I read that article this morning after seeing it trending under a very different title. Regardless of the fact that those remarks were said to have been spoken about 8 years ago, Buttigieg should be asked about them.  If every candidate has to be asked and expected to answer to things said decades ago, he can and should certainly be expected to talk about these remarks.  The video is there so he cannot claim to have been misquoted. 

@Chris B is right: Buttigieg is just a Republican in Democrat's clothing.  There is literally zero difference between his 2011 remarks and Trump's "American Carnage" remarks from his inauguration speech.

Edited November 26, 20196 yr by Khan

18 minutes ago, Khan said:

@Chris B is right: Buttigieg is just a Republican in Democrat's clothing.  There is literally zero difference between his 2011 remarks and Trump's "American Carnage" remarks from his inauguration speech.

 

Also, Michael Bloomberg is running as a Republican in Republican's clothing. I have no idea why he's running as a Democrat when 2 out of 3 of his mayoral candidacies were as a Republican and the other one was as an Independent. They both should be running on the GOP ticket.

 

In other news,

To quote a great singer "I believe the children are our future...everybody's searching for a hero, people need someone to look up to..."  These children definitely know they haven't found one in Melania. 

 

Children boo Melania as she is introduced at a youth opioid awareness event in Baltimore. pic.twitter.com/OuKfHLf6uc

— Greg Hogben (@MyDaughtersArmy) November 26, 2019

Well, like Melania's jacket told us a few semesters ago, she doesn't care.

2 hours ago, Khan said:

@Chris B is right: Buttigieg is just a Republican in Democrat's clothing.  There is literally zero difference between his 2011 remarks and Trump's "American Carnage" remarks from his inauguration speech.

 

The main difference is Trump's remarks are always based in riling up hate, while Buttigieg's are more based in pseudo-liberal fantasies of white Democrats "saving" black people, which is sadly a longtime Democratic position, just said in a less openly racist (but still racist) manner. 

 

I would say he should be called out, but he's just going to give the same non-answer he always gives and then people will move along until it's time to be upset yet again and find another article to click telling them the same thing they already know. 

 

The discourse is mostly an echo chamber at this point, like so much of this primary. He has no real chance, he will have no real path in the party once he drops out, he will be forgotten within a year. 

 

This whole primary just feels like the same points being ground into the dust because so many of the candidates are so weak and so unable to have any real future as leaders.

🤣 Honestly, I'm not sure which performance was worse. At least Andrew doesn't have actual political power, but still, both of them are stubborn and oblivious to how they come off.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/warren-nosedives-buttigieg-climbs-poll-074054

 

I know it's just one poll but Warren has been slowly slipping in various polls so I think the result is probably valid. 

 

The rest is just noise, no real changes (Buttigieg will never be able to overtake Biden at this point and Bernie will probably take a lot of Warren's support and climb into second), but I wish Warren had handled the Medicare stuff better and not walked into the trap that was set for her. Of the main three she's the only one I would actually be able to trust as President. 

 

I read some of Harriot's article yesterday. He's a very good writer. Thank you for sharing this with us. 

This Harriott-Buttigieg thing has just been fascinating to watch. I've frequented The Root for years and Harriott's writing normally makes my teeth itch. He's generally just an edgelord nihilist but he occasionally writes something very good. (I don't think this essay was all that good.) Then there's Buttigieg who I just keep forgetting is even running because I just can't take him seriously. I look at Harriott vs. Buttigieg and for me it's like a yeast infection vs. an asthma attack. I'll pass on both, thanks.

Harriott always tries too hard.

I know I'm going against "my own kind," but right now, setting up the Democratic candidate as an openly gay man equals an automatic 2nd term for Trump. The haters are too emboldened right now to even consider a queer president. Pass. 

39 minutes ago, Gray Bunny said:

I know I'm going against "my own kind," but right now, setting up the Democratic candidate as an openly gay man equals an automatic 2nd term for Trump. The haters are too emboldened right now to even consider a queer president. Pass. 

 

At this point I think only Biden might reach those types of voters, and even that is a question mark. Sanders and Warren are equally as toxic, if not moreso, especially when you factor in how disgusting Bernie's supporters are. 

 

I'm not using that to defend Buttigieg, because I don't think he is qualified to be President and I don't think he's done enough to reach out to most of the party, but we're at a place where just about everybody in the primary will automatically lose half the country or more. So for me it's not about his being gay.

Though Harriott's article contained a few morsels for thought, all in all, I thought it was an entertaining "read" but one that functioned on a highly personal, highly operatic level. I took it for what it was.

Buttigieg, in calling Harriott after seeing the article, was obviously doing damage control. It made for an interesting counteraction but won't change anyone's mind about him.  The follow-up reads like like some sort of odd 'mano a mano'  hyper-masculine piece, the kind of article you'd expect to read in Esquire magazine.

11 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Though Harriott's article contained a few morsels for thought, all in all, I thought it was an entertaining "read" but one that functioned on a highly personal, highly operatic level. I took it for what it was.

Buttigieg, in calling Harriott after seeing the article, was obviously doing damage control. It made for an interesting counteraction but won't change anyone's mind about him.  The follow-up reads like like some sort of odd 'mano a mano'  hyper-masculine piece, the kind of article you'd expect to read in Esquire magazine.

 

I thought it was interesting in part because I feel like since they've been bought, sold, bought again a million times now, that family of sites no longer has as many personal articles. 

 

The second one was interesting more because I don't think Harriott expected to get that call and then we saw his response. It didn't really change any minds and it won't change Buttigieg's approach (there are now articles pointing out he also hasn't bothered with Latino voters so heavy media pressure is probably the only thing that will make him change), but it was one of those very curious moments that doesn't happen very often.