The Swamp

"And back then you could actually travel between Cambridge and Boston!"

-Steve Sweeney or some other shitty hack from here

Throw on your walkin' loafers and you can be there in 45 minutes.

yeah the "kid from Indiana" makes zero dent on me.

The fact that he worked for McKinsey, on the other hand. The writer is spot on in calling that joint out.

The much MUCH bigger issue is what he did/didn't address while mayor of South Bend. That's where the article really hits home. And the fact he didn't voice any opposition to Pence's homophobic bullshit despite ample opportunities.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:35 am yeah the "kid from Indiana" makes zero dent on me.

The fact that he worked for McKinsey, on the other hand. The writer is spot on in calling that joint out.

The much MUCH bigger issue is what he did/didn't address while mayor of South Bend. That's where the article really hits home. And the fact he didn't voice any opposition to Pence's homophobic bullshit despite ample opportunities.

Yeah, fuck McKinsey. As vile as Goldman Sachs.

But, he could still start calling out Pence and other republicans - will be interesting to see if he does so.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:38 am

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:35 am yeah the "kid from Indiana" makes zero dent on me.

The fact that he worked for McKinsey, on the other hand. The writer is spot on in calling that joint out.

The much MUCH bigger issue is what he did/didn't address while mayor of South Bend. That's where the article really hits home. And the fact he didn't voice any opposition to Pence's homophobic bullshit despite ample opportunities.

Yeah, fuck McKinsey. As vile as Goldman Sachs.

But, he could still start calling out Pence and other republicans - will be interesting to see if he does so.

I’m not sure this is necessarily a defense of his working for McKinsey but I will say that when I graduated from an Ivy school in 2006 there was a huge push by University career services to get graduates working in finance or management consulting. Classmates of mine spoke of Goldman Sachs and McKinsey in reverent tones. Pete is a couple of years older than me but I suspect he had a similar experience. Again, not everyone chooses to work for companies like Goldman or McKinsey but it’s easy for me to believe that it may have just seemed like a logical step for an academic high-achiever like him.

As a dude from Boston who had to live in Biloxi, MS and then Shreveport, LA after enlisting I was in awe at how shitty and small a city can be.

Oh cute, there's a church every 5 feet. Oh, I'm hungry on a Sunday night and nothing's open? Guess I'll hit up WalMart or Waffle House or maybe that random 24 hour McDonald's on the other side of the city. Let's go to a sporting event....hrmmm. Guess I'll be driving to Dallas. Any concerts? Oooh Staind at the Century Tel in 3 months! Huh, weird. There seems to be a natural segregation amongst the locals here when you go out on weekends. Oh yeah... That's how nightclub/bar owners like it.

Other than the food, there wasn't a single redeemable quality from living in those places. So I can see how you can go from small city to concrete jungle and be in awe. Hell, I'm in awe of Boston now because of gentrification and housing prices having tripled since I came in.

I give Pete no grief for this.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:35 am yeah the "kid from Indiana" makes zero dent on me.

The fact that he worked for McKinsey, on the other hand. The writer is spot on in calling that joint out.

The much MUCH bigger issue is what he did/didn't address while mayor of South Bend. That's where the article really hits home. And the fact he didn't voice any opposition to Pence's homophobic bullshit despite ample opportunities.

I am curious how much you know about what Mayor Pete did/didn't do while mayor of South Bend. Have you looked into it, or are you just going by what that hit piece mentioned? Just curious. I only work in South Bend, I don't live in the city or even in St. Joe county.

I'm with Joe. You are a left wing nut job for knocking guys for taking one of the most lucrative jobs in the world. Thats a special kind of privilege there.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:30 am I'm with Joe. You are a left wing nut job for knocking guys for taking one of the most lucrative jobs in the world. Thats a special kind of privilege there.

I think it’s more than fair to criticize a politician for taking an amoral/immoral high-paying job. For example, I would never support someone who worked as a tobacco or firearms lobbyist. But I just thought it was worth noting the context that Pete was part of an academic institution that was probably aggressively steering its grads to places like McKinsey.

Well I'm saying it's ok to take a high paying job in a capitalist society. Particularly when you've paid six figures to access that job. Moreso when you consider that using your single best shot at entry to those firms will allow you to piss on the desks of superiors and still get hired for the next 20 years because of that name on a resume. Moral high ground be damned.

Define morality however you like, but something being legal doesn't inherently make it moral.

Youre right but this one is black and white. There is nothing immoral about working for Goldman or McKinsey, especially in the lower professional ranks. There is legitimate discussion as to whether corporate bottom line interests are compatible with total societal benefit, but to put that on the backs on individual employees at leading firms is simplistic and lazy to me.

HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:40 pm Youre right but this one is black and white. There is nothing immoral about working for Goldman or McKinsey, especially in the lower professional ranks. There is legitimate discussion as to whether corporate bottom line interests are compatible with total societal benefit, but to put that on the backs on individual employees at leading firms is simplistic and lazy to me.

Yeah, I knew lots of kids in college who aspired to greater material success - I was one of them. Getting a job with a company like McKinsey was succeeding in our book. I wouldn't apologize for that desire. (Although personally, I certainly never even sniffed an interview with a big-time shop like that!)

I feel like that's speaking to the necessity of making tradeoffs (or a willingness to), not the objective morality. If I needed to double my salary because of something involving a kid, I'd go work for anyone. If a bakery was offering the same money as Smith & Wesson, I'd go to the bakery. Right?

The point (to me) isn't that he needs to apologize for taking a job at McKinsey, the point is that he seems to lack a sense of purpose that extends beyond building an optimal resume. That may be unfair, and I'm still open to this guy.

But I'm just really skeptical about a guy that's being called progressive and uniquely qualified because of his Midwestern sensibilities, when if you look at his entire resume, there's not one ounce of anything other than being part of the American political elite class.

He doesn't have to apologize for his resume, but people need to be a lot more questioning than all the fawning I've seen the last 2 weeks.

And, duff, I read a bunch of articles about poverty and his efforts to tear down dilapidated houses in South Bend. That's not a very pretty picture and, again, this guy is calling himself progressive and I just don't see examples of that in his time as a mayor. I don't necessarily even need him to be "progressive" to be a viable candidate... But his track record doesn't speak to a very progressive guy and the narrative right now isn't being very critical or skeptical, just taking his word that he's GOING to be progressive.

(As the article points out, there are shitload of ways cities can be progressive these days, just to head that off at the pass. It might've been difficult to enact many of them politically, but he doesn't appear to have even considered anything addressing the racial and economic disparity issues in his city.)

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:25 pm And, duff, I read a bunch of articles about poverty and his efforts to tear down dilapidated houses in South Bend. That's not a very pretty picture and, again, this guy is calling himself progressive and I just don't see examples of that in his time as a mayor. I don't necessarily even need him to be "progressive" to be a viable candidate... But his track record doesn't speak to a very progressive guy.

What's not progressive about tearing down dilapidated houses? Spearheading projects like that are arguably the most important job you'll have as mayor of a mid-sized town.

ETA: I should say without knowing his record that my definition of dilapidated might be different from others, but I'm talking about houses that should be or have been legally condemned. I suppose if someone was tearing down houses still livable just to force out poor people, that's obviously bad.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:25 pm there's not one ounce of anything other than being part of the American political elite class.

He did that really famous political elite thing where he went to a war while in office.

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:32 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:25 pm there's not one ounce of anything other than being part of the American political elite class.

He did that really famous political elite thing where he went to a war while in office.

Which looks great on his resume.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:31 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:25 pm And, duff, I read a bunch of articles about poverty and his efforts to tear down dilapidated houses in South Bend. That's not a very pretty picture and, again, this guy is calling himself progressive and I just don't see examples of that in his time as a mayor. I don't necessarily even need him to be "progressive" to be a viable candidate... But his track record doesn't speak to a very progressive guy.

What's not progressive about tearing down dilapidated houses? Spearheading projects like that are arguably the most important job you'll have as mayor of a mid-sized town.

ETA: I should say without knowing his record that my definition of dilapidated might be different from others, but I'm talking about houses that should be or have been legally condemned. I suppose if someone was tearing down houses still livable just to force out poor people, that's obviously bad.

Your last sentence gets at the criticism he's received on that issue.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:33 pm

Ryan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:32 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:25 pm there's not one ounce of anything other than being part of the American political elite class.

He did that really famous political elite thing where he went to a war while in office.

Which looks great on his resume.

It's exceptionally cynical -- even for a Democrat -- to suggest he served his country only to advance his future political prospects.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen, just saying that I don't know if that should be a default position on someone who served in the military who runs for office.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:34 pmYour last sentence gets at the criticism he's received on that issue.

My hometown is dealing with this. Tearing them down is only a net good if they're absolute dangers and not mere eyesores and/or there's a plan to house those who rely on them for free shelter.

I was being a dick, I respect the fact that he served the country.

But let me just say, he joined the Navy Reserves in 2009 and was deployed in 2014. He didn't just out of the blue decide he needed to go to Afghanistan.

Which, again, is not really how that part of his life is being covered. (He also seems to lack any kind of historical or situational context for why being mired in endless warfare in the M.E. [or Vietnam] based on a bunch of bullshit should be something acknowledged or discussed.)

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:44 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:34 pmYour last sentence gets at the criticism he's received on that issue.

My hometown is dealing with this. Tearing them down is only a net good if they're absolute dangers and not mere eyesores and/or there's a plan to house those who rely on them for free shelter.

There also seems to be an issue of levying increasingly large fines on homeowners in an apparent effort to force them out.

We've got thousands of cities and towns in this country that are fucking with (mostly) black and brown people by levying tickets and fines and miring them in an inescapable criminal and/or poverty cycle. This housing issue sure seems to smell an awful like that.

I remember the big hubbub about the houses. I am going to do some researching here at work and talk to some people that were around and possibly affected by this (or at least knows people affected by it).

From what I remember it was viewed as a positive, but that opinion was most likely coming from those that benefited and not affected by the leveling of the houses.

It's just so Democrat to tear down other Democrats because they aren't the perfect concoction of altruistism, progressiveness, and having the perfect but not too perfect resume.

This is why everyone hates Democrats. It wouldn't shock me if I learned all vegans and those with "gluten issues" were all Democrats because the same qualities exist in all of these insufferable humans.

The reason people love AOC, beyond the quips, is because there's no "yeah well but" necessary from her supporters. The whole "why are you looking for the flaws!" mantra absolutely is typical Dem, but I don't think in the way you're meaning it to be and it's exactly why the current iteration of the party is shit. There's no introspection and a complete reluctance to vet-and-inspect-and-see when they can much easier appoint and protect. It works for those already in power or willing to play nice with those in power, it doesn't work as a policy to best represent half the country.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:28 pm It's just so Democrat to tear down other Democrats because they aren't the perfect concoction of altruistism, progressiveness, and having the perfect but not too perfect resume.

This is why everyone hates Democrats. It wouldn't shock me if I learned all vegans and those with "gluten issues" were all Democrats because the same qualities exist in all of these insufferable humans.

Did you somehow miss the INSANE amounts of shit thrown around during the GOP primary season??

I'm going to scrutinize the fuck out of them on here (which, btw, is not fucking Twitter of Fb, it's a closed group that's been talking politics for what... a decade at this point?) And once we choose someone, I'll get real public about it.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:45 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:28 pm It's just so Democrat to tear down other Democrats because they aren't the perfect concoction of altruistism, progressiveness, and having the perfect but not too perfect resume.

This is why everyone hates Democrats. It wouldn't shock me if I learned all vegans and those with "gluten issues" were all Democrats because the same qualities exist in all of these insufferable humans.

Did you somehow miss the INSANE amounts of shit thrown around during the GOP primary season??

I'm going to scrutinize the fuck out of them on here (which, btw, is not fucking Twitter of Fb, it's a closed group that's been talking politics for what... a decade at this point?) And once we choose someone, I'll get real public about it.

This is all true. Obama and Trump both got elected after surviving nasty primary campaigns, so I just don’t buy the suggestion that Democratic candidates should get a pass. No one doubts that Buttegieg is much better than the average Indiana politician, but when you’re running for President that’s really not the standard. I’ll also add that it’s frustrating to me that Elizabeth Warren has put forward the boldest and most progressive policy agenda of any candidate and yet she hasn’t gotten nearly the buzz of Pete or Beto, who are policy lightweights in comparison.

Not really disagreeing with you, Joe, but we're in a very weird part of the process right now. Historically, you don't see a ton of substance this far out from the debates and primaries.

And a couple of Trump-related factors that are really amplifying this: 1) There's a somewhat unprecedented amount of coverage and scrutiny and 2) there's a palpable sense of urgency to find someone "electable" for this round. So, you've got a lot of scrutiny, but not really on policy, but rather on completely undefinable and amorphous criteria (electable to who? in whose eyes? what litmus test or barometer are we using? ad infinitum.)

I like some of what Warren has proposed, I just think the bandwidth for some of it just isn't there right now. People are getting a little overwhelmed, because you've got stuff like health care and minimum wage that are still hanging in the balance, and she's coming in with more esoteric proposals that haven't had enough time in the spotlight for even the more engaged voters to wrap their heads around.

Not that I'm an expert or anyone is asking me, but I think candidates need to have a tight stump speech and keep a lid on policy proposals for now.

Is this cooler than Beto's musical cred? Guessing no, but I'll await confirmation.

Pete Buttigieg hopes to be first president to have played piano with Ben Folds

I don't think Pete should get criticized for working at McKinsey. That's a tremendous training ground to learn about the business world, and it isn't per se evil like lobbying for big oil or cigarette companies. You can maintain integrity and succeed at McKinsey. I think. On the plus side, he lived the life and came out Progressive. That says a lot. I had a lot of idealistic Liberal friends in law school who took the big firm jobs with the thought of saving and paying off their debts in 2 or 3 years, then leaving to work in a non-profit and save the world. Almost all of them stayed in big firms or corporate law, so I give him credit for walking away with his values in tact. I went into law school knowing I never wanted to work at a big firm, in large part to watching my friend's brother work 100 hour weeks defending a Big Pharma company that lied about and hid research showing their product caused fatal heart attacks. I chose a scholarship so I wouldn't have to pay off the debt, and even with that mindset, everything in my school drove students towards big firms. There is an enormous infrastructure geared towards funneling students to big firms, and they did all the interviews on campus in job fairs. I sought advice on government or nonprofit jobs, and would get a sympathetic, "that's great, but we really can't offer you advice" from our Career Service office. They just had no connections, and no staff focused on that (which I think has changed for the better).

And after my moral crusade not to work for evil corporate interests, I ended up working in Homeland Security during the Bush administration, enforcing the Patriot Act and advising perverted interpretations of the 4th and 8th Amendments in furtherance of the War on Terror. Moving to New York in September 2001 fresh out of school, I thought I was doing my patriotic duty, and once inside, there is no getting around the system. I tried once, maybe 6 months into my career, when I discovered the agents were improperly using field drug test kits, and getting unusually high false positives, leaving innocent people in prison for months before lab tests came back showing the substances they possessed were not illegal. I went on a crusade, my boss patronizingly laughed and said, "good luck with that." I didn't listen, forged ahead to fix the problem, got the manufacturer on board to provide free training and support in changing policy and procedures, and got told to fuck off and mind my own business by the Special Agent in Charge. I gave a lot of advice that was completely against my political and moral views, but when you are there, you don't have a choice. I think it would be completely out of bounds if I was politically attacked for that, but ymmv.

That's a lot of introspection, Syb. I feel the same way some times. In fact, as part of a "professional development" brief I was asked to put together for the younger folks in the unit covering military customs and courtesies and why they are important, they are what makes us different than civilians..etc.

I stated pretty bluntly:

"What's the mission of the USAF?"

[Someone says the bumper sticker motto of "Fly, fight and win in air, space, and cyberspace."]

"Right, but that's a cute way of saying something politically correct. What's the actual mission?"

[crickets]

"To kill people and break shit. Realize this. At any moment you can be called to take a weapon to a foreign land and murder on behalf of your government. That is a heavy responsibility for a young person. But we don't speak in language like this at all to get the point across. You do a job with far more responsibility than you realize and you have to discipline yourself as such. All of these little things that separate us from everyone are a nuisance day-to-day, but mean something overall. So understand, we have to live this way in the event that..."

So yeah. After 20 years if I got into the race bring in the military would be a nice thing in a resume. But is it though?

Basically, we all have warts. The Democrats just love to pick on their own.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:39 pm That's a lot of introspection, Syb. I feel the same way some times. In fact, as part of a "professional development" brief I was asked to put together for the younger folks in the unit covering military customs and courtesies and why they are important, they are what makes us different than civilians..etc.

I stated pretty bluntly:

"What's the mission of the USAF?"

[Someone says the bumper sticker motto of "Fly, fight and win in air, space, and cyberspace."]

"Right, but that's a cute way of saying something politically correct. What's the actual mission?"

[crickets]

"To kill people and break shit. Realize this. At any moment you can be called to take a weapon to a foreign land and murder on behalf of your government. That is a heavy responsibility for a young person. But we don't speak in language like this at all to get the point across. You do a job with far more responsibility than you realize and you have to discipline yourself as such. All of these little things that separate us from everyone are a nuisance day-to-day, but mean something overall. So understand, we have to live this way in the event that..."

So yeah. After 20 years if I got into the race bring in the military would be a nice thing in a resume. But is it though?

Basically, we all have warts. The Democrats just love to pick on their own.

While I can't imagine a candidate getting serious blowback for serving in the military (exclude the random ultra-wingut pacifists), I never thought being a former prosecutor would be an issue, but Kamala Harris is getting knocked for it.

Ha ha ha ha ha?



dammit

Good lord, he's real life Jonah Ryan, campaigning in New Hampshire.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:03 pm I don't think Pete should get criticized for working at McKinsey. That's a tremendous training ground to learn about the business world, and it isn't per se evil like lobbying for big oil or cigarette companies. You can maintain integrity and succeed at McKinsey. I think. On the plus side, he lived the life and came out Progressive.

I don't have a huge issue with McKinsey, and probably shouldn't have thrown it out there as some evil empire-building, blackwater-esque firm.

The issue we all need to scrutinize is whether he is actually progressive or not. Beto was getting a pass on laying out a vision, and now it's Pete's turn. And as I said to Joe, (I think) it is too early in the process to eliminate someone on lack of substance.

But the window is going to start to close on the, basically, free run these guys are getting on electability alone.

rass wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:59 pm Ha ha ha ha ha?



dammit

And he pivots from an inappropriate joke to what is undoubtedly some homespun story about his father.

Yesterday's man. Time to hit the lecture circuit and just go away.

Mayor Pete is officially in the race as of today.

Now if only Joe Biden stays as far away from it as possible I'll be happy.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:35 pm Mayor Pete is officially in the race as of today.

Now if only Joe Biden stays as far away from it as possible I'll be happy.

I think that Uncle Joe would be well advised to look into a condo in Sarasota and just fade off into the sunset.

Haaaaaaa.