S17.E10: Pete Buttigieg, Preet Bharara, S.E. Cupp, Elissa Slotkin, and Andrew Sullivan

[millennium]

Hard to get through this show.   Andrew Sullivan is repulsive (didn't we have a Revolution to get rid of condescending jerks like him?), made all the more difficult by S.E. Cupp's compulsive cackling.

Looks like Cupp's pendulum has started to swing decidedly back to her Republican origins now that it's "safe" again.

[UYI]

On 3/31/2019 at 4:01 PM, littlecatsfeet said:

That may turn out to be a plus, since Presidential candidates usually carry their home state. The ones who didn't (Bush I, Bush II, Nixon, Trump, etc) were all by and large Republican. In fact, the last Democrat not to carry his home state was Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Bill Clinton carried Arkansas, a red state. Not saying it's a 100% certainty Buttigieg could do it, but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. The advantage of him being a mayor as opposed to a congressperson is that he escapes the "but he took money from such-and-so lobbying group" and "he voted that one way that one time" criticism. I will agree it's still a long shot, but ya never know.

A google search tells me that 'millennials' were born in the years spanning 1981-1996, which makes most college students too young for that designation, but I'm sure Bill is lumping them all together anyway.  Similar to how he gets his panties in a twist when the audience doesn't find one of his jokes funny, it's the audience's fault for being "too politically correct" or "not sophisticated enough". Damn, Bill, sometimes a joke bombs because it's not especially funny. Get over it. 

There were actually three more since then:

1. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956--Illinois

2. George McGovern in 1972--South Dakota

3. Al Gore in 2000--Tennessee

(Update: Actually, every Democratic candidate for President in the 1920s lost his home state--starting in 1920, when both candidates were from Ohio--up until 1932 and FDR; he was the first Democratic presidential since WW to actually WIN his home state!)

Nonetheless, I agree that Pete would have a real chance to win Indiana, as long as he takes it seriously and works hard to make it competitive, which I'm sure he would. (Al made the mistake in 2000 in assuming Tennessee was a sure thing...oops.)

I do agree that Bill needs to chill the fuck out about millennials/Gen Yers. (I'm a 30 year old one.) I was especially dismayed at how perplexed he was at the idea of trans rights not being seen as important on local level in schools, when there have been several stories proving that it is. Sigh.

And for the record, the line for them begins in 1981 from what I've seen, so Pete is indeed one himself, having been born in 1982. An older one, yes, but it still counts. 

ETA: JK you mentioned the millennial timeline at the bottom of your post. That's what I get for seeing the whole post before responding. Duh. -_-

Edited April 2, 2019 by UYI

[littlecatsfeet]

Ah, I see my mistake, UYI...I was researching *winning* presidential candidates and of course, the three you mentioned were....not. Well, that kind of pokes a pin in my little bubble, but that's actually for the better. Rose-colored glasses are not the clearest way to look at things. 

21 hours ago, UYI said:

Nonetheless, I agree that Pete would have a real chance to win Indiana, as long as he takes it seriously and works hard to make it competitive, which I'm sure he would. (Al made the mistake in 2000 is assuming Tennessee was a sure thing...oops.)

Yes, totally agree!

My jaw dropped when Bill was so dismissive of trans rights and his comment about..."c'mon, how many times a day does that happen?" [regarding bathroom politics]. Putting aside the obvious fact that yes, people pee several times a day, it IS an important issue. Bill is sounding more and more like a typical right-winger with what can be construed as a"if it doesn't affect me, it's not important" attitude. 

[ganesh]

My professional society has been choosing venues for conferences based on gender neutral bathrooms for a couple of years now.

The thing is, yeah, it doesn't affect me, but it's also not too difficult a fix either. Why not just take the win for everyone? 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, littlecatsfeet said:

My jaw dropped when Bill was so dismissive of trans rights and his comment about..."c'mon, how many times a day does that happen?" [regarding bathroom politics]. Putting aside the obvious fact that yes, people pee several times a day, it IS an important issue. Bill is sounding more and more like a typical right-winger with what can be construed as a"if it doesn't affect me, it's not important" attitude. 

He also continues to act like the left is making this a central issue on its own and turning off the right when it seems to me it's more something the right likes to bring up as a scare tactic. Suddenly they care about protecting women from sexual assault by...not allowing transwomen to use women's bathrooms and passing laws to that effect. The left then either has to defend trans rights or throw them under a bus and that's an easy choice. 

Again, on one hand he always wants the left to fight, but his idea of fighting always seems to include caving on a ton of important issues to attract Republicans.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Yes, what was up with that? Was she trying to be nice to those constituents by pretending to buy their reasoning?

Yes. Slotkin is a Representative in a state Trump won, so she has to defend the people who voted for him because she needs their votes too. But she was full of shit and she should be ashamed. There has to be a way to say "Look, these are reasonable people who voted for Trump because . . . " without repeating some nonsensical right-wing excuse like saying he was the only one talking about issues voters cared about. 

Quote

He also continues to act like the left is making this a central issue on its own and turning off the right when it seems to me it's more something the right likes to bring up as a scare tactic.

I get what Bill is saying. He is saying Democrats turn moderates and swing voters off because they campaign on "snowflake" issues. Bill advocates for Democrats to use Republican strategy in campaigning. On Pod Save America they made a good point that Republicans know how to campaign but not how to govern, and that Democrats know how to govern but not how to campaign. I think that's largely true as a blanket statement, but Bill should consider the big wins made by Dems in the mid-terms. They seem to be getting better.

[ganesh]

18 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I get what Bill is saying. He is saying Democrats turn moderates and swing voters off because they campaign on "snowflake" issues.

I'm not sure they're necessarily campaigning on these snowflake issues though. Healthcare was the big 2018 issue. I mean, they're going to support civil rights when the issue comes up. On the show Bill kind of brought it out with no context from what I watched. 

I agree with him that Democrats need to focus on how to win, but they are sort of doing that. 

[wknt3]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Again, on one hand he always wants the left to fight, but his idea of fighting always seems to include caving on a ton of important issues to attract Republicans.

Bill is totally consistent, He always wants the left to fight on issues that matter to him personally. And sometimes when he feels like conservatives are pushing them around and offend him as a self proclaimed tough guy progressive. When it comes to the environment or legalizing pot it time to man the barricades and any sort of compromise or not pursuing measures that will probably seriously hurt candidates in red/purple states is spineless cowardice. When it's something that doesn't affect him and he doesn't care about, Democrats need to cave immediately or else they are falling into the trap of "identity politics." Hope that clears up the confusion.

[Victor the Crab]

33 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

Bill is totally consistent, He always wants the left to fight on issues that matter to him personally. And sometimes when he feels like conservatives are pushing them around and offend him as a self proclaimed tough guy progressive. When it comes to the environment or legalizing pot it time to man the barricades and any sort of compromise or not pursuing measures that will probably seriously hurt candidates in red/purple states is spineless cowardice. When it's something that doesn't affect him and he doesn't care about, Democrats need to cave immediately or else they are falling into the trap of "identity politics." Hope that clears up the confusion.

If Bill wants to be taken seriously by liberals and progressives alike, he needs to realize that there's many things that matter to the left, and that he needs to quit being a cherry picking asshole and stop shaming and browbeating them over issues he doesn't give a fuck about, like transgender rights (or, issues he cares about but they don't, like comic book fans and the culture of it). You'd think he'd be a little bit understanding about George Clooney's boycott attempts directed towards the sultan of Brunei. Hell, it's an Islamic nation with two thirds the populace practicing it, you'd think it would be a slam dunk for him to be pissed about executing people for being gay because of religion. Trevor Noah commended Clooney's efforts last night on The Daily Show.

And if Bill can't bring himself up to do that, then he should go back on the road and stick to comedy.

[Mystery Author]

Hi Teebax, good to see you here.

As for Mayor Pete, my daughter, who lives next door to South Bend, adores him. My son says, "I think Buttigieg makes a great point regarding his age. The problem with having old people in office is that they seem to pass policies that make their own lives easier, while not caring about policy repercussions that occur long after they are gone. Whereas Buttigieg will be the age Trump is now in 2054. He's going to have to live with the results of climate change. I think that's a great motivator."

[Marci]

Maher’s getting on board with not accepting the Mueller and AG’s determinations is the same as not believing Obama was born in Hawaii even after the state released the birth certificate. Yeah, we have to see the whole report, and yeah there is proof the birth certificate was photoshopped, and on and on. Move on, already. He sounds no better than the Faux News he has mocked so beautifully for years.  

I agree with, Beat Trump at the polls. And this time, put him up against someone who isn’t as despised by so many, on BOTH sides, as Hillary Clinton.

And the free stuff for all talk needs to go. It makes older people fear that their life savings will be taken away from them, in the form of taxes, and that no one will care. I think it makes them say to themselves, fuck that. And out loud say, I voted for Hillary, when they really voted for Trump. Brown, white, or black.

I thought Mayor Pete came across intelligent and calming. The only thing..37?  That’s tough.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Marci

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Marci said:

yeah there is proof the birth certificate was photoshopped

No, there isn't.

[sistermagpie]

8 hours ago, Marci said:

Maher’s getting on board with not accepting the Mueller and AG’s determinations is the same as not believing Obama was born in Hawaii even after the state released the birth certificate. Yeah, we have to see the whole report, and yeah there is proof the birth certificate was photoshopped, and on and on. Move on, already. He sounds no better than the Faux News he has mocked so beautifully for years.  

I agree with, Beat Trump at the polls. And this time, put him up against someone who isn’t as despised by so many, on BOTH sides, as Hillary Clinton.

I don't see any equivalence, whether or not you agree with Maher on this one. He's talking about actual things we all know happened and saying that if this isn't criminal it should be. Whether or not you agree, he's dealing with all the facts that we actually know happened. This isn't a lie about a photoshopped birth certificate.

Quote

And the free stuff for all talk needs to go. It makes older people fear that their life savings will be taken away from them, in the form of taxes, and that no one will care. I think it makes them say to themselves, fuck that. And out loud say, I voted for Hillary, when they really voted for Trump. Brown, white, or black.

But talk of "you're just going to take all the old peoples' money in the form of taxes" makes young people say to themselves, fuck that. And why wouldn't it? Older people had access to college that practically was free compared to what it is now, and now they have medicare. Younger generations need serious relief and society needs a better safety net. We have to deal in reality, not pander to the paranoid fantasies on Fox News.

[Marci]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't see any equivalence, whether or not you agree with Maher on this one. He's talking about actual things we all know happened and saying that if this isn't criminal it should be. Whether or not you agree, he's dealing with all the facts that we actually know happened. This isn't a lie about a photoshopped birth certificate.

A lie about a photoshopped birth certificate, a lie about Russian collusion...same ol’

Quote

Older people had access to college that practically was free compared to what it is now

And what about if they paid for their kids’ college, at the price it is now?

[Marci]

4 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

11 hours ago, Marci said:

yeah there is proof the birth certificate was photoshopped

 No, there isn't.

Of course there isn’t.  If you read my whole post, you will understand I was saying that believing there was proof of photoshopping is as ridiculous as believing there was Russian collusion.

Edited April 5, 2019 by Marci

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, Marci said:

A lie about a photoshopped birth certificate, a lie about Russian collusion...same ol’

But what's the lie about Russian collusion? He's not making up something that happened, he's talking about stuff that did happen. His disagreement isn't over facts. 

Mueller didn't find enough evidence of conspiracy to charge that and that's not going to change with Bill's complaining, true. But it's more like complaining over the electoral college giving Trump the presidency. 

6 minutes ago, Marci said:

And what about if they paid for their kids’ college, at the price it is now?

I don't know...what about it?  Younger generation who needs to be able to support themselves reasonably vs. old people who paid a lot for their kids' college or have kids who are now crushed under student loans and want everyone else to suffer the way they're suffering just out of resentment? They automatically link social programs that benefit a wide swath of people with people stealing from them personally so they'll vote to just keep giving all their money to the super rich? The younger generation also has a lot of anxiety about money.

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Marci said:

Of course there isn’t.  If you read my whole post, you will understand I was saying that believing there was proof of photoshopping is as ridiculous as believing there was Russian collusion.

Sorry about that. My sarcasm meter has been in the shop.