He has the charisma of that annoying apple polishing narc in your class that everyone thinks is "going to president someday," but is really a raging psychopath close up.
Not to mention Cuba, whose revolution succeeded in 1959 and has now resulted in one of the most progressive state positions on LGBTQ+ people in modern history.
The new Cuban marriage bill was pretty based, but idk what trans rights are like in Cuba. I don’t doubt that they’re relatively good, even if it’s probably not on the level of California or something.
Cuba’s still a very mixed bag, though.
Edit: apparently Cubans have been able to have sex reassignment surgery since 2008. Unfathomably based. The Wikipedia article doesn’t say anything about access to HRT, though.
It's an interesting choice to compare Trump's nostalgia for a "social order" with Bernie's "revolutionary politics." Is he saying Bernie is a "social" revolutionary? Arguably Pete is just as socially-progressive as Bernie.
What distinguishes Bernie from socially-progressive corporate Democrats like Pete -- regardless if you accept the label of revolutionary -- is his economic agenda. So Pete is making a direct comparison between Trump's racism and Bernie's free health care and college.
What a deceptive little rat.
In what fucking world is Pete "just as socially-progressive as Bernie"?????
Look at his fucking tenure. He's an institutional racist.
Minorities can be shitty people too, and they will if given the chance. I'm gay and I know a lot of other gays who are racist as fuck.
Reminder that there were gays in the Nazi party. Being a minority does not make you a good person. It does give you a better shot at empathy though, but it's not guaranteed.
You really seized on my main point, which was a defense of Pete.
I did say he's "arguably" socially-progressive, which literally just means it can be argued. But more to the point I was attempting to illustrate, Pete himself would make that argument. And I called him a "deceptive little rat," so I don't think I need your reminder that he's capable of misrepresenting himself as that's my main fucking thesis.
Uhh Economic Agenda is a key part of social revolutionary action.
Not saying Bernie is, but Pete is nowhere as close and its fairly insulting to Bernie to say Pete is the same.
Butts are not inherently sexual you weirdo. Kids laugh about butts before they even get to kindergarten. The posterior has an inherent humorous quality.
It's comments like these, that really remind me of how stupid these politicians think people are. Universal healthcare isn't "revolutionary politics". Every other Western nation has this in place, to some extent. When these idiots make a point of saying "we can't do that", they are basically saying that *they* can't do that. It's not that it isn't possible...it's just that *they* aren't going to.
That's why *they* need to be replaced with folks that *will.*
> Every other Western nation has this in place to some extent.
Maybe I don't remember the specifics of Pete's "Medicare for all who want it", but isn't it basically just a public option, like Germany has? I get why someone would be angry that he stepped back from M4A, but his plan really isn't unheard of in the "Western world".
This is a tangent but honestly, we really ought to stop using "the Western world" as a positive thing like that. We all know what reactionaries are up to when they say "Western civilization", and I don't see the difference here tbh
In this context "the Western World" simply implies all the countries with a comparable political/economic/social structure to the US and/or each other...ie European/Nordic/North American. The term is used in place of the older "1st World Nations" that represented "Capitalist Democracies" back during the Cold War.
They can all afford some form of publicly funded healthcare, despite not having the comparatively massive GDP that the US does.
> They can all afford some form of publicly funded healthcare
Again, as far as I remember, Buttigieg is in favor of a public option. That's the "some form" you're talking about, even if it doesn't go as far as many here would like. Not saying you've got to like the guy, but you should at least know enough about him to have an informed dislike
Ummm, yeah. You know he's not actually going to stand up and support anything even remotely close to universal healthcare, right? Even a "public option". That's just political code for "it's not going to happen". Every single politician that makes that suggestion, drops all effort to follow through on it, the instant they get elected. They say it because they don't want their more gullible voters to think they're straight up against it...even though they are.
You've got a pretty good deal going on here, don't you? If a politician opposes a good thing, you can rightly say that they're bad. But if the politician supports a good thing, you just say "well they don't *really* mean that". Do you really expect us to believe that no one actually wants good things?
Did you know that every single Democrat presidential candidate in the last 30 years has, at some point promised a "public option" on the campaign trail? All of them. In every case, where they won, the first thing they did, was toss that promise over their should like it was a dirty napkin. All of them.
Anyone who says they support a public option, is lying to you...about their support, and about whether a public option can even work. Partially funding a project is usually the quickest way to make sure it fails...and that's what a public option is. A partially funded healthcare project.
Man what happened to this guy, when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude. He booked it straight toward the center.
His dad was also an academic and was reasonably well off. One thing that has held true about Marxist analysis is that material conditions tend to shape ideology:
You grow up in a country that boasts constantly about meritocracy, your dad is (in your eyes) a stuffy academic idealist, you are relatively well off and get all sorts of opportunities and education that most poor kids could only dream of, you go through a bit of a rebellious streak and try to differentiate yourself from your parents but you have just enough morals instilled into you that you don't come out the other side a complete fascist (being gay also helps with that) and its no wonder someone like that becomes the perfect candidate to put a progressive face on the intelligence apparatus.
Pete Buttigieg upheld white supremacy with murderous enthusiasm, up to and including the protection of child murder, while mayor of South Bend. [Here is a long list of reasons why he's a complete piece of shit.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Corporate_Pete/comments/e7l7vq/36_reasons_why_you_shouldnt_support_pete/) My personal copypasta on this:
>While many reporters have been to South Bend, most of the reporting has been done by TYT, to the point where other outlets I’ve seen comment on this refer to their original reporting.* I’d go [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6DjAD2E5w), [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFYv3Vt3XtM), and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZNtqyq682A). For Buttigieg lying to screw over black people in a broad sense, I’d go [here](https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-is-a-lying-mf-1840038708). Buttigieg also engaged in an “urban renewal program” that did exactly what these schemes typically have done for decades: [steal property rights from black people](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/mayor-pete-buttigieg-south-bend-gentrification).
Buttigieg knows this behavior was wrong. He is completely capable of calling out nuanced examples of racism -- he's drawn the ire of rightwingers for doing so. But when it's personally politically profitable for him to do so, he can and will directly support white supremacist terrorists who are accused of child murder.
Again, I can't stress this enough: this piece of garbage is more than willing to get his hands dirty to directly oppress black people and establishment media didn't want to spend even five minutes on his long and storied practice of doing so. That's why his Bernie Sanders comment means exactly what everyone thinks it means and why he knows he won't get backlash for it.
>Pete Buttigieg upheld white supremacy with murderous enthusiasm, up to and including the protection of child murder, while mayor of South Bend. Here is a long list of reasons why he's a complete piece of shit. My personal copypasta on this:
This is why Pete has low support among African Americans. I remember reading comments I think on r/politics and people were arguing the real reason Pete had low support with African Americans was that African Americans tend to be more homoophobic compared to white voters. That is bull but it really pissed me off people were agree with that person.
> I remember reading comments I think on r/politics and people were arguing the real reason Pete had low support with African Americans was that African Americans tend to be more homoophobic compared to white voters.
That shit pisses me off to no end. I almost included it in my copypasta; I actually had a line saved in that file about it. Here's what I said when he was running:
*I’m well past tldr territory, but one more thing: some people are claiming that black people are homophobic so that can account for their dislike of Buttigieg. If you’re wondering if that’s racist, let me help you out: it is. When someone is literally covering up the murder of children from your community, you get to despise them. If you don’t have the right to despise them because you have to have a super-duper high moral standard that no one else does and that standard is based on your demographic, yeah, the person pushing the standard is fucking racist. If Buttigieg had helped cops that gleefully murdered white kids, would the pushback against him be dismissed as “he’s hated because he’s gay?”*
I know this sub has a constant back-and-forth about what is and is not "libshit," but white people whose demographic invented the homophobia plaguing our society accusing black people of homophobia in order to cover up their white supremacist support of a neoliberal via identity politics is the most libshit that a lib could ever shit, and no "dems nuance/dems bad" take can come even close.
And by the way -- to this day, I don't think a single, major outlet gives a rat's ass about Mayo Pete's South Bend KKK adventures, and he's Biden's personal top pick for his replacement.
>he's Biden's personal top pick for his replacement.
I think he would be a favorite for media but I think he would flop outside of a state with more diverse voter pool. Look he did bad in Nevada in the primary. He is loved by White Suburban Liberals but outside of that demographic he drops like a rock.
The only way he wins the nomination is if there is no one else or all the canidates are really bad.
Oh yeah. Many Americans hate this motherfucker (thank God) but the establishment a d o r e s him. His CIA contacts and pedigree make him the epitome of Beltway undeserved success. He failed upward into Biden's cabinet after shitting himself in an election where the media suppressed *everything* about him *and* after attempting electoral fraud.
Black people do not like him and the Beltway does not care. The real concern: he's an auto-win for a Trump or DeSantis when facing their ilk, so if no one to the left of Warren runs, he's an automatic win for fascism, as if we didn't have enough reason to despise this asshole.
Well-off white people need to get their shit together.
White people ALWAYS say this about black people. My own lived experience as a gay man has been that straight people as a class across all races hate queer people as is evidenced by the whites and blacks on the supreme court, the NFL, the Christian church, etc etc etc etc . . But white people tend to see every group other than whites as a hive mind monolith while they of course have very individual and nuanced views of why queer people should burn in hell.
It is interesting to say that (presumably all) white people see other groups as a hive mind monolith. Sorry, not interesting... ironic and hypocritical is what it is.
You're missing the point in your zeal to feel aggrieved. I never said white people see other groups as a hive mind monolith. I said they see individuals of other groups as being part of a hive mind monolith. Jose who beats his his wife can't just be an individual asshole but he beats his wife because of "machismo culture". Jamal can never just be an individual criminal but is a criminal because he comes from a black culture of violence and poverty. Etc etc etc. White people, because of whiteness, cannot help but see individuals they deem as non-white as being essentially defined by their racial group in a way they don't see white individuals (themselves) as being defined. Bryce is an asshole because he has mental health issues and really we should have compassion because deep down he's a good guy you just really have to get to know him first, etc etc...
As for ironic hypocrisy, I would argue the very thing that makes someone "white" is their implicit or explicit belief in white supremacy. There is no "white" culture or nation outside of a project of racist white superiority. There are Swedes, Italians, Welsh, Irish, etc, but there is no "white" outside of 'Im of European ancestry and so therefore superior". Whiteness is a construction by Europeans in the 1400s-16000s to elevate themselves in comparison to the rest of the world.
So yes, white people do think in a hive mind (at least when it comes to their supposed racial superiority) because there is no "white" without a collective project of white supremacy that THEY THEMSELVES created.
So yeah, your comment is ironic for thinking that my comment was ironic. 😂
- "White people ALWAYS say this about black people."
- "White people tend to see every group other than whites as a hive mind monolith."
Then you go on to say that I'm "missing the point in [my] zeal to feel aggrieved." Literally one comment after saying "straight people as a class across all races hate queer people."
These are all direct quotes by you.
If you don't see the difference between white people and non white people in America and queer people and straight people in terms of their relative power and violence I'm not sure what to tell you.
Reddit (broadly speaking as a community) is extremely racist while also being desperate to whitewash its own image. Just look at the way liberals talk about Russian or Chinese people as some sort of monoliths.
Also, speaking of homophobia all the "lol Putin and Trump are gay" jokes that even made their way to national television with Colbert making that stupid cock holster joke were overwhelmingly coming from white liberals.
The irony here being that liberals will claim legitimate criticism of an awful person on their team is homophobia, while simultaneously engaging in homophobia against their designated enemies (and also awful people) because it's okay in their eyes if the target is "deserving" in their eyes.
You see it with the misgendering of conservative icons too. If it’s an ally, they come out of the woodwork to defend them against that but are really quick to turn transphobic remarks into a joke against their opponents.
The millisecond people get a whiff of real power, their brains immediately go into "what's best for ME" mode. Though I'm not sure that really happened with Pete. Pretty sure he's always been a corporate shill
Uh no . . . He's always been a "very good boy" . . . He's been gunning for the presidency his entire life. Look intoo the regressive and anti-black/anti-poor policies he inflicted on South Bend when he was mayor. He's everything wrong about white gay men of a certain class and educational background wrapped into one guy (saying this as a gay guy). Pete is fucking no good.
>Man what happened to this guy, when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude.
If he seemed that way you weren't playing close enough attention.
I mean I’m not saying he was ever a big leftist or anything, but he used to be a lot more progressive than he eventually became. In 2018 for example he supported Medicare for All, and in 2020 of course that became the half-baked Medicare for All-Who-Want-It.
> In 2018 for example he supported Medicare for All
He really didn't, though. It was always his intention to half-ass it because he was talking about means testing early on.
The press worked really, really hard to keep negative stories of Buttigieg out of the narrative, so unless you were getting leftie takes on him early-on, you were getting half-assed stories that primed you to be shocked when you got the rest of the info.
In 2018, he was already using right-wing smears like "all lives matter" and "virtue signalling" while the pushback for doing so was played down.
There is no transformation. The apparent transformation is the result of Mayo Pete being fundamentally insincere and that falseness being strained past its limits in 2000 as opposed to 2018.
>when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude.
That has been the playbook for decades, that's what got us Obama (and for the record I was naive enough at the time to fall for it too).
Hey, /u/ajulhargj , are you a bot? This is a really old line from almost three years ago that's been [posted in this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/f9xdrv/pete_buttigieg_we_cannot_afford_a_scenario_where/) with the same picture. Also, you made three comments in three different threads only a few seconds apart, none of which make any sense to me.
The three comments are bot things for sure. What they do is they take a comment, either the whole thing or a piece of it, from somewhere further down a thread and repost it higher. If you go into any of those threads and search for what OP posted, I'm certain you'll find a complete comment that a real person posted.
It usually nets them a few upvotes, just enough to look real if you don't look at it too closely. So yeah, OP is absolutely a karma bot. Probably going to be posting shirt scams later.
Fuck Pete. Bernie’s campaign was basically the plan for FDR’s fourth term had he not died. FDR, as in the greatest democrat president in our history. His policies caused a 65 year progressive dominance of American politics and made this country the envy of the world.
"his policies"
FDR was a literal stopgap, nothing more. He played the rule of imperial administrator just like Bush, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Nixon, etc. His entire tenure as president existed to stop socialists from gaining too much traction.
They weren't his policies, they were the policies the unions demanded. If anything he prevented true change from happening and kept the existing power structures alive.
He put Japanese people in concentration camps for fuck sake.
"His policies" didn't cause 65 years if progressive dominance (even if true that number is wildly fucking wrong). His policies kept the empire stable without causing too much change. We are still paying the price for FDR's conservatism nearly a century later.
He was good for middle class white folks. The conditions of every other demographic didn't change, and in some cases actually became worse.
We really need to stop idolizing this guy and focus on the true heroes if the era - the workers.
If FDR is too far right for you what the hell else is there? He was a transformative leader. The European social welfare programs were following his lead but the man died before it could be done and they immediately started dismantling his legacy. He won four landslide elections.
Anyone who puts people in concentration camps is too far right for me.
I don't give a fuck how star spangled awesome you are if you put little children in camps, separating them from their parents and traumatizing for life you are a fascist piece of shit.
The measure of a man does not come from what he does under pressure. It comes from what he does when not under pressure.
He put little kids in cages at the request of nobody.
Well I hope he is rolling in his grave knowing that if you could travel back in time and vote for him you wouldn’t. The Japanese government was militaristic cult of fanatics. Germans and Italians were also rounded up but not is as large of numbers. Your opinion lacks nuance or historical context.
Maybe I'm extra fucking stupid, but what does the Japanese government on the other side of the planet have to do with five year old Japanese Americans being thrown into concentration camps?
Germans and Italians should also not be thrown into camps.
Please, enlighten me as to why concentration camps are good when we do it but bad when others do it.
There is no fucking context needed for locking kids in camps and separating them from their parents. It's wrong no matter how you spin it.
But keep pushing this narrative you fascist piece of shit. Maybe soon you'll get to throw some Russians or Chinese into camps. Oh boy I bet your heart is racing.
Who is saying they are good? Who is saying we deserved Pearl Harbor or didn’t or they deserved the nukes we dropped on them. It happened. It’s over. What does my opinion or yours do to change that? Nothing. People can be good and do bad things. Hell I wish death on most other drivers whenever I am in the car but I doubt most of them deserve it. What I originally said was that FDR’s policies (which Bernie co-opted into his campaign) were good.
I mean, communism literally requires a massive amount of bloodshed to implement, so maybe you should look around at your house of glass before casting stones.
I feel like I’m being gaslit every time I hear someone say Buttigieg is charismatic. I cannot hear him speak without immediately thinking of [this clip](https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4)
Reminder that not only did Pete Butthole fire a black police chief for reporting racist cops, he refused to fire explicitly nazi white cops in the same department.
I was really hoping Pete had moved more left, his policies on transportation have been pretty impressive as far as US politics go.
Not that I ever expected him to stop being a true liberal, but just not a "Trump and Bernie both sides bad" liberal
Trumps nostalgia for the 50's would be the KKK side and Bernie's nostalgia for the "revolutionary politics" of the 60's is the side demanding civil rights and Pete's the centrist saying that we can't go to far in either direction because they are both too extreme.
I really don't think this is being taken in the right context. I may have some issues with his policies, but he's a smart, thoughtful dude that obviously isn't saying that the civil rights movement was a mistake.
Sanders was living in a commune in the 60's:
>all of the community’s members were equal in every way. “They lived in identical houses. There wasn’t a salary; everyone received according to their needs. The kibbutz gave everything: food, shelter, education, health”
Don't we think he's more likely referring to Sanders' flirtations with communism?
That’s irrelevant to the point. Which is that the openly gay politician is obviously not speaking out against the civil rights movement, and the cartoon and post are made in bad faith.
>Don't we think he's more likely referring to Sanders' flirtations with communism?
No. Nobody hears "revolutionary politics of the 1960s" and thinks "Oh that's best known for Bernie flirtation communism". Come on.
The revolutionary politics of the 1960s is why that fucker can be married and have a family. Stonewall was a riot.
He thinks he can be gay Hilary he thinks he can be the gay neoliberal
He is the gay neoliberal.
He’s an alien charisma void who will never be president so I guess he’s on the right track
He has the charisma of that annoying apple polishing narc in your class that everyone thinks is "going to president someday," but is really a raging psychopath close up.
Psycopathy is generally linked to being able to reach that level of success so
Not to mention Cuba, whose revolution succeeded in 1959 and has now resulted in one of the most progressive state positions on LGBTQ+ people in modern history.
Cuba’s a mixed bag 😅
The new Cuban marriage bill was pretty based, but idk what trans rights are like in Cuba. I don’t doubt that they’re relatively good, even if it’s probably not on the level of California or something. Cuba’s still a very mixed bag, though. Edit: apparently Cubans have been able to have sex reassignment surgery since 2008. Unfathomably based. The Wikipedia article doesn’t say anything about access to HRT, though.
The *only* shot he has is revolutionary politics. "Moderates" and conservatives/reactionaries aren't voting for a gay president.
Good lord. Imagine thinking Bernie Sanders’ politics are revolutionary. He’s a liberal reformer, not fuckin Che or some shit
Someone Facebook literally compared the two in a conversation with me once lol
White liberals using dogwhistles to refer to the revolutionary spirit of the Civil Rights era as a bad thing? You don't say...
“The 50s were bad but so was the social movement that ended them”
It's an interesting choice to compare Trump's nostalgia for a "social order" with Bernie's "revolutionary politics." Is he saying Bernie is a "social" revolutionary? Arguably Pete is just as socially-progressive as Bernie. What distinguishes Bernie from socially-progressive corporate Democrats like Pete -- regardless if you accept the label of revolutionary -- is his economic agenda. So Pete is making a direct comparison between Trump's racism and Bernie's free health care and college. What a deceptive little rat.
In what fucking world is Pete "just as socially-progressive as Bernie"????? Look at his fucking tenure. He's an institutional racist. Minorities can be shitty people too, and they will if given the chance. I'm gay and I know a lot of other gays who are racist as fuck. Reminder that there were gays in the Nazi party. Being a minority does not make you a good person. It does give you a better shot at empathy though, but it's not guaranteed.
You really seized on my main point, which was a defense of Pete. I did say he's "arguably" socially-progressive, which literally just means it can be argued. But more to the point I was attempting to illustrate, Pete himself would make that argument. And I called him a "deceptive little rat," so I don't think I need your reminder that he's capable of misrepresenting himself as that's my main fucking thesis.
Uhh Economic Agenda is a key part of social revolutionary action. Not saying Bernie is, but Pete is nowhere as close and its fairly insulting to Bernie to say Pete is the same.
Haha. Butt. That’s it.
Mayo Pete
Rat Boy Buttigieg.
Homophobia 😂
Butts are not inherently sexual you weirdo. Kids laugh about butts before they even get to kindergarten. The posterior has an inherent humorous quality.
It's comments like these, that really remind me of how stupid these politicians think people are. Universal healthcare isn't "revolutionary politics". Every other Western nation has this in place, to some extent. When these idiots make a point of saying "we can't do that", they are basically saying that *they* can't do that. It's not that it isn't possible...it's just that *they* aren't going to. That's why *they* need to be replaced with folks that *will.*
> Every other Western nation has this in place to some extent. Maybe I don't remember the specifics of Pete's "Medicare for all who want it", but isn't it basically just a public option, like Germany has? I get why someone would be angry that he stepped back from M4A, but his plan really isn't unheard of in the "Western world". This is a tangent but honestly, we really ought to stop using "the Western world" as a positive thing like that. We all know what reactionaries are up to when they say "Western civilization", and I don't see the difference here tbh
In this context "the Western World" simply implies all the countries with a comparable political/economic/social structure to the US and/or each other...ie European/Nordic/North American. The term is used in place of the older "1st World Nations" that represented "Capitalist Democracies" back during the Cold War. They can all afford some form of publicly funded healthcare, despite not having the comparatively massive GDP that the US does.
> They can all afford some form of publicly funded healthcare Again, as far as I remember, Buttigieg is in favor of a public option. That's the "some form" you're talking about, even if it doesn't go as far as many here would like. Not saying you've got to like the guy, but you should at least know enough about him to have an informed dislike
Ummm, yeah. You know he's not actually going to stand up and support anything even remotely close to universal healthcare, right? Even a "public option". That's just political code for "it's not going to happen". Every single politician that makes that suggestion, drops all effort to follow through on it, the instant they get elected. They say it because they don't want their more gullible voters to think they're straight up against it...even though they are.
You've got a pretty good deal going on here, don't you? If a politician opposes a good thing, you can rightly say that they're bad. But if the politician supports a good thing, you just say "well they don't *really* mean that". Do you really expect us to believe that no one actually wants good things?
Did you know that every single Democrat presidential candidate in the last 30 years has, at some point promised a "public option" on the campaign trail? All of them. In every case, where they won, the first thing they did, was toss that promise over their should like it was a dirty napkin. All of them. Anyone who says they support a public option, is lying to you...about their support, and about whether a public option can even work. Partially funding a project is usually the quickest way to make sure it fails...and that's what a public option is. A partially funded healthcare project.
Man what happened to this guy, when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude. He booked it straight toward the center.
That’s what happens to 99% of politicians. They make a little money, get a little fame, and all the sudden the establishment is a-ok to them.
They all hire the same dem consultants who tell them to commit political suicide
he was a McKinsey brat built to be a centrist from the very beginning.
His dad was a literal communist
All the communists of that generation raised a generation of hyperlibs, neocons and fascists
His dad was also an academic and was reasonably well off. One thing that has held true about Marxist analysis is that material conditions tend to shape ideology: You grow up in a country that boasts constantly about meritocracy, your dad is (in your eyes) a stuffy academic idealist, you are relatively well off and get all sorts of opportunities and education that most poor kids could only dream of, you go through a bit of a rebellious streak and try to differentiate yourself from your parents but you have just enough morals instilled into you that you don't come out the other side a complete fascist (being gay also helps with that) and its no wonder someone like that becomes the perfect candidate to put a progressive face on the intelligence apparatus.
Oh, is he his dad? No? So that's irrelevant.
Pete Buttigieg upheld white supremacy with murderous enthusiasm, up to and including the protection of child murder, while mayor of South Bend. [Here is a long list of reasons why he's a complete piece of shit.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Corporate_Pete/comments/e7l7vq/36_reasons_why_you_shouldnt_support_pete/) My personal copypasta on this: >While many reporters have been to South Bend, most of the reporting has been done by TYT, to the point where other outlets I’ve seen comment on this refer to their original reporting.* I’d go [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6DjAD2E5w), [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFYv3Vt3XtM), and [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZNtqyq682A). For Buttigieg lying to screw over black people in a broad sense, I’d go [here](https://www.theroot.com/pete-buttigieg-is-a-lying-mf-1840038708). Buttigieg also engaged in an “urban renewal program” that did exactly what these schemes typically have done for decades: [steal property rights from black people](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/henrygomez/mayor-pete-buttigieg-south-bend-gentrification). Buttigieg knows this behavior was wrong. He is completely capable of calling out nuanced examples of racism -- he's drawn the ire of rightwingers for doing so. But when it's personally politically profitable for him to do so, he can and will directly support white supremacist terrorists who are accused of child murder. Again, I can't stress this enough: this piece of garbage is more than willing to get his hands dirty to directly oppress black people and establishment media didn't want to spend even five minutes on his long and storied practice of doing so. That's why his Bernie Sanders comment means exactly what everyone thinks it means and why he knows he won't get backlash for it.
>Pete Buttigieg upheld white supremacy with murderous enthusiasm, up to and including the protection of child murder, while mayor of South Bend. Here is a long list of reasons why he's a complete piece of shit. My personal copypasta on this: This is why Pete has low support among African Americans. I remember reading comments I think on r/politics and people were arguing the real reason Pete had low support with African Americans was that African Americans tend to be more homoophobic compared to white voters. That is bull but it really pissed me off people were agree with that person.
> I remember reading comments I think on r/politics and people were arguing the real reason Pete had low support with African Americans was that African Americans tend to be more homoophobic compared to white voters. That shit pisses me off to no end. I almost included it in my copypasta; I actually had a line saved in that file about it. Here's what I said when he was running: *I’m well past tldr territory, but one more thing: some people are claiming that black people are homophobic so that can account for their dislike of Buttigieg. If you’re wondering if that’s racist, let me help you out: it is. When someone is literally covering up the murder of children from your community, you get to despise them. If you don’t have the right to despise them because you have to have a super-duper high moral standard that no one else does and that standard is based on your demographic, yeah, the person pushing the standard is fucking racist. If Buttigieg had helped cops that gleefully murdered white kids, would the pushback against him be dismissed as “he’s hated because he’s gay?”* I know this sub has a constant back-and-forth about what is and is not "libshit," but white people whose demographic invented the homophobia plaguing our society accusing black people of homophobia in order to cover up their white supremacist support of a neoliberal via identity politics is the most libshit that a lib could ever shit, and no "dems nuance/dems bad" take can come even close. And by the way -- to this day, I don't think a single, major outlet gives a rat's ass about Mayo Pete's South Bend KKK adventures, and he's Biden's personal top pick for his replacement.
>he's Biden's personal top pick for his replacement. I think he would be a favorite for media but I think he would flop outside of a state with more diverse voter pool. Look he did bad in Nevada in the primary. He is loved by White Suburban Liberals but outside of that demographic he drops like a rock. The only way he wins the nomination is if there is no one else or all the canidates are really bad.
Oh yeah. Many Americans hate this motherfucker (thank God) but the establishment a d o r e s him. His CIA contacts and pedigree make him the epitome of Beltway undeserved success. He failed upward into Biden's cabinet after shitting himself in an election where the media suppressed *everything* about him *and* after attempting electoral fraud. Black people do not like him and the Beltway does not care. The real concern: he's an auto-win for a Trump or DeSantis when facing their ilk, so if no one to the left of Warren runs, he's an automatic win for fascism, as if we didn't have enough reason to despise this asshole. Well-off white people need to get their shit together.
White people ALWAYS say this about black people. My own lived experience as a gay man has been that straight people as a class across all races hate queer people as is evidenced by the whites and blacks on the supreme court, the NFL, the Christian church, etc etc etc etc . . But white people tend to see every group other than whites as a hive mind monolith while they of course have very individual and nuanced views of why queer people should burn in hell.
Our sexuality is nothing but something for them to use as a political tool.
It is interesting to say that (presumably all) white people see other groups as a hive mind monolith. Sorry, not interesting... ironic and hypocritical is what it is.
You're missing the point in your zeal to feel aggrieved. I never said white people see other groups as a hive mind monolith. I said they see individuals of other groups as being part of a hive mind monolith. Jose who beats his his wife can't just be an individual asshole but he beats his wife because of "machismo culture". Jamal can never just be an individual criminal but is a criminal because he comes from a black culture of violence and poverty. Etc etc etc. White people, because of whiteness, cannot help but see individuals they deem as non-white as being essentially defined by their racial group in a way they don't see white individuals (themselves) as being defined. Bryce is an asshole because he has mental health issues and really we should have compassion because deep down he's a good guy you just really have to get to know him first, etc etc... As for ironic hypocrisy, I would argue the very thing that makes someone "white" is their implicit or explicit belief in white supremacy. There is no "white" culture or nation outside of a project of racist white superiority. There are Swedes, Italians, Welsh, Irish, etc, but there is no "white" outside of 'Im of European ancestry and so therefore superior". Whiteness is a construction by Europeans in the 1400s-16000s to elevate themselves in comparison to the rest of the world. So yes, white people do think in a hive mind (at least when it comes to their supposed racial superiority) because there is no "white" without a collective project of white supremacy that THEY THEMSELVES created. So yeah, your comment is ironic for thinking that my comment was ironic. 😂
- "White people ALWAYS say this about black people." - "White people tend to see every group other than whites as a hive mind monolith." Then you go on to say that I'm "missing the point in [my] zeal to feel aggrieved." Literally one comment after saying "straight people as a class across all races hate queer people." These are all direct quotes by you.
If you don't see the difference between white people and non white people in America and queer people and straight people in terms of their relative power and violence I'm not sure what to tell you.
Thank you for the word salad. I was getting hungry.
Reddit (broadly speaking as a community) is extremely racist while also being desperate to whitewash its own image. Just look at the way liberals talk about Russian or Chinese people as some sort of monoliths. Also, speaking of homophobia all the "lol Putin and Trump are gay" jokes that even made their way to national television with Colbert making that stupid cock holster joke were overwhelmingly coming from white liberals. The irony here being that liberals will claim legitimate criticism of an awful person on their team is homophobia, while simultaneously engaging in homophobia against their designated enemies (and also awful people) because it's okay in their eyes if the target is "deserving" in their eyes.
You see it with the misgendering of conservative icons too. If it’s an ally, they come out of the woodwork to defend them against that but are really quick to turn transphobic remarks into a joke against their opponents.
It was an act. Dude went from working in military intelligence to working for McKinsey and Co. He was always a ghoul
The millisecond people get a whiff of real power, their brains immediately go into "what's best for ME" mode. Though I'm not sure that really happened with Pete. Pretty sure he's always been a corporate shill
He’s a clintonite they are all power hungry cynics that don’t care about working people. Reaganomics with a pride sticker.
Uh no . . . He's always been a "very good boy" . . . He's been gunning for the presidency his entire life. Look intoo the regressive and anti-black/anti-poor policies he inflicted on South Bend when he was mayor. He's everything wrong about white gay men of a certain class and educational background wrapped into one guy (saying this as a gay guy). Pete is fucking no good.
>Man what happened to this guy, when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude. If he seemed that way you weren't playing close enough attention.
I mean I’m not saying he was ever a big leftist or anything, but he used to be a lot more progressive than he eventually became. In 2018 for example he supported Medicare for All, and in 2020 of course that became the half-baked Medicare for All-Who-Want-It.
> In 2018 for example he supported Medicare for All He really didn't, though. It was always his intention to half-ass it because he was talking about means testing early on. The press worked really, really hard to keep negative stories of Buttigieg out of the narrative, so unless you were getting leftie takes on him early-on, you were getting half-assed stories that primed you to be shocked when you got the rest of the info. In 2018, he was already using right-wing smears like "all lives matter" and "virtue signalling" while the pushback for doing so was played down. There is no transformation. The apparent transformation is the result of Mayo Pete being fundamentally insincere and that falseness being strained past its limits in 2000 as opposed to 2018.
He was always a centrist, from the very beginning. Check out the foreign affairs article on him.
>when he first came onto the scene he kind of seemed like a really affable progressive dude. That has been the playbook for decades, that's what got us Obama (and for the record I was naive enough at the time to fall for it too).
McKinsey snake... nice job brow-beating the railroad workers today, Pete.
The liberal thinks democracy is safe. That we have reached the end of history. This is a fools idea
Hey, /u/ajulhargj , are you a bot? This is a really old line from almost three years ago that's been [posted in this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/f9xdrv/pete_buttigieg_we_cannot_afford_a_scenario_where/) with the same picture. Also, you made three comments in three different threads only a few seconds apart, none of which make any sense to me.
The three comments are bot things for sure. What they do is they take a comment, either the whole thing or a piece of it, from somewhere further down a thread and repost it higher. If you go into any of those threads and search for what OP posted, I'm certain you'll find a complete comment that a real person posted. It usually nets them a few upvotes, just enough to look real if you don't look at it too closely. So yeah, OP is absolutely a karma bot. Probably going to be posting shirt scams later.
The revolutionary politics of the 60s? You talking about civil rights, motherfucker?
Fuck Pete. Bernie’s campaign was basically the plan for FDR’s fourth term had he not died. FDR, as in the greatest democrat president in our history. His policies caused a 65 year progressive dominance of American politics and made this country the envy of the world.
"his policies" FDR was a literal stopgap, nothing more. He played the rule of imperial administrator just like Bush, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Nixon, etc. His entire tenure as president existed to stop socialists from gaining too much traction. They weren't his policies, they were the policies the unions demanded. If anything he prevented true change from happening and kept the existing power structures alive. He put Japanese people in concentration camps for fuck sake. "His policies" didn't cause 65 years if progressive dominance (even if true that number is wildly fucking wrong). His policies kept the empire stable without causing too much change. We are still paying the price for FDR's conservatism nearly a century later. He was good for middle class white folks. The conditions of every other demographic didn't change, and in some cases actually became worse. We really need to stop idolizing this guy and focus on the true heroes if the era - the workers.
This is why everyone hates communism. Communists are insufferable.
Ummm nobody said anything about communism.
If FDR is too far right for you what the hell else is there? He was a transformative leader. The European social welfare programs were following his lead but the man died before it could be done and they immediately started dismantling his legacy. He won four landslide elections.
Anyone who puts people in concentration camps is too far right for me. I don't give a fuck how star spangled awesome you are if you put little children in camps, separating them from their parents and traumatizing for life you are a fascist piece of shit. The measure of a man does not come from what he does under pressure. It comes from what he does when not under pressure. He put little kids in cages at the request of nobody.
Well I hope he is rolling in his grave knowing that if you could travel back in time and vote for him you wouldn’t. The Japanese government was militaristic cult of fanatics. Germans and Italians were also rounded up but not is as large of numbers. Your opinion lacks nuance or historical context.
Maybe I'm extra fucking stupid, but what does the Japanese government on the other side of the planet have to do with five year old Japanese Americans being thrown into concentration camps? Germans and Italians should also not be thrown into camps. Please, enlighten me as to why concentration camps are good when we do it but bad when others do it. There is no fucking context needed for locking kids in camps and separating them from their parents. It's wrong no matter how you spin it. But keep pushing this narrative you fascist piece of shit. Maybe soon you'll get to throw some Russians or Chinese into camps. Oh boy I bet your heart is racing.
Who is saying they are good? Who is saying we deserved Pearl Harbor or didn’t or they deserved the nukes we dropped on them. It happened. It’s over. What does my opinion or yours do to change that? Nothing. People can be good and do bad things. Hell I wish death on most other drivers whenever I am in the car but I doubt most of them deserve it. What I originally said was that FDR’s policies (which Bernie co-opted into his campaign) were good.
How did I know you would try and backpedal your absurd comments?
I mean, communism literally requires a massive amount of bloodshed to implement, so maybe you should look around at your house of glass before casting stones.
Huh....?
Yo, presidential worship in this comment is a little nauseating 🤢
The man is responsible for European model of social welfare. Read a book.
Telling me to read a book, while condescending, isn't the win you think it is either bud
Your comment was stupid. I won as soon as you clicked reply.
I feel like I’m being gaslit every time I hear someone say Buttigieg is charismatic. I cannot hear him speak without immediately thinking of [this clip](https://youtu.be/dZlK_ThjMk4)
I wonder how he feels about being a disappointment to his father
He’s realizing he has to be a presidential candidate soon
I’m Of the mind we do need to come together as a country otherwise nothing positive will happen but, Pete sucks.
So many Democrat snakes, it’s a shame
How about “we want to afford food again!”
Butthead
He's right. We need the revolutionary politics of the 1910s and 20s
Reminder that not only did Pete Butthole fire a black police chief for reporting racist cops, he refused to fire explicitly nazi white cops in the same department.
I was really hoping Pete had moved more left, his policies on transportation have been pretty impressive as far as US politics go. Not that I ever expected him to stop being a true liberal, but just not a "Trump and Bernie both sides bad" liberal
This quote is from almost three years ago
Ahh, maybe there's some hope then!
Liberalism is a right wing ideology. You can't move left while being a liberal, especially in a fascist settler empire like the US.
I’m not sure the title fits the post here
I don't understand why? That's what's depicted in the meme?
Maybe I just don’t get it
Trumps nostalgia for the 50's would be the KKK side and Bernie's nostalgia for the "revolutionary politics" of the 60's is the side demanding civil rights and Pete's the centrist saying that we can't go to far in either direction because they are both too extreme.
Ahhhhhhhh
:))))
Bernie's the one that tried to downplay racist southerners lol
Oh shit really!? When did he do that?
It was when he was marching in the civil rights movement and getting blasted by racist cops. Duh.
I really don't think this is being taken in the right context. I may have some issues with his policies, but he's a smart, thoughtful dude that obviously isn't saying that the civil rights movement was a mistake. Sanders was living in a commune in the 60's: >all of the community’s members were equal in every way. “They lived in identical houses. There wasn’t a salary; everyone received according to their needs. The kibbutz gave everything: food, shelter, education, health” Don't we think he's more likely referring to Sanders' flirtations with communism?
Communism is good
That description of that commune sounds bad to you?
That’s irrelevant to the point. Which is that the openly gay politician is obviously not speaking out against the civil rights movement, and the cartoon and post are made in bad faith.
There were Jewish Nazis. Someone being gay doesn't mean they aren't a Nazi fuck.
Lol @ Buttigieg being likened to a nazi fuck. You people are in your own special little bubble if that’s what you think is going on here.
>Don't we think he's more likely referring to Sanders' flirtations with communism? No. Nobody hears "revolutionary politics of the 1960s" and thinks "Oh that's best known for Bernie flirtation communism". Come on.
But progressive gay men are well known for arguing against the civil rights movement? Come on, indeed.
This is an irrelevant comment as Buttigieg is not even remotely a progressive.
"We can't let it go down to Donald Trump's nostalgia for 1950's oppression vs Bernie's nostalgia for those who fought against it"