There is a lot of history in this world, and this guy is too young to know much of it. If he got to the Oval Office he would be dependent on whatever his advisors or the Military Industrial Complex told him. i think he is too young, and people who presume to run for President too young bother me - it is way too ambitious. Same with Beto o'Rourke. God, at least do something memorial besides having a nice smile, or being a member of a disadvantaged group.
"i think he is too young, and people who presume to run for President too young bother me - it is way too ambitious. Same with Beto O'Rourke"
I think you're being far too judgemental thinking this.
Have you ever considered their big picture strategy might be to raise their national profile and name recognition not because they think they've got a real shot this time around, but as a launchpad for a future run?
Especially for Buttigieg, it's not a bad strategy. He's getting great pub. As a small town mayor no one would have ever heard of him otherwise. America may or may not be ready for their first gay president in 2020. But there's something to be said for getting the public accustomed to the idea so it's not a detractor or novelty whenever he gets his next shot, be it '24 or '28. His candidacy can be a catalyst for social progress.
Of course I have thought of that. i cannot mention everything in one post.
So why not give anyone the benefit of the doubt and just express that as
"their big picture strategy might be to raise their national profile and name
recognition" instead of assuming things about me.
I could care less what a President is, gay, white. black, women, trans, whatever, as long as they have some vision that can engage 60%+ of the public and have managerial skills and an understanding of science and tech, and of course people.
But I don't think this country gets anything but worse as long as laissez-faire
capitalism is the prime consideration. I can it socialism, but what this country
needs to have first and foremost is a tenet that people come first. All the solutions to all our problem with fall out from there.
But back to your original point, it is wasting people's time to seek to get your face out there, just because it's your face. Great if you have ideas, but no one's ideas here on the Democratic side are much different from the others. They talk more Leftist, but the agenda is to fix taxes, health care and education ... and they all demand that the people, 60%+ of them force the rich to pay taxes and quit infiltrating and monopolizing government.
So back to my original point, none of these guys, Beto or Buttigieg have much to say beyond whispering sweet nothings ... they do not have accomplishments and there say nothing that someone else has not said first. Do you see what I mean here.
Bernie and Warren both have a history, a vision that happens to coincide with what would really make this country great, or rather bring this country up to a democracy that might have the capability to be great again.
Biden is old with an establishment patina ... but he has not done anything and he is not going to fool anyone. Kamala talks a good talk, but she does not have the history nor the accomplishments. The others Gabbard and Gillibran are women trying to tap the women's vote.
I made assumptions because the way you framed your original criticism centered not on ideas or competence, but instead on youth and ambition as what fundamentally bothered you. It just sounded superficial and judgemental to me when you consider some of our youngest presidents have been among the best. Teddy was the youngest when he took office at 42. That would be only 3 years older than Pete should he take office in 2021. He's a Rhodes Scholar, so of course he's going to be highly ambitious.
Regardless, I share your enthusiasm for Warren and Sanders and their ideas. I just strongly disagree that it's "wasting people's time to seek to get your face out there" otherwise. Great ideas don't mean much without great messengers to sell those ideas to the American people. This is not to say Warren or Sanders are imperfect messengers or that Pete would be a better one. I have no real idea at this early stage. Where I disagree with your take is that I see value in a candidate's electability even if policy ideas are adopted from other candidates. My overarching concern is to see a Dem in the White House to get the cancer we have there right now out.
> I made assumptions because the way you framed your original criticism centered not on ideas or competence, but instead on youth and ambition as what fundamentally bothered you.
That's just invalid logic, an assumption, or these days called projection. There is nothing wrong with my logic that says in the absence of demonstrated competence or vision, that is - all things being equal, younger person is going to be less knowledgeable and experienced. Not always true, but that is what campaigning is for - to demonstrate why a younger person should be preferable.
Teddy Roosevelt had a lot more experience, a lot more connections and a lot more accomplishments at 42. He also had a real powerful vision and answers to the problems he say. Neither Pete nor Beto are doing anything but talking - they are BS. In debates their nonsense will take away time from people that actually have something important to say.
Rhodes Scholarship doesn't mean much to me. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, it's just another gimmick to be used to canonize someone that some groups wants to put in office. It is an establishment metric.
I did not say it was a waste of people's time for get THEIR face out there ... it worked for Obama. Sadly the public falls for this beauty contest BS. It is like celebrities who are celebrities just because they are celebrities and not because they have done anything to deserve the attention of the public.
This is the kind of thinking that works good, maybe even better for someone like Trump, so there is that. Everything pointed to him being a nasty piece of work, except he got a lot of media attention. People should pay more attention to ideas, morals, past history, vision, real things, not faked BS. I mean, Trump had to send lawyers and people out to his former schools to threaten and collect his notes and grades, after demanding that Obama release his college transcripts. Trump was a loser, and a cheater. He cheats at everything and what he doesnt cheat about he lies about.
it is the people that allow the media to get away with this because they do not know how to think and how to value information and prioritize it.
It was perfectly logical for me to assume you were being judgemental and superficial when you said this:
"i think he is too young, and people who presume to run for President too young bother me - it is way too ambitious. Same with Beto O'Rourke"
Now that you've provided additional clarity on what you meant it would be wrong for me to continue thinking this. But absent additional information my initial impression was perfectly logical because without further information that's exactly what your initial words belied.
I agree Teddy had more experience at 42, but that didn't appear to be the focus of your initial criticism. It was age and ambition, and that he couldn't possibly know enough history at 37. I found the critique on ambition especially puzzling seeing as how uninhibited ambition is a necessary prerequisite for wanting the job. Being a Rhodes Scholar implies high intelligence and high ambition. That's all it implies. It obviously says nothing as to whether the person's ideas have cachet or whether they'd make a good president. Bobby Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar. That doesn't mean Bobby Jindal should be anywhere close to the presidency. David Vitter was a Rhodes Scholar. That doesn't mean former Senator Diaper from Louisiana should be in the White House.
I sympathize with your disdain for what you call the 'beauty contest'. But I also acknowledge since the dawn of our species that's always been a dimension to how we choose our leaders, which is why I value electability as an asset and reason to run. Again, I haven't seen enough of Pete to know if he meets that electability quotient, but he does appear highly competent in everything he's set his mind to. If it were between Pete and Beto I'd consider Pete the far superior candidate. But I also recognize Beto might be most electable (even if he's the least qualified) because like you said, look at who's in the White House now. If it shakes out that way I'll vote for him if it means getting Trump out.
The fact is that it may have been logical to you, but that just means logical to you.
And the fact that you have whined about it for 3 posts tells me you are just desperate
to assert your arguments in every way but with facts and logic ... real logic.
If you think about it if you missed the ambiguity there did not think to just ask about it instead of assume. It may have been logical to your, but there was no point to it. In logical design they call that a "don't care" state.
OK, enough.
> that's always been a dimension to how we choose our leaders,
You serve me my points on a silver platter. If we learn something about ourselves, as in all the fallcies brilliantly pointed out in the book "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow" ... a really great book, then we need to design our systems ... not to take advantage of false thinking in the publlic, but to build in "code" to assist people to avoid those thinking pitfalls instead of trip on them to the benefit of liars and cheaters.
But just think, if for every minute the public was bored with a meaningless soundbyte from Pete Buttigieg or Beto O'Rourle" the people with the real arguments were featured. The media keeps people uninformed, and this is part of it. In my opinion.
But also bear in mind that if your scenario plays out where you vote for Buttigieg to knock Trump out, you've been manipulated by the media into putting up with probably 8 years of blah, like Obama. You only have so many of those 8 year intervals to poltically weigh in on ... maybe 10.
I'm only "whining" about it because you keep whining about it. You keep trying to run away from your very own initial words and it's really baffling as to why. You apparently have a really hard time owning up to what you said that turned out to be misleading. But you can't deny what you did say. I already explained that you provided additional clarity so I now have a different understanding of what you meant, but you can't let it go.
But when the focus of your initial words are about youth and ambition "bothering" you, I'm going to take your words at face value. Saying it's wrong for me to assume you meant what you said is just you being disingenuous.
Your attempt to cast Buttigieg with Obama is also just silly when we don't know what Buttigieg would do once in office. You're just making superficial assumptions he'd fold like a lawn chair much like Obama did. You apparently forgot that Obama WAS the hope and change candidate in the 2008 Democratic primaries. He was given a mandate to make big changes his first two years and he fundamentally underplayed his hand. We're worse off because of it. You're acting like there were more progressive options in the 2008 primary that could have delivered when there were not.
Nobody voted for Obama in the 2008 primaries because of 'electability'. That would have been Hillary. The conventional wisdom on Obama was he was too inexperienced and America would never elect a black president. So your insistence that Obama represented the most 'electable' candidate like Buttigieg or Beto is just an utterly shambolic broken analogy to begin with.
You are making conclusions I never said. I am not running away from anything either ... my initial post was 4 lines long, since you went and misread or mischaracterized everything I said I had to explain it to you ... that is not running away.
You said I was too judgmental and I explained my thinking process and why I thought what I thought.
I said Obama was blah, not electable. I am glad he won. I voted for him, twice. I don't like him any more than Clinton, except as a choice against any Republican.
[deleted]