Sam Greisman really hates Mayor Pete

He’s not alone.

Pete was just an associate at McKinsey, it's not like he had a ton of power there (despite what the headline in the tweet is trying to portray).

Illiterate "influencer" queen who has no actual job other than going to parties, concerts, and events says what now?

If you fall for that particular conspiracy theory, you really shouldn't be able to vote.

It’s loathesome that he did that work at all, R2. Pete’s always been a suck-up. No wonder the donor class loves him so. He’s a gay republican running as a Democrat. He’ll be a disaster if he wins the nomination.

R3, unfortunately, many people will fall for it. That's the nature of the click-bait culture we live in.

There's such tremendous envy at work here, it's quite remarkable to watch. Thank god California doesn't swing elections or we'd all be fucked thanks to these queens who never leave L.A.

The project was to cut costs for travel and facilities, but do go off, trust fund brat.

I don’t like Pete either but wish attacking him over the McKinsey job is stupid and I wish they went back to pointing out his real flaws.

Like the fact he’d be a closeted republican a decade back. If he wins, like Obama, he will spend his presidency talking about “bipartisanship” and nothing progressive will get passed. After he’s out, his moves will allow an even more disgusting version of Trump to take over (remember that dems used to think nobody was worse than Bush?).

Pete is the worlds best little homosexual. Those types of gays will throw anyone under the bus if it means some masculine republican daddy will accept him.

It’s like rich white girls who are ultra liberal/political in college but before they turn 30, they stop having opinions about politics once they marry some white republican Douchebag.

Save that visceral hatred for Danny Pintauro who actually deserves it for the way his actions harmed other gay men and reinforced every negative gay stereotype in the book.

[quote]Like the fact he’d be a closeted republican a decade back

Umm, his policy positions would suggest otherwise and he's be the most progressive president of the past 40+ years. He's a Democrat (has never been a registered Republican either) who's had to tangle with his red state several times as mayor - you know, to get actual shit done, rather than just think about The Revolution that will never come like Bernie and his three passed bills in all his years in Congress - so it is truly wild to me that his pragmatism is now being attacked as "closet republicanism." And it's gross that you'd use the word "closet" in that context, implying he's actually a Log Cabin Republican.

[quote]Pete is the worlds best little homosexual. Those types of gays will throw anyone under the bus if it means some masculine republican daddy will accept him.

Can we maybe stick to just discussing policy positions instead of resorting to armchair psychology? And brush up on apostrophes.

*he'd be the most

And we care why? He's another bimbo with a famous mommy and an instagram account. Why does his opinion matter? It's like asking the Kardashians what their views on the candidates are, they have to be taken with a grain of salt when you remember they're slutty rich morons.

After the hearings this week, I’d like to see Pete take on the likes of Collins, Gaetz, Jordan, et al.

I’m incredulous that the media are tearing down every candidate before trump even needs to open his mouth.

Look, I don’t like Buttigieg, partly because other candidates have more progressive positions, partly because he has the look of a round-faced, more autistic Sheldon Cooper, allied to an air of smugness, and most of all because I don’t think a gay man can defeat Trump - because his candidacy will inflame the Deplorables. I’d love to see a gay President in my lifetime, but I won’t throw away a possible 8 years of reform by trying to elect one now.

I still don't understand why people care about his opinion. He's the son of Sally Fields. That's the sum of what he's done with his life. He isn't Einstein, why do we care about what he has to say?

If we're gonna go around praising the opinions of the bimbo sons and daughters of famous people we might as well go ask Kylie Jenner what she thinks about NATO.

Pete turned him down.

R16, this is the "influencer" age, where people who would have never gotten 5 seconds of attention in the past now feel they are worth 5 decades of attention and make their voices heard, very loudly.

R19 I didn't even know who he was until I looked at his Twitter account and saw that his pinned tweet mentioned he was Sally Fields' son. I wouldn't call him an influencer, most people outside of the DL don't know who he is. Hell, most people outside of the DL don't even know who his MOTHER is.

R20 but that's exactly what an influencer is--someone you may or may not know because they may or may not be famous lol. In this case, nobody knows who he is. He doesn't even have a wikipedia entry (I think).

"What the hell has Sam Greisman ever done to earn my respect for his opinion?" says person who keeps pushing Mayor of South Bend, Indiana for US President

R22 Sweetie, I'm not from South Bend. I've never been to South Bend. However, I have been to the deep south, to the midwest, and to the rural north and seen that in order for a democrat to beat Trump we need somebody who can trick that trash into voting for him. But you don't care about that, do you, because it's dumbfucks like you that only fuel the republican fire more and more and make Trump seem like a more viable candidate. You're an embarrassment to the gays and a great asset to the Rethugs. Nobody cares what you think about Pete either, because at the end of the day we all know what you won't admit: you know he's got a good chance and that scares you.

R22, you are aware that being a mayor involves actually doing work, right? Regardless of how you feel about Buttigieg, at least he had actual jobs where he had to do stuff.

R23 = Petetard who thinks the mouthbreathers in the square states will vote for a homo with "butt" in his name because of his nuanced triangulation.

R24/R25 = homophobic ableist Pete-hating prick who enables the reinforcement of heterosexual privilege.

Did Sam Greisman’s trust fund run out before Mommy could get another forgettable B-list comedy full of former A-listers who also need the money?

i’m guessing he’s a Warren stan? 70 year old Heterosexual Woman Wears Rainbow Boa Once to Pride Event and is Declared Queen of the Gays ——headline in The Onion.

People Keep talking about how blacks don’t support Pete but nobody talks about how you get people don’t support him at all.

Young gay people especially see through his bs.

The only Pete supporters I know are privileged, racist and old as fuck. The types who didn’t know racism existed until Trump won.

If America wants to a white man that identifies as a liberal but lives like a republican, then we should elect Biden.

Calling gays racist is homophobic. Gays can’t be racist because racism is about power and privilege. Gays don’t even have enough power to keep Grindr to our fucking selves! Even the Jews got a nation.

If you don’t like Trump but you still want to be ruled by the heterosexual oppressor class, then you’re voting for Trump Lite.

r13, then Pete needs to run for Congress and stop this nonsense about being president.

Pete or Bust because gays can’t be racist. He could use the N-word until the cows come home and still not be a racist because racism = power + prejudice. That word is only racist when heterosexuals use it because only heterosexuals have the power to systemically oppress black people.

We have had enough heterosexuals ruling over us already. We don’t need any more. I want Trump to be the last heterosexual President ever.

White people, this is your last chance!

Pete is not running to be President of Woke Twitter - and people who live and breathe that shit just cannot fucking stand it.

You can't even LINK to people who say negative things about Mayor Pete, or Mayor Pete's Karen's will back you out.

Pete is the only candidate in this race who should even be allowed to vote, hold office, or even own property at all.

You think Pete can’t beat Trump, who NEVER HELD ANOTHER OFFICE BEFORE BEING PRESIDENT, then prove it. Put him on the top of the ticket and make him fucking earn the Presidency. Anyone who won’t vote for a gay candidate because he’s gay should be stripped of their citizenship.

He supports Warren the fauxgressive

Warren is "faux" a lot of things.

See, R37, that’s the problem. Your answer is to run Buttigieg, then when he loses, blame the electorate. My answer is run a reformer who can win.

Then that candidate is Pete, Pete, and nobody else but Pete. Heterosexual supremacy and heterosexual privilege is what needs to be not just reformed, but thrown out altogether. Putting more heterosexuals in office will just make things worse and worse until the problems become too big to fix.

Vote for Pete if you want this party to even exist at all after this election cycle.

Pretty sure R37 was being sarcastic

If there is to be a gay candidate, it will be one who was out and proud for most of their life. That's that on that.

Mayor Pete fanatics can run around talking about "pragmatism" as if we don't know that word is code for spewing BS and then catering to Republicans under the guise of "bipartisanship." Armchair psychologists aside, Pete clearly does have "Best Little Boy" syndrome and to deny that is stupid. He definitely would throw his "community" (if you could call it that) under the bus for a higher paycheck.

Also, those saying he was only an associate at McKinsey likely has no idea what McKinsey is or how it functions. It has one of the most stringent recruitment processes . I was at a top 3 school while in college (the type where you actually have to study to do well, too- Hi, Harvard) and they only considered candidates with straight A's and a long list of extracurriculars. They recruit that way so their associates are able to come in and have quicker access to substantive work they wouldn't find in the coke-fueled romp that is the other Wall Street institutions McKinsey rejects litter. Now, obviously he wasn't a manager, but to say he didn't have agency or a say in his decisions while at McKinsey is ludicrous. The same people who bend over backwards to defend that aspect of his campaign are the same ones who will then demonize lower classes for daring to buy a phone.

R45: likely have* no idea

Whoops.

R45 is the one throwing gays under the bus by attacking Pete.

This all seems to be an incredible gift for Pete

Voters to the right of "Rapid Left Wing" are baffled by the attention being paid to what was essentially Pete's summer internship and all it's done is reinforced the notion that the BernieBros are a bunch of wingnuts who have no conception of what the real world is about and that while Sanders is well suited to be President of Twitter, Pete might actually have what it takes to be president or vice president.

Why, exactly, should I care about his opinion? Has he done something of note other than pop out of Sally Fields' pussy?

Drink your juice, Shelby!

Someone should warn his mother she's about to lose her reputation as a good person if she can't even raise a kind gay son.

R45 Exactly. There's nothing he won't do to get dad's approval. Dad here being represented by waspy republicans. He is the classic gay over compensator. And the opinion that matters most to him is the one most representative of his disappointed father and grandfather

Can someone please clue me in to why McKinsey is so evil? I've known a couple of people who worked there and they were total dorks, not exactly the kind of devil incarnate monsters Woke Twitter is making out people who work there to be.

[quote]He is the classic gay over compensator.

Only in America could ambition, intellect and education be considered a negative. Sorry he's not "your kind" of stereotypical gay circuit party queen. Many gay men aren't, they actually want to achieve things in life.

Sorry R45

BTDT and it is mostly grunt work.

You learn a lot and the research at some level is fascinating if you're into stats, and you learn Powerpoint and Excel really well.

But you are not making any actual decisions.

In many ways the skill set needed is the same one that allows people to do well in school, but like a law firm, it's years before you actually do anything that matters.

PS: If you think the finance world is all "coke fueled romps" I'm thinking your whole post is a fake persona and bullshit. All those entry jobs are hardcore math, spreadsheet jockey work.

R53

Woke Twitter hates big business, period.

McKinsey worked for the Trump Administration on a few projects they should not have and consultancies are often brought in to justify any large layoffs.

Basically the CEO knows he needs to lay people off but doesn't want to be the bad guy.

So he hires BCG or McK and says to them "we think the Pleasantville plant is poorly run and underutilized and it would cost too much to fix things."

They come back with a report that explains how the Pleasantville plant compares with competing company's plants (while they won't out and out use the words "poorly run and underutilized" those are the only conclusions that can be drawn from the report) and present an estimate on how much it would cost to bring the plant up to speed. (Again, they do not offer an opinion on the wisdom of such a move.)

The CEO then cites those reports when he decides to close the plant and lay off the workers, even though all the information was likely known to him and the Board already--this just confirms their decision for them.

Then WokeTwitter freaks out.

R55: nope, unfortunately real. I was more of the history/NGO/social justice tilt, but all my friends/acquaintances went into finance. I was definitely editorializing but two things hold true: McKinsey is extremely selective and its rejects crowd the rest of Wall Street (three if you include cocaine consumption.) I am aware he wasn't making final "decisions," hence why I mentioned that he was not a manager. When I said decisions I meant he still decided to work at McKinsey, made the continued decision to STAY there, as well as the other horrible decisions he has made during his campaign. Nobody is forced to work anywhere- McKinsey is not a simple summer internship. Any time there should be scrutinized. To say otherwise, especially as someone who "BTDT" is disingenuous at best.

If you worked at McKinsey (which now I suspect may be false) you are well aware of all the shady work they do and their shady contracts. McKinsey has essentially installed itself as a de-facto government in Puerto Rico, continues to funnel money toward the Wall, and in general is a hotbed of white privilege and narcissism.

R45 Who said anything about education? Also can we just stop acting like his education is particularly outstanding at that level. The boy had professors for parents, attended one of the most distinguished private schools while residing on the campus of a great college. Corey Booker is also a Rhodes Scholars except with absolutely NONE OF the head start this guy had. Hillary got into fucking Yale from a working class family and a barely literate mother. Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar raised by a single mother on and off public assistance. Obama had similar shit with a dad he never knew and a mum who lived on a different continent and ended up the chair of Harvard Law Review. So slow down with education narrative as if it's some unusual trait in Dem candidates. With that fucking head start he should have triple the distinctions these others have.

Y'all, if you needed a real life example of the type of person Pete truly is look at R53. The classic cog in the machine trying to obfuscate the truth of the matter and the extent of McKinsey's wrongdoing.

R58: none of that was cogent nor did it reply to my point? Whether other Democrats have also checked off Ivy league on their resumes does not detract from the fact Pete did the same thing, and his military stint reeks of someone with their eye toward the presidency. It's not a crime- that type of narrative and decision-making clearly works on the likes of you. However, some of us are more discerning and look beyond a narrative.

R53: the most successful/evil corporations have strong leadership at the helm and an army of crones with the personality types you described. It makes it easier to subdue them into the type of ultra-capitalist work McKinsey does. On the other hand, the people I know who have gone to McKinsey are some of the foulest, most racist and hateful people I have encountered. The type to demean people in service roles/maintenance roles with glee.

[quote] McKinsey is extremely selective and its rejects crowd the rest of Wall Street (three if you include cocaine consumption.)

What does that mean?

And R57, he did leave after a few years when he realized it was not what he wanted to do.

Ditto for me (though it was not McKinsey)

And for those of you playing along at home "history/NGO/social justice tilt" generally means "I have a trust fund"

Sorry R53, I meant R55.

R61: not a trust fund kid, but truthfully haven't wanted for much. I have to stand on my own two feet as an adult, though. (Woe is me!)

I meant that people rejected from McKinsey would settle for the other financial institutions on Wall Street. My writing and language style are a bit odd and tongue in cheek, I know, but that point is definitely true. McKinsey is the ultimate reach job for a lot of these bros.

McKinsey is at least better than Bain or Goldman Sachs. And certainly better than The Trump Organization.

And what's wrong with a reach job? And if you're talking about racist, asshole bros, well welcome to corporate America. I worked at an insurance company in CT years ago and it was a cesspool of that.

R65: reach for the stars, boo. I never said otherwise. Your lack of reading comprehension and analytical skills may hold you back, though. The status quo is not a benchmark for progress- we want to move away from corporate America 1) running politics 2) being so racist.

R64: debatable and depends on what you mean by "better." If you're lowering the bar that low, why even bother?

Someone was a Gender Studies major at Oberlin or Wesleyan.

A good 20% of the kids I went to Dalton with are like you. Mostly parental issues (I can't believe you're making us stay at Malliouhana again Dad! Do you know how badly they treat their workers!! And my Evian is fucking warm!) , but it's easy to rail against The Man when The Dad is paying the bills.

Got it.

And FWIW, there is not a whole lot of overlap between the big consulting firms and Wall Street firms other than for math types.

Very different skill sets.

Oh, this is the black guy who hates everything white, and corporate and won't be happy unless Lizzo is president. Got it.

R68: no, bitch. I'm new here, but that other poster sounds great!

R67: LOL you went to Dalton? And you think Oberlin or Wesleyan are a Top 3 school? You sound like a lowkey dunce. No, I am not from 1) the States or 2) a trust fund kid. I honestly love my parents, who would applaud me if I took a shit and called it art. No- my thing is being given privileges that I try to leverage into making society more equitable for others, while people like you follow well-treaded paths laid out for you by prior Daltonites. There seems to be a lot of projection from you as well- I've never met a Dalton kid who was sane!

[quote] reach for the stars, boo. I never said otherwise. Your lack of reading comprehension and analytical skills may hold you back, though. The status quo is not a benchmark for progress- we want to move away from corporate America 1) running politics 2) being so racist.

I never said the status quo was a benchmark for progress. Just pointing out how idiotic it was to slam Pete for working at McKinsey when you can name any corporation and discover there are less than savory people working there. There is no perfect woke corporation where everybody is PC enough to meet your utopian standards, after all. And as far as "being so racist" that's not nearly as relevant in 2019 as it was in the past. Companies have made great strides in diversity hiring in recent times.

Also, FWIW, the reason the Big 3 Consulting firms have such high turnover is that, as Pete's few years there illustrate, it's very hard to have a life--junior employees are shunted from city to city (often internationally) on assignments that can last anywhere from six days to six months. At first that seems glamorous, but it quickly seems soul sucking--they're expected to work 12+ hour days and it's hard to form any kind of relationship or have any sort of life.

That said, having a two years of McKinsey or Bain or BCG on your resume is a very good thing and no one asks why you left.

[quote] I am not from 1) the States

That explains everything.

And I missed the part where you said you went to Yale

Speaking of overachieving and underachieving gays, I wonder what are Sam Greisman's academic and professional qualifications besides social media thirst and snark?

R67: not a lot of overlap? Now I know you're full of shit. Consulting, IB, whatever you want to call it all the "Economics" majors cast a wide net and hoped to get into a brand name firm regardless of what it specialized in. Granted, there are a few "mature" souls who are well aware they specifically want to be a consultant, etc., but NO- junior/senior year is mostly a scramble to get 1) a job 2) at any "name" company. Therefore, many of my friends who failed at McKinsey ended up at other non-consulting institutions.

R70: those people are not running for President. How do you not grasp that? We're discussing apples and oranges here.

[quote] my thing is being given privileges that I try to leverage into making society more equitable for others,

Though I have zero idea what that actually means. It sounds really good though.

R72: does it? I am still an American and have lived here most of my life, but was not raised in the States. I'm not confirming where I went to maintain some semblance of privacy, but regardless all these top-ranked schools operate the same. I'm sure I rubbed elbows with your more successful and intelligent high-school classmates, though.

R75: No, I wouldn't imagine an Upper East Side prick understanding wanting to help other people. You do seem to have a lot of colorful tales about being disrespectful to people who work at hotels, so I'm guessing this all comes from your own experience! It's OK to not seek out the same success as your parents, boo. It's alright to look around and realize your time/resources may be better spent doing work that may be beneficial to people other than yourself.

[quote]Someone should warn his mother she's about to lose her reputation as a good person if she can't even raise a kind gay son.

Well what does Jason Gould think of Pete since that point is already moot for him?

Maybe at Yale there was overlap, elsewhere the Econ bros went to Wall Street and the the History/English types went to consulting.

Clearly you stood on the sidelines jeering at them all because you weren't expected to actually have a job. (Or there is a family business you will eventually take over. ) So you were not all that familiar with who went where other than to roll your eyes and complain about how "corportist" and "confrmist" everyone was.

The thing is, guys like you hit 30 and you quickly move from being "artsy and cynical" to "pathetic"

But I bet you can sound REALLY REALLY earnest when you talk to homeless people in front of your friends.

Bet you've even dropped a Benjamin into their cups just to make a point.

SMH many many times over.

R79: lol you are truly stupid. To think I was enjoying this debate with you at one point. I am laughing at the notion of History/Lit majors going into consulting. That's more typical of future lawyers, if we're sticking to stereotypes. I did not jeer at anyone- my friends/acquaintances are free to make their own decisions and I celebrate their accomplishments. Should they run for the highest office in the land I will scrutinize them accordingly.

P.S. I wish there was a family business to take over. You keep confusing me with your Dalton classmates, though!

You do love to call me stupid R80, I'll give you that. Though I guess if I were just an acquaintance and not an online foil you'd "celebrate my accomplishments"

(But yes, there was far more overlap with law school and consulting than with Wall Street. Though I give you that Yale may have been different in that regard because well, Yale.)

My experience has been that the degree to which someone feels guilty about their good fortune is often in proportion to the degree of sleaziness involved in the acquisition of said fortune. (Ivanka and Jared's kids will be major SJWs)

And that fortunes earned outside of "the States" frequently involve being really awful to peasants, Jews, non-white people--oftentimes all three.

Support for fascist government optional, but fairly common.

It's also curious that you pop up here just in time to post multiple anti-Pete posts.

Did you volunteer for that "Hey! There's a gay site and it's free! I'll spread the gospel on that one!"

The use of the word "boo" calls things into question.

R81: wow- you sure took some swings. A lot of information that is not necessarily false, but is so in my case. No shame or guilt in any of my fortune- I am grateful, if anything.

I may have called you stupid one too many times, but to be fair you come across that way. In that last post you assumed because I'm not from the states I must have come from dirty money as if there aren't professionals of all types outside of the USA. You also talk a big game for an individual who actually worked for evil corporations. You condemn me under the assumption my family comes from dirty money, but you'll defend an individual who himself made his money in a dirty corporation? Request a refund from Dalton ASAP.

R82: I picked up a lot of English watching Flavor of Love. Sue me.

Wait, why are we calling this kid overachieving and overcompensating? I googled him, his two biggest accomplishments in life are being the producer of a few short films and being a "humanitarian" which means he gave a speech for the Human Rights Campaign because he's the gay son of somebody more famous than he'll ever be. He's not overachieving OR overcompensating, he's barely done anything with the massive privilege he was born with. Hell, he's not even a competent screenwriter. Don't call him overachieving, his biggest achievement to date was being born into the Fields family.

I dunno, the whole Pete worked at McKinsey so INELIGIBLE is prolly not gonna fly. Corporate America does kinda suck, and McKinsey is no doubt part of the suck, but it's gonna be a really hard sell that Pete worked for part of the suck so NO WHITE HOUSE for you, outside the twitteratti.

[quote]My experience has been that the degree to which someone feels guilty about their good fortune is often in proportion to the degree of sleaziness involved in the acquisition of said fortune. (Ivanka and Jared's kids will be major SJWs)

Of course, that would mean Ivanka and Jared should be SJWs by this point.

[quote] I picked up a lot of English watching Flavor of Love. Sue me.

it really is the only way to learn the language.

R85 The McKinsey argument would certainly work at nomination, seeing as there are other candidates without that baggage. But I agree that in the main race anyone with an issue with him working there will have a bigger issue with how Trump filled the WH with Goldman Sachs. And how he had a Secretary of State from an oil company (who eventually also thought Trump was too self interested).