Of course "Pete" rhymes with "meet", but how do you say "Buttigieg"?
BOOT-edge-edge.
Or BUD-dha-judge.
If you can pronounce those two things so they sound the same, that's it.
Not a takedown at all. Insisting on a maximally progressive candidate as the only way forward is a bad idea.
Buttigieg is competent, not corrupt, has implemented policies that make sense for his corner of the country, he's young. A ticket with Harris and him actually getting elected would be fantastic, and who even knows what electable means but they're electable.
Anyway, seems like a terrific guy who's way too centrist for me to vote for (other than in the general in which I'll vote for a rusty tin can if that's my non-Trump option.)
2: I still can't pronounce it, but at least now I don't think I can for false reasons.
2, 5 - Barry is allowed to say it "bou dajaj"
Remember how we got everything we wanted in 2004 because George W. Bush was so manifestly immoral and incompetent? The same game plan can work in 2020!
That's not at all how I remember 2004.
8: Me neither. Anyway I'm not sure what 7 is arguing. The Dems nominated Kerry in 2004, primarily because he seemed like the most electable choice.
Thanks for the link to this article. I've been Mayor Pete curious myself; his CNN town hall thingy a couple of weeks ago really had him blowing away the competition (CNN had three hour-long town hall events in a row that evening, with, um, John Delaney (who?), Tulsi Gabbard, and then Buttigieg). The competition on that evening wasn't hard to beat, admittedly.
Also heard an hour-long interview on the NPR program "On Point" a week or two ago - again he acquitted himself well. That said, US voters are not going to elect a gay president. I know we said they'd never elect a black president. Or Donald Trump. But seriously, gay is different. They won't do it.
So I appreciate this article for waving those issues away from the get-go.
The linked article was way too long, but I'm also anti-Buttigieg. There's no reason for him to be running for President. If he can get elected to state office in Indiana, maybe then he should consider it.
But on the other hand maybe he should run so as to divide the white man vote, and then Warren or Harris can win.
That said, US voters are not going to elect a gay president. I know we said they'd never elect a black president. Or Donald Trump. But seriously, gay is different. They won't do it.
Really? How many people are there that would vote for a socialist jew or a black woman, but wouldn't vote for a gay man?
I appreciate the linked article; I'd been a little curious about him, and I appreciate having some concrete reasons to be skeptical to go along with the various reasons to like him.
I'd be happy to go along with a "no McKinsey consultants" rule. I also recognize that you could come up with similarly plausible rules to exclude almost any of the candidates ("nobody over 70." "No former prosecutors", " etc . . .).
I also think that some of the criticism is unfair, in that the article spends a lot of time asking questions of the form, "why doesn't he foreground (or even acknowledge) the very real problems with the institutions that formed him?" One obvious answer is, "that just isn't what politicians do." I think it's fair to demand that he acknowledge the problems of inequality in the country and offer some vision of how he would hope to address those problems. I don't think it's fair to assume that such a vision would only be taken as sincere if it includes a criticism of McKinsey.
13: Summary of linked article -- "He's no Bernie Sanders!"
That said, US voters are not going to elect a gay president. I know we said they'd never elect a black president. Or Donald Trump. But seriously, gay is different. They won't do it.
Really? How many people are there that would vote for a socialist jew or a black woman, but wouldn't vote for a gay man?
I'm sure there are some people who wouldn't vote for a gay man. I also think that the increasing polarization of American politics would work to his advantage in that case. 20 years ago, there's no question that "gay man" would be a more important identity for many voters than "Democrat or Republican." These days, I think a lot of people care first and foremost about "Democrat or Republican."
13: Summary of linked article -- "He's no Bernie Sanders!"
I nodded at this concluding paragraph:
Why? Why have I spent so long talking about the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, an underdog candidate for the presidency? Why have I been so relentlessly negative? Because I see what this is, and I see how these things go, and we can't afford to make this mistake again. No more Bright Young People with their beautiful families and flawless characters and elite educations and vacuous messages of uplift and togetherness. Give me fucked-up people with convictions and gusto. Give me real human beings, not CV-padding corporate zombies.
I also recognize that the American political system does not reward "fucked-up people with convictions and gusto" running for President (and probably Senate). I wish it did, but there's a stereotype which has some validity that the, "fucked-up people with convictions and gusto" become campaign managers not candidates.
That quote makes him sound like Obama, not Kerry.
That quote makes him sound like Obama, not Kerry.
The article makes this Obama comparison:
In Buttigieg's unsuccessful race for DNC chair, we can see this same lack of clear intent. On the reason for his presence in the race, he said he could "transcend an emerging internal struggle between its establishment wing and its new left," ... [and] wanted to bring "honest and optimistic politics" that was "not being afraid to talk about our values." There had been a "loss of decency" and he would have a "values-led message." (Sometimes it seems as if Buttigieg's values are the word "values.") Buttigieg lost the election badly, but set himself up for his 2020 run. The DNC campaign is noteworthy, though, for its initial demonstration of what "nationwide Buttigiegism" would mean: rhetoric about bridging divides, Optimism and Honesty (the new Hope and Change) . . .
Did his mom write the article? "Don't vote for him because he reminds me of the last successful Democrat" doesn't seem like a very good attack.
The Curr. Affairs guy just hates anyone more successful than he is.
Oddly, this -- "fucked-up people with convictions and gusto" -- made me think of Trump. He's certainly fucked up and has lots of gusto. Maybe he'll have convictions someday. I can hope.
21: I had the same thought, and then I thought that Bill Clinton clearly had "gusto" and the question about him as well is whether he had convictions.
20: I don't know anything about the guy, but that doesn't seem fair. He's not hiding that he's pro-Bernie.
Urgh, yes, I have been Buttigieg-suspicious because the rhetoric and bedazzlement around him are so reminiscent of Obama, and this confirms my worst suspicions. (McKinsey, even!) To hell with people who want to bridge divides: it's not going to happen, and it's a sign that they're delusional about the power of their personal charm, persuasive skill, moral example, etc etc.
Personal charm has never not mattered in elections. Trump just had a better idea than I did as to what old white people find charismatic.
The reason I provisionally like Buttigieg is that he seems to have an understanding of the dynamics of political power in 2019 United States of America. That seems to be in short supply.
For the record, Out of Town News is the preeminent feature of Harvard Square. That bit bugged me.
11: There's no reason for him to be running for President. If he can get elected to state office in Indiana, maybe then he should consider it.
I hate to say it, but this pretty much covers it for me.
I don't think anyone was expecting Bernie. Even Biden fulminates about protecting/restoring the middle class as a matter of course. As portrayed in the review, Buttigieg's lack any sense of a need to combat injustice, seems pretty persuasive.
I checked to see if Obama's 2004 DNC speech was similarly lacking. It wasn't:
We have more work to do. More to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that's moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour. More to do for the father I met who was losing his job and choking back tears, wondering how he would pay $4,500 a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits he counted on. More to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her, who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn't have the money to go to college.
These are pretty standard Democratic/left-of-center concerns that Buttigieg is deficient in. (The charges of him being soft on warmongering, yeah, probably most Dems besides Sanders can be faulted on.)
But, yes. I'm not enthused about O'Rourke because he hasn't won a statewide election.
To hell with people who want to bridge divides: it's not going to happen, and it's a sign that they're delusional about the power of their personal charm, persuasive skill, moral example, etc etc.
As portrayed in the review, Buttigieg's lack any sense of a need to combat injustice, seems pretty persuasive.
Reading this interview, it's striking that he is very clear about how he addresses the former question:
In recent times, appealing to Republican legislators has been wasteful because they've mostly been acting in bad faith. But appealing to Republican Americans -- voters -- I think is absolutely worth doing. I've done it here in South Bend, not by being more conservative than I am but by focusing on results and making common-sense arguments and making it clear that I was motivated by values even if those values were a little bit different from theirs.
Appealing to independents, in particular, has never been more important. It has also never been less connected to ideological centrism, which was the formula in the 90s when we thought of everything ideologically. It seemed very natural that, if you want to appeal to independents, they must be in some middle -- and if you're on the left you just move to the right.
And vague about the second question
The big issue we have right now is regulatory capture.
When you're in a system where money can equate to power, even more than it has historically, through the ability to purchase influence in politics, what starts to happen is the bigger you are and the more resources you command, the more you can bend the system to your advantage.
I think that structure helps to explain why our society has become more and more unequal. And all sorts of horrible side effects happen when you have that inequality, in addition to it just being morally upsetting. Look at the way that a lot of powerful businesses get their way in Washington. In statehouses it's even more pronounced, because there's less scrutiny.
It also leads to much greater concentration and consolidation in our economy. People are usually talking about that right now in the context of the tech sector, but it's just as big a problem or bigger in the agricultural sector. This is a nation-wide illness that winds up threatening both democracy and capitalism.
Accidentally put this in the April Fool's thread:
The Robinson piece was interesting and ultimately persuasive, but boy-howdy does he need an editor.
Quite a lot of this piece is about things that aren't in Buttigieg's memoir, rather than things that are. One problem with that: the memoir is not the only place Buttigieg has put himself on the record.
I am not too interested about whether a candidate shares my values as long as he or she is willing to promote my policies. If Buttigieg pushes, say, Medicare For All (as he does) then, frankly, it's all the better if he does so out of political expedience. And Robinson's assumption that Buttigieg is insincere on healthcare gets very little support in his piece.
All that said, yeah, I think Robinson raises some important points about how smooth-talkers can subvert progressive goals. But I think the piece would have been more persuasive at about a quarter of the length.
About 20 minutes into an Ezra Klein interview with Buttigieg and it's pretty good.
It appears the Leftist Takedown Machine has shifted its fire from Beto to Buttigieg, which is an interesting signal of the underlying dynamics of the race. Which is not to say that the takedowns are wrong, necessarily.
(I haven't read this piece and don't intend to. Robinson has done some great takedowns of conservative pseudo-intellectuals but he's exactly the kind of leftist who becomes insufferable in the context of a Democratic primary even when he has valid points to make.)
I don't want to imply that it's a bad thing necessarily for politicians to veer left out of strategic calculation and self-interest. That can have great results. But it seems so egregious for Buttigieg - and his recent revised statements seem so hedged and veneerish - that it seems likely his would be an administration of more Emanuels than Obama had.
Of course the bigger answer is, put not your faith in presidents, but in the movement that has the potential to force their hands.
I don't think I've read Robinson before, but 38.2 describes my visceral reaction to this piece.
The story about the demolition project strikes me as politics by managerialism with more than a whiff of cruelty about it.
@29 Yeah I guess, he's decided he can build a coalition based on being able to triangulate between identities.
By leveling fees and fines, the city leaned on homeowners to make repairs or have their houses demolished. In many cases, Buttigieg said, the homeowners proved impossible to find amid a string of active and inactive investment companies.
This makes me want to send Buttigieg a cake on his birthday, with good icing from a nice bakery. Absentee owners not maintaining their properties as habitable buildings but holding them as an investment are the worst.
Thing is the type described in the article is a real type that infests those haunts, k Harris is more than a bit bit of a bird-of-a-feather. Whole thing v too claustrophobic for me right now bc too many intersecting angles, what with the mil spy linguist academic achiever public service gay things all going on its like a cross gen mash up of two dudes i love v much lol. Luckily both v much no to the mckinsey thing. Am finding this univ decision interregnum surprisingly stressful! Thought encouraging early independence was supposed to make this less stress, was wrong-o.
Good luck deciding. I'm working on a theory about the names of universities in the midwest, though I don't think those were among your choices.
Michigan, no problems I've heard of in the athletic program.
Michigan State, horrible sexual abuse in the athletic program involving children.
Penn, no problems I've heard of in the athletic program.
Penn State, horrible sexual abuse in the athletic program involving children.
Ohio, no problems I've heard of in the athletic program.
"The" Ohio State University, only comparatively mild sexual abuse involving adults.
So, I'm starting to change my mind about the "The". I put it back in my resume. "XXXX State" is just asking for trouble if you don't use "The" to make it clear which university is importanter.
On topic because South Bend has a university which plays against nearly all of those schools.
||
When racial equity plans meet local service provision!
|>
I'm now 27 minutes in and I really like him.
He will have to learn to pronounce "rural" though. Also, I'd be a little concerned that his affect is too complacent and intellectual, but perhaps that's because he's talking with Ezra Klein. Anyway, really good at stepping out of the narrative.
I don't know what Ezra Klein's voice sounds like.
Almost exactly like what you'd expect.
Conversely, I've been listening to the 538 podcast and upon seeing a picture of the producer/host Gale/n D/ruke I found he looked exactly like you'd expect from his voice. The phenotype for young male wonky liberal commentator is very consistent.
I feel like it took a lot of my Saturday (or Sunday?) to read this profile. I thought it was pretty well done at first, but there's a point where all the Bernie stuff - which, fine, I don't have a problem with someone being a Bernie supporter but I don't know why there's so much of that in a profile of someone else - started making me wonder if I should read the article as a kind of conversational piece that's gone on too long (a problem to which I'm not unsympathetic) or as a piece by someone so in the tank for a different candidate that I needed to reevaluate the possibility that it's not actually a fair portrayal.
There was an excerpt going around where Buttigieg talks about Finnegan's Wake and Ulysses and how a presidential campaign is more like one than the other* and it made me want to re-read "The Dead".
* I don't remember which one he was arguing for as the analogy. The important question is who cares?
Unfogged: Reading overlong longform so I don't have to.
Having not read anything, my contradictory small change:
1. Going from town mayor to president is clearly ludicrous. (But less so than Trump!)
2. ISTM you really want a Congress veteran for president.
3. AIHSHB I think Obama with less sincerity might have gotten more done.
4. While I'll accept senior positions at McKinsey as disqualifying, I won't for junior ones. Consultants have a basically conflicted business model, but they are clever people who've spent time inside a variety of large organizations observing and asking questions. On the face of it that's at least as good a qualification as the standard US politician's law, politics and nothing else.
In other political news, I don't think I'll ever understand Brexit.
58: the latest development is that May is meeting with Corbyn to try to work out a way forward. I look forward to being told by the UK left that the obvious thing for a left-wing opposition party to do is to join the right-wing government in pushing its disastrous policy idea through in the face of opposition from a) Parliament b) its own party members and c) the public at large.
The obvious thing is to become a province of Norway.
That's what Norway+ means. Parliament talked about at length.
First step is apologizing for the Battle of Stamford Bridge.
I loved this piece, which I read in its entirety, you lazy bums. I don't know the author, but he was complimentary to Warren as well as Sanders, so I think he's just an actual progressive. As for Buttigieg, if it's fuck Beto, it's double-fuck Pete, for exactly the reasons the piece lays out. No more of these charming fucks for whom the presidency is the capstone to their own fabulousness, instead of the very best match for setting fire to the rich.
And, as he explains, Buttigieg is going to sound very good and persuasive, but it's bullshit.
He's just way too inexperienced anyway.
I want somebody who has charmed their way into winning a statewide election otherwise they are clearly not that fabulous.
It's hard to charm an Indianan. Your available topics are basically: (a) current construction projects on I-80, (b) how much cheaper gas is compared to Illinois/Chicago, and (c) upcoming construction projects on I-80.
54: I think the Bernie stuff was important to his point. It's not right to complain about how a candidate conducts himself -- particularly if you're complaining about a politician being insincere and not talking about the right issues -- without citing an example of how a politician can be authentic and relevant. I think Robinson is too leftist-purist for my taste, but by citing Bernie, he acknowledges my obvious objection to his argument: that politicians are obliged to finesse certain issues and fake others. He's saying no, you can be like Bernie.
I just noticed he was elected mayor in November 2011, whereas Parks & Rex first aired April 2009. Midsized disadvantaged Indiana city... Was he inspired by that / taking it as a template to build on?
I watched the first episode of that last week. I may watch the rest, but probably not.
It gets much much better, or at least very different, after the first season.
My attention span is just horrible these days. I don't know if I can watch a whole season. I can't even watch the last 30 minutes of the last episode of Sherlock.
There seems to be a fundamental disagreement that we're ignoring. Some people want a candidate that if elected will do everything possible to fundamentally transform the United States into an egalitarian society. Some people want a candidate that can get elected.
If you're wanting the former candidate, then saying the candidate is like Obama is a disqualification. If you're looking for the latter, than saying the candidate is like Obama is high praise.
Sherlock always already sucked, it just took a while for schmos like me to realize.
74.2: If you're in the second camp, then you're an idiot that doesn't know the difference between "than" and "then".
66 is unfair. Construction projects on I-69 is a valid topic in southern Indiana.
From the OP:
I recalled my friend's susceptibility to David Brooksian arguments and it made sense.
And, in fact, it looks as though Buttigieg is winning the David Brooks primary.
69: Skip the first season, which sucks. The first episode of the second season is already typical of the show.
Something like 40 years ago, I was flounderingly attempting to charm a Hoosier visiting Montana, and if I'd known more about college basketball, I might have done better.
79: Agreed. You don't need to know the saga of Brendanawicz--it's hardly ever brought up afterwards. Although I guess the intro of Ann and Andy helps. Parks and Rec is much, much faster than Sherlock and hence more appropriate for an attention-starved mind. If it's still too slow, I recommend Brooklyn 99--another workplace comedy with a heart, but faster jokes, more recent social concerns, and it isn't done in the mockumentary style.
My understanding of the fundamentals of this stage of Brexit is: the institutional situation has conspired so that some people want option A (good) and some people want option B (bad), and there's a horrible option C that only complete nutters want, but neither option A nor option B can get a majority. So the government and everyone else keeps on going around in circles trying to find a way to tweak the environment so that it's a binary choice between what they want and option C. The indicative votes are just the latest form of this, as there's lots of tactical voting there. The EU wants to avoid C but they don't have unlimited patience, so there's a chance that the UK as a whole will end up losing the game of chicken.
81: Solomon is saying to the two women that he's going to cut the kid in half, and while both women don't want the kid to die, they aren't willing to give him up either.
I always say, half a baby is better than none.
A half baby in the hand is worth two in the bush.
It gets worse in that the leaders of each party are actually pretty close: they both want a Brexit that clamps down hard on immigration but allows trade to continue fairly seamlessly. The trouble is that they don't represent their parties in this; a lot of Conservative MPs and the vast majority of the Conservative party want a crash-out Brexit, and a lot of Labour MPs and the vast majority of the Labour party want to stay in the EU.
the vast majority of the Conservative party want a crash-out Brexit,
A vast majority of Tory voters?
No, a vast majority of Tory party members. A 2017 poll found 52% of Tory voters thinking that crash-out would be better than a bad deal; that may have changed.
Shouldn't it be fairly easy to agree to leave the EU, stay in the trade thing, toss May under the bus, and get on with life?
Toss Corbyn under the bus too. The nice thing about buses, they're large.
I'm happy to describe buses any time.
Question for the UK contingent: Should US folks with a history of insufficient loathing for Corbyn feel a bit vindicated now that his machinations have led to a situation where May feels the need to try to deal with him? Is there some potential outcome of May-Corbyn talks that would allow us to say Corbyn did a halfway decent job of managing Brexit?
89: the stumbling block there is that this would be technically a "softer" Brexit than the deal which May has already agreed with the EU, but which has been knocked back in three meaningful votes. So it probably wouldn't be a problem getting it past the EU but it might be tricky getting it through Parliament. However, it did fairly well in the indicative vote last week - this is basically the "Customs Union" option - so maybe? It didn't get a majority though. Combining it with a second referendum might do the trick.
Trouble is Corbyn's little helpers are now saying that Labour leadership would oppose a second referendum on any deal that Corbyn agreed with May, because any such deal would ipso facto be marvellous and wonderful, so no need to let the people have a say on it. They only get to have a say on nasty Tory Brexits.
Is there some potential outcome of May-Corbyn talks that would allow us to say Corbyn did a halfway decent job of managing Brexit?
Yes: if he gets a withdrawal agreement, plus a second referendum with an option to remain, through Parliament.
it probably wouldn't be a problem getting it past the EU
Oh, also, this may have been a bit optimistic since Barnier is being pretty emphatic that there's only one deal available to vote on, viz. May's deal, which Parliament hates. But that may just have been a statement of fact, rather than an assertion that they would refuse to negotiate a different deal.
The irony of Corbyn spending his entire career being the least likely Labour vote in the party - voting against Labour motions more often than a lot of Conservative MPs, in fact - and now, as leader, decides it's his job to swing the party behind the disastrous flagship policy of a Conservative government....
The irony of Corbyn spending his entire career being the least likely Labour vote in the party - voting against Labour motions more often than a lot of Conservative MPs, in fact . . .
But think about how much better politics would function if more politicians were, "fucked-up people with convictions and gusto"
100: If Corbyn has gusto, he has not displayed it at any point in the last three years.
if the uk is going to continue with the referenda i think you all are going to have to make some adjustments. i loathe them in ca but we are stuck with them, so can say that your political culture needs to become much more cynical about referendum results, and massively hugely enormously more suspicious of any change proposal put to you by direct vote. basically the only way to live with direct democracy is to inculcate in the electorate a truculent obstinate suspicion of anyone trying to change anything by referendum so that the vast overwhelming majority of them fail, ruthlessly hunt down all potentially malign influences on campaigns (like the mormons and the prop 8 campaign - the exposure of that after the fact did a lot of work towards legitimizing the vote even among those against same sex marriage), and then have a robust acceptance of do-over votes. this whole "we must respect the sacred results of the referendum" attitude is just total bullshit and needs to be nipped in the bud, or you guys need to back away from the direct democracy drug.
re: consultancies, my generous exposure to mckinseyites and their like has not been consistent with cutting any slack to the juniors.
*de*-legitimizing the passage of prop 8.
Can't believe that someone beat me to 77.
103: UK is still better off than CA in that their referendums are not legally binding and there is little risk of that becoming the case - somehow everyone has just acted like this one is.
I've driven across Indiana on 80/90 and I've done it on 70/74. The first way has a ton more traffic.
Half a truck would be worrisome.
106: democratic politics is always what the "we" decides is binding, so understand your point but disagree!
Brexit remains the dumbest thing ever to happen. It's not like they really face a hard deadline -- the EU has said they would give them a year delay, at the price of participating in the European parliament elections. In a sane world where dalriata's A and B realize that they can't resolve their differences, they would suck it up and avoid C by agreeing to a year delay to work something out. But this might cost somebody some votes somewhere, so C it is.
111: Fair enough. Put differently, Parliament has more room to reconsider the legitimacy or even the meaning of the referendum depending on future politics than Sacramento would.
Something I don't understand -- why is UK's participation in the European parliamentary elections so anathema, both from the UK and EU perspectives? I get why both sides generally don't want it, but the UK press acts as though everyone understands that it's an outcome to be avoided at all costs. Why?
Speaking of California, why do they keep killing all the horses?
I'm sure, but I don't think you're allowed to eat deceased race horses.
Oh, in that case I don't know, since I doubt race horses are very tasty.
I'm sure it's all in the preparation.
Long, slow cooking would be needed.
I get why both sides generally don't want it, but the UK press acts as though everyone understands that it's an outcome to be avoided at all costs. Why?
I think it's just that it's an admission that Brexit hasn't happened yet and isn't inevitable, so the pro-Brexit side doesn't want it.
Still, my point is that horses healthy enough to race shouldn't be dying so often. That you can eat them once they die really is solving a different problem.
I thought they were being shot because they're breaking their legs on a a faulty track? (Faulty because it rained so much this winter, and the track probably wasn't built with such conditions in mind.)
I probably shouldn't write this comment before googling, but I'm living on the edge.
125: The NPR story I read said that it was a total mystery.
121: One major disincentive for the EU is that Nigel Farage would be re-elected as an MEP.
At least he's said he'll stand for re-election, even though he no longer belongs to UKIP.
This is, for me, is much stronger than the linked article in terms of making me unhappy about Pete Buttigieg.
129 I'm not very happy about either his position or that people want to make a big deal of it. Support for Israel can be a high quality potential wedge issue in the Democratic coalition, and the number one proponent of making it a litmus test is Donald Trump. The good news, I think, is that it's not enough of a wedge issue: that we're unlikely to lose voters over the difference between shades of mainstream opinion on how much pushback Israel should be getting from us.
I doubt PB is going to lose a single primary vote over his, to me, too deferential position on Israel.
129: The American Jewish Committee paid for him and other mayors (including my mayor!) to visit Jerusalem. Oy!
131: What's the point? Most of those mayors are married, I'm sure. And not even Jewish!
They could still have affairs with Jewish people.
133: That's very true, but does the American Jewish Committee want to encourage this?
Based on the story of Purim, or the fall of Jericho, probably not a bad idea.
135: I'm not sure what the fall of Jericho has to do with this, but you do make a good point with the story of Purim.
I think Jared Kushner is Queen Esther in this version.
I just made myself throw up.
Maybe I was thinking of the wrong city. Wasn't there one were Joshua sent in spies and the spies needed to hide, so they went to the prostitute's house?
I'm still at the office, so I don't want to google anything about prostitutes.
I looked it up. It's the story of Rahab and how two of Joshua's spies managed to do their job and invent expense account fraud at the same time.
130: Same, on both counts. That's one of the few things that have bothered me about Warren: ix-nay on the eparations-ray in front of company.
It seems weird that there are so many prostitutes mentioned in the Bible, but not as weird as when they kept reading prostitution into the text (as with Mary Magdalene).
It's clearly implied. How do you get your feet cleaned?
Put them in a small tank full of little fish.
Certainly not going back to the jelly fish.
Latest oppo on Buttigieg: he declared "all lives matter" in 2015.
Yeah, that may be it for me. I'll wait for context, etc, but really you can't be all things to all people.
Already sick of this primary bullshit though, I feel like I'm getting played.
Better than anyone I've heard, Buttigied gives a great critique of the Republicans and does so as if their voters are in the room with him.
Horse meat is banned in California, racehorse or not. Too bad as it's tastier than beef.
It really is all in the preparation.
while I was out of the country my family became radically pro-buttigieg. I now live in a buttigieg household. and I must say that one of my childhood friends who knew nothing about him till I mentioned him at the farmers market (her girlfriend's father was pro cory booker which I find kind of weird) started a queer group for buttigieg on fb four days later. I have to say that his multilingualism is doing a lot of heavy lifting here in an expat house. like, dari (iirc)? awesome.
girl y had to write an allegory for school so she did one with idiot schoolchildren and their awful cat nigel. northern ireland was standing up at the back waving his hand the whole time but the teacher wouldn't call on him. she got straight 8's (three of the highest marks).
argh not my friend's gf's father, rather the father of her child, who is now her ex, and with whom she shares very amicable custody. he was at the farmers market with his new girlfriend.
63 Ogged is a monster if he expects us to read that entire thing.
I kind of liked Buttigieg when he first splashed down but less and less as time goes on. He'd probably make a fine VP for President Warren. And speaking of Warren how is it more progressives aren't getting behind her? She's got serious policy proposals that will actually do something (though I'll admit I've forgotten her stance on the filibuster which must go) and a proven track record of getting things done. I've been wary because I don't think she's a great counterpuncher but she really connects with people on the stump. Going full in on Warren here.
Two vice presidents in a row can't be from Indiana.
Warren's announcement video felt to me exactly like Clinton, and we know how that ended. My 2 cents are that any white man under 60 will beat Trump.
On policy grounds alone, I'd have a hard time supporting any other candidate. I might even volunteer for her and convince myself she has a shot. But at this point it's hard to see how she could win, so supporting her candidacy for me would be as much about getting her policy views out in public as it would about actually getting votes for her.
Edwards was a fool, but I think some of his policy proposals (health care, some economics) did get candidates talking about what they otherwise would have ignored or watered down. Warren isn't a fool.
154: She's probably number one for me. I can live with pretty much anybody but Gabbard, and my only worry about Sanders is that he'll choose her as VP out of spite.
I kind of like how 157 is generic enough that it could apply to any candidate who uses she/her for pronouns. But I meant to say "any candidate other than Warren."
Clinton had problems hiring people who knew how votes were counted (in the 2008 primaries as well) and I hope Warren can avoid that.
Has anybody anywhere argued that Buttigieg draws on Gramsci's ideas in pursuing political power? Presumably, he's aware of his father's work.
159: People are fans of Harris on the basis of policy? First I'd heard.
161 Her policy on school truancy perhaps?
Grammar doesn't have to make sense politically.
Ugh, just found out my dad is considering giving Biden money (does he have a campaign to give money to?) "after this week's nonsense". I wonder if there's any chance of talking him out of it.
I'm only giving to senate candidates. I tell myself that's where the marginal dollar matters. Maybe your dad would agree. I may even be right.
He can buy a Biden mug!
https://shop.americanpossibilities.org/
166: I missed the "Donate" button! American Possibilities is Biden's PAC that he established in 2017.
At 5.9 lies a day, Trump is setting a pace that will be hard for future Presidents to match.
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1113848016191074306
And they'll never beat his golf scores either.
164: get a very large man who is a perfect stranger to him to approach your father from behind, bury his nose in the back of your father's head, breathe in deeply and give your father a bear hug. that should do it.
When the British government ran residential centres that turned disturbed ex-POWs into well-adjusted feminists:
POWs believed captivity had promoted positive psychological development in them. They had become more mature, wise, considerate and self-reliant. CRUs [Civil Resettlement Units; residential facilities set up by the British government to help former POWs adjust to being back home again - ajay] acknowledged and sanctioned this personal growth. One small investigation took ex-POWs who attended a CRU and those who had not and compared them to a control group of 40 families who represented the civilian norm. Ex-POWs who had attended CRUs showed 'more adaptability and co-operativeness' than was normal for their civilian neighbours. In contrast to adhering to conventional roles that could impede cooperation between a husband and wife, former POWs were said to have discovered how to get the most out of relationships and had broken the bonds of conventional restriction. In the investigators' own words, there was a 'continuum . . . in terms of the degree of flexibility and participation in these relationships' from those had been to a CRU through to the control group, to former POWs who had not attended a unit.