not what McKinsey does. McKinsey is invited into companies that are in some sort of trouble and their highly paid directors and executives can't figure out how to fix it. They only know how to pay themselves. And McKinsey. McKinsey doesn't come cheap.

McKinsey looks at everything involved with the assignment. Everything. Every minute. Every dollar. Every job. Every vendor. Every customer. Every process. Every lease. Every bit of infrastructure. It looks at every bit of marketing, advertising, and public relations. They leave nothing unexamined. McKinsey takes it all apart, analyzes it, and shows the goddamned stupid management what they have been fucking up and how they might fix it. The recommendations rarely include replacing the directors and the executive management.

Every fact gets vetted. But McKinsey can only make recommendations from McKinsey's point of view. And it is a cold, heartless, bottom-line point of view that it peddles. Employees, families, loyalty, service... none of that matters to McKinsey. That is a big part of the McKinsey problem. Its conclusions and its recommendations are not the only ones that could be reached from the data collected. After it slashes and burns everything in its wake, it collects its check and leaves. And the same loser management that caused the problems in the first place save themselves by offing lots of others who are lower in the hierarchy. There is value to what McKinsey does, but how McKinsey goes about it is not the only way to address these problems.

And for the right amount of money, McKinsey will advise anyone about anything.

Pete is a corporate tool. #neverpete

R145, I hope you're supporting Bernie. Hes the only person in the race with no ties to corporate bs.

As someone who actually works for a consulting firm .... the McKinseys of the world are often brought in to confirm things that everyone already knows (Amazon and other online companies are stealing our market share! The Youngstown plant is mismanaged!) but it's politically impossible to say out loud if you're upper management.

So the CEO can say "look, we have evidence that we are losing market share to Amazon and that our customers want to be able to buy online..."

But (and this is important) - [bold] consulting firms never make firm recommendations. [/bold] They lay out options and offer predictive models of what might happen in a couple of scenarios but they never say "and you should do X."

[quote] It's entirely possible that McKinsey's advice and analysis led to subsequent layoffs at Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

I would be shocked if Pete wasn't one of a dozen junior analysts who were crunching numbers for BC/BS

You mean like Bain Capital, run by “man of integrity, greatest hope of the GOP,” Mitt Romney?

Companies like this are always going to exist. People that are executives in large corporations are clueless and all they know how to do is write off their personal expenses and live like kings. Think of people like Ivanka Trump “running companies,” and that’s about it. Every damn thing they “own” is really owned by the company. Cars, sometimes even houses. They write off all their entertainment expenses and live high in the hog on the company’s dime. Meanwhile, the company can’t sustain it, and it’s drowning under the weight of these leeches.

McKinsey is a symptom, not the underlying problem. And I doubt very much that they see huge wasteful expenditures by CEOs and don’t tell anybody. If the company refuses to do anything about it, that’s not their call.

McKinsey hires the smartest and most ambitious new graduates from the country's top rated schools. But not the nice ones. McKinsey screens very carefully for the young person with no heart and ice water where the blood out to be.

If you want to know about Pete Buttigieg, what you really need to know is that McKinsey hired him in the first place. That is a good recommendation for his intellect and ambition. But we can all see that he is smart and ambitious. Just be sure to factor in that being hired by McKinsey is a very poor reference for one's character. McKinsey has no use for people of good character.

Again R148-- they don't make recommendations. They may include a slide showing that "executive expenses" have increased 50% YOY (year over year) over the past 5 years and include it in a section about what areas the company spends more money on than its competitors.

Then the CEO, senior execs and the Board can read into it.

But we'd never say "Ivanka is putting too much on her credit card. Tell that bitch to cut back."

Rachel shouldn't be so smug and judgemental when it comes to someone's past. She may have scorn towards Pete because he came out late in life, but she came out because a college newspaper outed her. Who knows what she would have done had that not happened. And, early in her career, she was a regular panelist on Tucker. Yes, that Tucker. So, if someone wanted to, they could make a big deal about the little things that don't really matter when you see the person they are today. She has no room to judge.

you could actually make the point that her entire "Shtick" career is evil. Obscene income providing marginal value and constant harping every night. What kind of world saving job is that. Not very virtuous if you ask me

If Pete ate salad with a comb or locked up children for skipping school, Rachel would have been under that desk in a New York minute sucking him dry.

I get that, R150. But I’ve worked for companies where the execs basically owned the clothes they stood up in and that’s it. Everything else was bought for execs to use. It was all fake “wealth” owned by the company, not the person.

Some companies have a much higher tolerance for this, it’s grandfathered in and more conscientious execs can’t remove it without getting kicked out on their asses. As a result, the company slowly sinks, year by year. The rank and file employees don’t even know.

Hiring McKinsey could mean, for example, there’s a new Chairman or CEO that wants to cut without being the bad guy. “I’m shocked, simply shocked, to find gambling in this establishment,” is the statement after they’re done. These people knew, they just didn’t have the authority to stop it.

And layoffs may well be the only way to get their heads above water. May not be the employees’ fault, but they’re just collateral damage. Nobody hires somebody like McKinsey unless they need to. Too many dirty secrets come out that nobody wants to deal with or talk about.

But NDAs prevent the real reasons from coming out. The public just hears “we’re right-sizing” and never stops to think that means they’ve been burning money like a bonfire, why is that?

[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.]

R155: no, she won't.

Whoever is president will have to make some cold, hardhearted decisions. Hopefully balanced by a moral compass and pragmatism. Trump lacks both of those latter qualities. Hillary, in her Libyan policy, showed she lacked the last one ( "we had no B plan"). I like that Pete may be cold and calculated. It's a subjective guess if he has the other two qualities I mentioned. I sense he does, but it's usually a crap shoot. Authenticity is a sign of possessing moral values. He comes across as having that. Cory and Kamala do not.

That is all true R154 -- especially the part about bringing in consultants so as not to be the bad guy.

Can we also stop pretending that Maddow is a "journalist"?

She's a TV talking head who has the ability to look very engaged in interviews, the questions to which are likely scripted by a committee including the show's producers.

She does write a lot of her show, I’ve heard. She came up during the Keith Olbermann days, and he did that too. He recommended her.

I’m sure other people have a say, but she’s probably more old school than most.

R145 is projecting again. #Peteorbust

People like R145 blindly hate corporations without stopping to think, that’s where a lot of jobs and services come from. You may hate X Corp., but if they’re not there, thousands are laid off and that service or product no longer exists.

The problem is lack of regulation, not the corporations themselves. Corporations aren’t people, they have no morals. And they have to compete. Congress has gutted regulations over decades, that’s why they do this stuff. The answer isn’t to end all corporations. The answer is to regulate them.

Look at the healthcare industry. Decades ago, people were perfectly happy with private insurance. Why aren’t they now? No regulation. Overcharging and pre-existing conditions happened because of lack of regulation. You wouldn’t need Medicare For All if not for Republicans in Congress allowing private corporations to rip people off.

Let me give you an example. In 1958, my sister was seriously ill. She needed round the clock nurses at home, three shifts, surgery, a nursing home for a while. She was born with a medical defect she needed surgery to correct. The definition of a pre-existing condition. They had Blue Cross. You know what they paid? Nothing.

Blue Cross still exists. The only thing different is lack of regulation.

If you regulate businesses too much, that makes it impossible for employees to pay their workers fairly and still make a profit. Then they start losing money, which forces them to either go out of business or move where conditions are more favorable to their needs. Pete understands this. I'm not sure Warren does.

True, but a lot of it involves businesses having to compete with other businesses that are ruthless.

If X Corporation pays their employees $10 an hour, it’s very hard for Y Corporation to pay them $20 an hour and remain profitable. Y may want to, but they can’t.

This all goes back to Republicans in Congress gutting worker protections, OSHA, the minimum wage, pensions, benefits, etc. It’s not just one issue, it’s the cumulative damage from all of them. This took decades, it will take many years to fix it. And a Democratic Congress in both houses. And probably gutting the Republican Party, which goes back to them being the Trump party. Which means getting rid of Trump, who is the definition of a corporate shill.

The elders here have seen deregulation ruin many industries. Health Insurance and Airlines come immediately to mind. Air travel was once an important service that was managed to the advantage of the entire nation. Then Reagan came along and saw it as a cash cow for his investor buddies. How are you all enjoying air travel now?

Organizing everything around profit and the bottom line is not the only valid approach. Airlines have worth over their ability to pay dividends to stockholders. Not that it is recognized under the current approach.

Resources are continuously ripped away from the citizens of this country and like rats in a gutter we are left to fight one another for the crumbs.

Eat the rich. Nationalize the banks.

R185 you are SO wrong about airlines. Back in the 70's or 60's you couldn't get hardly anywhere . There weren't actual coordinated connecting hubs. Connections were just coincidental. and flights made dozens of stops. Only the rich traveled by air, now its like Greyhound

There was also far less morbid obesity so less need to treat the health problems associated with it.

^^^ true but they sure did smoke alot

[quote] But we'd never say "Ivanka is putting too much on her credit card. Tell that bitch to cut back."

[quote] we'd

SO, you ALSO work for a ruthless, cold, calculating corporation, eh? NO WONDER YOU’RE DEFENDING PETE.

Bernie Bro is a student living in mom’s basement.

Yes, BernieBro, people have to have jobs and pay bills. And not everyone can work for their dream company or is capable of running their own business. Lots of people have to pay student loans and bills, and want a decent life that’s not full of continual struggle.

I grew up poor and lived a horrible childhood and young adulthood, full of sacrifice and doing without. I do not recommend it to one damn person on this earth, if they can do better. Live a comfortable life if you can. Life’s too short.

Like my dad used to say, if you have a job and earn enough money to support yourself and pay your bills, you’re just as good as anybody and better off than a lot of people. And he grew up in the Depression.

And that's why if you're serious about winning elections and long-term viability of the party, you'll put Pete on the top of the ticket.

[quote] Warren's stuff as a corporate lawyer is 10× worse. Shes is the only candidate that I would vote for Trump against.

And what fuckin’ point would THAT prove, retard R135?

Statements like yours make me think some people, LIKE YOU, shouldn’t get to vote.

[quote]McKinsey hires the smartest and most ambitious new graduates from the country's top rated schools.

True.

[quote]But not the nice ones. McKinsey screens very carefully for the young person with no heart and ice water where the blood out to be... Just be sure to factor in that being hired by McKinsey is a very poor reference for one's character. McKinsey has no use for people of good character.

What utter bullshit. The McKinsey culture may ingrain that into some consultants as they grow within the firm, but hardly everyone hired there.