Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The NYT editorial board has published an editorial calling for Buttigieg to open up about his work at McKinsey, and that his refusing to because he hasn't yet been released from his NDA is "not a tenable situation": https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/buttigieg-mckinsey.html

What a terrible opinion from The Failing New York Times.

The only people who are actually worked up that he had a job with McKinsey are concern-trolling Bernie Bros.

Real Americans either don't know what McKinsey is or, if they do, think of it as a highly prestigious consulting firm that isn't nefarious at all.

It's just another six-degrees-of-separation game.
Company X did a bad thing once.
McKinsey did consulting work for Company X, just like it did consulting work for millions of other companies.
Buttigieg worked at McKinsey.

Therefore, Company X is inherently evil, McKinsey is inherently evil by association, Buttigieg is personally responsible for the bad thing Company X did and is therefore evil as well.

The fact that he's legally required to not talk about what he did just lets the Bros make up all sorts of wild speculation that Buttigieg was personally responsible for the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the Cambodian Genocide.  Just like what they did with Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches, where she was legally required to not disclose them.

Here's what likely actually happened:  Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency but didn't know how, so they hired McKinsey to help them out.  McKinsey put together a team of data wizzes including Buttigieg to run some SQL queries and put together Excel spreadsheets breaking down sales metrics by product relative to certain efficiency metrics by store and quarter, did some optimization analysis, made some graphs in R, and wrote a 200-page PDF with recommended improvements.

This is what consulting firms actually do.  It's not nefarious at all, in fact it's pretty boring.

This. McKinley is a good company that performs valuable services, increases economic efficency, reduces waste, and ensures the best service available to customers. Buttigieg didn't just do nothing wrong- he did something right.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The NYT editorial board has published an editorial calling for Buttigieg to open up about his work at McKinsey, and that his refusing to because he hasn't yet been released from his NDA is "not a tenable situation": https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/buttigieg-mckinsey.html

What a terrible opinion from The Failing New York Times.

The only people who are actually worked up that he had a job with McKinsey are concern-trolling Bernie Bros.

Real Americans either don't know what McKinsey is or, if they do, think of it as a highly prestigious consulting firm that isn't nefarious at all.

It's just another six-degrees-of-separation game.
Company X did a bad thing once.
McKinsey did consulting work for Company X, just like it did consulting work for millions of other companies.
Buttigieg worked at McKinsey.

Therefore, Company X is inherently evil, McKinsey is inherently evil by association, Buttigieg is personally responsible for the bad thing Company X did and is therefore evil as well.

The fact that he's legally required to not talk about what he did just lets the Bros make up all sorts of wild speculation that Buttigieg was personally responsible for the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the Cambodian Genocide.  Just like what they did with Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches, where she was legally required to not disclose them.

Here's what likely actually happened:  Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency but didn't know how, so they hired McKinsey to help them out.  McKinsey put together a team of data wizzes including Buttigieg to run some SQL queries and put together Excel spreadsheets breaking down sales metrics by product relative to certain efficiency metrics by store and quarter, did some optimization analysis, made some graphs in R, and wrote a 200-page PDF with recommended improvements.

This is what consulting firms actually do.  It's not nefarious at all, in fact it's pretty boring.

Wait bolded the relevant section for my own edification:

"Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency"

Are we talking about Target???

https://www.target.com/

I worked in their FCs and DCs, along with multiple relatives and friends, and it is and was a crappy place to work, even by the standards of warehouse work.

The only friend or relative that survived more than 3-6 Months, was an Ex-Marine that had a cush job driving lift, and wasn't a picker a packer, let alone shipping nor receiving....

Trucking wasn't so bad because it was all subbed out, but the truckers were all Non-Union from some Sub-Contract firm and getting jacked up by their own bosses, even though they didn't have to pay the cost of their own wheels for ( Hour "Short Haul" Truckin'

Eff.... Target and the bosses that come with them....

We had coworkers drooling at the mouth for the warehouse jobs to open up in new Amazon facilities in Gresham and Salem, rather than work in that slave driving company where employee performance is measured as "Prods" (Unit of Production), with your wristbands and scanners where all codes need to be punched in, while "Cherry Pickers" run the front of the belt in Inbound Receiving when the whistle blows and the dock doors open....

If Mayor Pete has anything to do with a Union-Busting Company that doesn't pay fair wages and salaries, that has the regular "5 Minute" Safety stretch at the start of a (10) hour shift, where so many OSHA injuries have occurred, I want nothing to do for his campaign....

Cut it out. Obviously the wages are fair if so many people are willing to work for them - that's supply and demand. It may not have been a tradeoff you liked, but after all, you don't have to work there. As it happens, Pete's work was objectively good, helped ensure goods made it to shelves and that customers were served. He's got nothing to apologize for.

[Donerail]

This. McKinley is a good company that performs valuable services, increases economic efficency, reduces waste, and ensures the best service available to customers. Buttigieg didn't just do nothing wrong- he did something right.

wat da fuk

[Diabolical Materialism]

This. McKinley is a good company that performs valuable services, increases economic efficency, reduces waste, and ensures the best service available to customers. Buttigieg didn't just do nothing wrong- he did something right.

wat da fuk

Absolutely sociopathic.

[NOVA Green]

The NYT editorial board has published an editorial calling for Buttigieg to open up about his work at McKinsey, and that his refusing to because he hasn't yet been released from his NDA is "not a tenable situation": https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/buttigieg-mckinsey.html

What a terrible opinion from The Failing New York Times.

The only people who are actually worked up that he had a job with McKinsey are concern-trolling Bernie Bros.

Real Americans either don't know what McKinsey is or, if they do, think of it as a highly prestigious consulting firm that isn't nefarious at all.

It's just another six-degrees-of-separation game.
Company X did a bad thing once.
McKinsey did consulting work for Company X, just like it did consulting work for millions of other companies.
Buttigieg worked at McKinsey.

Therefore, Company X is inherently evil, McKinsey is inherently evil by association, Buttigieg is personally responsible for the bad thing Company X did and is therefore evil as well.

The fact that he's legally required to not talk about what he did just lets the Bros make up all sorts of wild speculation that Buttigieg was personally responsible for the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the Cambodian Genocide.  Just like what they did with Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches, where she was legally required to not disclose them.

Here's what likely actually happened:  Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency but didn't know how, so they hired McKinsey to help them out.  McKinsey put together a team of data wizzes including Buttigieg to run some SQL queries and put together Excel spreadsheets breaking down sales metrics by product relative to certain efficiency metrics by store and quarter, did some optimization analysis, made some graphs in R, and wrote a 200-page PDF with recommended improvements.

This is what consulting firms actually do.  It's not nefarious at all, in fact it's pretty boring.

Wait bolded the relevant section for my own edification:

"Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency"

Are we talking about Target???

https://www.target.com/

I worked in their FCs and DCs, along with multiple relatives and friends, and it is and was a crappy place to work, even by the standards of warehouse work.

The only friend or relative that survived more than 3-6 Months, was an Ex-Marine that had a cush job driving lift, and wasn't a picker a packer, let alone shipping nor receiving....

Trucking wasn't so bad because it was all subbed out, but the truckers were all Non-Union from some Sub-Contract firm and getting jacked up by their own bosses, even though they didn't have to pay the cost of their own wheels for ( Hour "Short Haul" Truckin'

Eff.... Target and the bosses that come with them....

We had coworkers drooling at the mouth for the warehouse jobs to open up in new Amazon facilities in Gresham and Salem, rather than work in that slave driving company where employee performance is measured as "Prods" (Unit of Production), with your wristbands and scanners where all codes need to be punched in, while "Cherry Pickers" run the front of the belt in Inbound Receiving when the whistle blows and the dock doors open....

If Mayor Pete has anything to do with a Union-Busting Company that doesn't pay fair wages and salaries, that has the regular "5 Minute" Safety stretch at the start of a (10) hour shift, where so many OSHA injuries have occurred, I want nothing to do for his campaign....

Cut it out. Obviously the wages are fair if so many people are willing to work for them - that's supply and demand. It may not have been a tradeoff you liked, but after all, you don't have to work there. As it happens, Pete's work was objectively good, helped ensure goods made it to shelves and that customers were served. He's got nothing to apologize for.

Don't tell me to "cut it out", don't believe that me talking about working in the warehouse at a factory level is somehow bad???

You can make an argument about the fact the Warehouse Industry has increased wages with the shift of "brick and mortar" to online commerce and the recovery after the Great Recession... but honestly as one of the States hit worst during the Great Recession, it doesn't look that "Great Recovery" to me, as someone who has worked in the Sector....

Granted--- it appears that Mayor Pete was likely not directly involved with a crap former employer in an industry that we have been attempting to unionize for quite some time.....

Sorry, old man memory hazy....

Won't hold it against him if he makes it to the Oregon Primaries in late May...

[Pericles]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

He also discredited Warren re: creating the CFBP.

The sooner we reject this guy, the better.

[Pericles]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

He also discredited Warren re: creating the CFBP.

The sooner we reject this guy, the better.

What did he say about Warren?

[cvparty]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

i dont think he was saying republicans are better with the budget, just that dems aren’t known for managing US debt like they are for other issues
https://twitter.com/lizcgoodwin/status/1202697922372087809?s=21

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

i dont think he was saying republicans are better with the budget, just that dems aren’t known for managing US debt like they are for other issues
https://twitter.com/lizcgoodwin/status/1202697922372087809?s=21

Except they haven't. Republicans only care about the deficit.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush tanked it. Obama helped stop the bleeding. Trump jacked it back up.

[Illini Moderate]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

You miss the part where he alnowledges Obama and Clinton lowering the deficit and republicans raising it. He also said Democrats aren’t known for worrying about the deficit. If you’re going to cherry pick and mislead at least do a good job of it...

[henster]

I can't believe people are trying to make the McKinsey stuff an issue and not the fact he fired a black police chief for trying to blow the whistle on racism going on his department. The SB police department has a major issues and is strife with systematic racism that Pete hasn't dealt with in his 7 years. This should be the line of attack from every candidate going after Pete.

[Tender Branson]

I can't believe people are trying to make the McKinsey stuff an issue and not the fact he fired a black police chief for trying to blow the whistle on racism going on his department. The SB police department has a major issues and is strife with systematic racism that Pete hasn't dealt with in his 7 years. This should be the line of attack from every candidate going after Pete.

The black police chief firing is a totally ridiculous line of attack: the problem of complicated racial interaction in police departments have been the case over the past decades already in various US cities, some to a smaller and some to a larger degree. Pete firing the police chief was necessary to send a signal that he wants to clean things up there and that he wants a new start at the department, but it was mere coincidence that the police chief was black. He could have fired the whole police department too, but who would have done their job then ? He needed to keep some experienced people in the job ... in the end he did the right thing though: firing the head of the troublemaker police department.

[Queen Isuelt]

I can't believe people are trying to make the McKinsey stuff an issue and not the fact he fired a black police chief for trying to blow the whistle on racism going on his department. The SB police department has a major issues and is strife with systematic racism that Pete hasn't dealt with in his 7 years. This should be the line of attack from every candidate going after Pete.

The black police chief firing is a totally ridiculous line of attack: the problem of complicated racial interaction in police departments have been the case over the past decades already in various US cities, some to a smaller and some to a larger degree. Pete firing the police chief was necessary to send a signal that he wants to clean things up there and that he wants a new start at the department, but it was mere coincidence that the police chief was black. He could have fired the whole police department too, but who would have done their job then ? He needed to keep some experienced people in the job ... in the end he did the right thing though: firing the head of the troublemaker police department.

Not at all. He’s actively avoiding interview requests. This is a coverup on behalf of the corrupt mainstream media that can’t report the facts because Petes Owned by lobbyists and doners who pay the mainstream media’s bills.

He’s a fraud.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can't believe people are trying to make the McKinsey stuff an issue and not the fact he fired a black police chief for trying to blow the whistle on racism going on his department. The SB police department has a major issues and is strife with systematic racism that Pete hasn't dealt with in his 7 years. This should be the line of attack from every candidate going after Pete.

That's not why Buttigieg fired the police chief; he did it because the police chief committed a felony in the process of trying to prove that other senior officers had been privately making racist comments.  "I felt the end justified the means" is not a legally acceptable reason to engage in felonious conduct.  A police chief should know that better than most.  There are certainly fair criticisms to be made about Pete's record as Mayor regarding police misconduct, but this is not one of them.  The guy deserved to be fired, regardless of whether he was being honest - and I wouldn't be surprised if he was - when he claimed that other senior police officers were making racist comments.

I can't believe people are trying to make the McKinsey stuff an issue and not the fact he fired a black police chief for trying to blow the whistle on racism going on his department. The SB police department has a major issues and is strife with systematic racism that Pete hasn't dealt with in his 7 years. This should be the line of attack from every candidate going after Pete.

The black police chief firing is a totally ridiculous line of attack: the problem of complicated racial interaction in police departments have been the case over the past decades already in various US cities, some to a smaller and some to a larger degree. Pete firing the police chief was necessary to send a signal that he wants to clean things up there and that he wants a new start at the department, but it was mere coincidence that the police chief was black. He could have fired the whole police department too, but who would have done their job then ? He needed to keep some experienced people in the job ... in the end he did the right thing though: firing the head of the troublemaker police department.

Not at all. He’s actively avoiding interview requests. This is a coverup on behalf of the corrupt mainstream media that can’t report the facts because Petes Owned by lobbyists and doners who pay the mainstream media’s bills.

He’s a fraud.

Let's dispense with the fiction that the mainstream media cares about anyone's ideology or policy agenda.  All it cares about is getting the highest ratings possible.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The NYT editorial board has published an editorial calling for Buttigieg to open up about his work at McKinsey, and that his refusing to because he hasn't yet been released from his NDA is "not a tenable situation": https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/buttigieg-mckinsey.html

What a terrible opinion from The Failing New York Times.

The only people who are actually worked up that he had a job with McKinsey are concern-trolling Bernie Bros.

Real Americans either don't know what McKinsey is or, if they do, think of it as a highly prestigious consulting firm that isn't nefarious at all.

It's just another six-degrees-of-separation game.
Company X did a bad thing once.
McKinsey did consulting work for Company X, just like it did consulting work for millions of other companies.
Buttigieg worked at McKinsey.

Therefore, Company X is inherently evil, McKinsey is inherently evil by association, Buttigieg is personally responsible for the bad thing Company X did and is therefore evil as well.

The fact that he's legally required to not talk about what he did just lets the Bros make up all sorts of wild speculation that Buttigieg was personally responsible for the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina and the Cambodian Genocide.  Just like what they did with Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches, where she was legally required to not disclose them.

Here's what likely actually happened:  Target was trying to improve distribution efficiency but didn't know how, so they hired McKinsey to help them out.  McKinsey put together a team of data wizzes including Buttigieg to run some SQL queries and put together Excel spreadsheets breaking down sales metrics by product relative to certain efficiency metrics by store and quarter, did some optimization analysis, made some graphs in R, and wrote a 200-page PDF with recommended improvements.

This is what consulting firms actually do.  It's not nefarious at all, in fact it's pretty boring.

I thought Buttigieg was personally responsible for the subprime mortgage crisis! He was a private sector analyst after all! /s

[Tender Branson]

Here’s another major difference between Buttipete and Biden/Trump:

While Biden/Trump inappropriately touch small children and grope women, children are asking Pete to give them a hug ...

https://twitter.com/peteforamerica/status/1203449104887513089

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1203347138069094400

Neera Tanden defends Lis Smith (R-NY) for *ahem* working with Republicans to retain Republican control of the NY Senate. She got flack for it (deservedly so), and then she decided to blame the "hard left" and sexism.

If you dig deeper, it goes much deeper than working with Republicans. It includes, but is not limited to:

* Being part of the "but her emails" crowd

* Friendships with Richard Grenell and Ed Gillespie

* Giving a platform to Republican defenses of Buttigieg

Again, truly Orwellian stuff going on here from Neera. Union-busting is progress. Vetting is sexism. Attacks on her hero and mentor are "insane attacs", while two months of Bernie's campaigning, even after winding it down, hurting her is a "fair assessment". It's admittedly part of the reason why I support Bernie: so these people can be sent packing.

But ultimately, his embrace of Lis Smith leads to a common pattern (and ultimately the reason why I view Buttigieg so negatively): he has horrible judgment on who he surrounds himself with. He bungled the Boykins case because his inner circle was in bed with the police lobby, and even after the case had direct connections to the FOP. He may not have gone out of his way to protect corrupt cops in South Bend, but his inner circle certainly did, and he never disavowed these corrupt cops until the national limelight shone on him. At best, his allies are complicit, and at worst, he knew and is complicit himself.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

https://twitter.com/neeratanden/status/1203347138069094400

Neera Tanden defends Lis Smith (R-NY) for *ahem* working with Republicans to retain Republican control of the NY Senate. She got flack for it (deservedly so), and then she decided to blame the "hard left" and sexism.

If you dig deeper, it goes much deeper than working with Republicans. It includes, but is not limited to:

* Being part of the "but her emails" crowd

* Friendships with Richard Grenell and Ed Gillespie

* Giving a platform to Republican defenses of Buttigieg

Again, truly Orwellian stuff going on here from Neera. Union-busting is progress. Vetting is sexism. Attacks on her hero and mentor are "insane attacs", while two months of Bernie's campaigning, even after winding it down, hurting her is a "fair assessment". It's admittedly part of the reason why I support Bernie: so these people can be sent packing.

But ultimately, his embrace of Lis Smith leads to a common pattern (and ultimately the reason why I view Buttigieg so negatively): he has horrible judgment on who he surrounds himself with. He bungled the Boykins case because his inner circle was in bed with the police lobby, and even after the case had direct connections to the FOP. He may not have gone out of his way to protect corrupt cops in South Bend, but his inner circle certainly did, and he never disavowed these corrupt cops until the national limelight shone on him. At best, his allies are complicit, and at worst, he knew and is complicit himself.

MY GOD!!!

She was friends with a Republican.

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE TOLD PEOPLE: REPUBLIGAN-LOVERS ARE TRAITORS!!!!

Oh, and she allowed Republicans to defend her candidate instead of telling them to stop? My god, what else is the death penalty for?

Sarcasm aside, wtf is up with y'all and Lis Smith/Pete.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I believe I explained that in the last paragraph of my post. Even some of the most fervent Buttigieg supporters here understand my logic.

[It’s so Joever]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

i dont think he was saying republicans are better with the budget, just that dems aren’t known for managing US debt like they are for other issues
https://twitter.com/lizcgoodwin/status/1202697922372087809?s=21

Except they haven't. Republicans only care about the deficit.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush tanked it. Obama helped stop the bleeding. Trump jacked it back up.

...That’s literally what he said.

[Queen Isuelt]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

i dont think he was saying republicans are better with the budget, just that dems aren’t known for managing US debt like they are for other issues
https://twitter.com/lizcgoodwin/status/1202697922372087809?s=21

Except they haven't. Republicans only care about the deficit.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush tanked it. Obama helped stop the bleeding. Trump jacked it back up.

...That’s literally what he said.

Wake up!!!!

Wake up!!!

Wake up!!!

Anybody voting for Pete Buttigieg is a fool.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Has anyone notice that in the lyrics to High Hopes, the first verse begins:

Mama said, fulfill the prophecy
Be something greater, go make a legacy
Manifest destiny, back in the days
We wanted everything, wanted everything

Is this a coded endorsement of American imperialism and indigenous genocide on the part of the Buttigieg campaign?

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Buttigieg said Democrats "aren't known for worrying about deficits and the debt" and Democrats need to "start getting interested in deficits and debt". This is a horrendous moderate hero stance. It blatantly ignores history given that Bill Clinton brought the budget from a large deficit to a big surplus and Obama reduced the deficit by 2/3rds, while of course every Republican administration starting with Reagan has seen a big increase in the deficit due to Republicans cutting taxes for the rich and increasing military spending. It isn't a valid criticism that Democrats have been disinterested about the deficit and fiscally irresponsible, so it's weird that Buttigieg seems to think this or at least says it publicly. Even while criticizing Trump, Buttigieg echoes Republican talking points. This seems illogical, why can't he like most Democrats make the case for the party on fiscal responsibility and be honest? Maybe he thinks undermining his party will attract swing voters and make him more moderate, most likely this kind of point-scoring will just help the Republicans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7DPbqjuKFA

i dont think he was saying republicans are better with the budget, just that dems aren’t known for managing US debt like they are for other issues
https://twitter.com/lizcgoodwin/status/1202697922372087809?s=21

Except they haven't. Republicans only care about the deficit.

Clinton balanced the budget. Bush tanked it. Obama helped stop the bleeding. Trump jacked it back up.

...That’s literally what he said.

Except it wasn't. He pretty clearly made it a "both sides" thing. The expanding deficit has been an explicitly Republican issue, and handwaves Clinton and Obama's accomplishments on actually reducing the deficit.

Of course, this will get buried in the latest news cycle while Sanders and Warren get excoriated for "dismantling Obama's legacy" because they want to expand healthcare to everyone. And the Buttigieg hacks will recommend your post because it's what they want to hear instead of the truth.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Except it wasn't. He pretty clearly made it a "both sides" thing. The expanding deficit has been an explicitly Republican issue, and handwaves Clinton and Obama's accomplishments on actually reducing the deficit.

Of course, this will get buried in the latest news cycle while Sanders and Warren get excoriated for "dismantling Obama's legacy" because they want to expand healthcare to everyone. And the Buttigieg hacks will recommend your post because it's what they want to hear instead of the truth.

...He literally mentioned that deficits went down under recent Democrats like Clinton and Obama, are you illiterate?
And speaking of hacks, how much does the Sanders campaign pay you for your posts?

Alright, let's get this straight:

* Yes. he later clarified those comments. But he did so semi-privately in his follow-up press conference - not in his speech. It still doesn't change the fact that most people there heard the "both sides" version of the speech.

* Even then, it's still both sides-ism. 70-30 blame is still both sides. As I've said before, reducing the deficit was a priority in the Clinton and Obama administrations. If he stopped at the whole "pointing out Republican hypocrisy" thing, everything would have been fine. Instead, he decided to go on some tangent about how Democrats are slightly less responsible for the deficit.

If you're going to be rude and condescending, at least have some idea of what you're talking about.