Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
*** Official Pete Buttigieg Thread *** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
msommer
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Right, young people often don’t pay attention to politics as much as older people. They’ll also relate to someone close to their generation who better understands their experiences. They will believe someone younger than 70 may have more at stake in climate change. Younger people are also more accepting of homosexuality.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
i know in my heart that there's a Swift Boat awaiting Peteyjudge should he win the nomination. I rose my suspicions early in this thread that he might have cherry-picked his duty with an eye to posterity (he was already a mayor when deployed) in his military service and there could be something to put together within that.
ETA: Hopefully, he has mock-trialed that possibility as he's done w everything else
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Buttigieg wins handsdown over anybody when he gets the chance to explain himself. Iowa & NH give candidates that retail chance and that's why he's climbing there when he aint climbing elsewhere. Older people listen right away. Young people, minorities look awhile before they listen. All that people who just look know from Peteyjudge is gay chipmunk. He'll get to em when the field dwindles. He did a great job not being targeted in the last debate. His load-management has been wise & savvy so far
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yup. When people spend the time listening to Pete, they like him. My parents weren’t remotely interested in him at first - they are old people who loved Biden - but even they are now on the Pete bandwagon after watching interviews and the debates.
ericttspikes
Footballguy
No doubt. I'm not sure how surprising it will be based on the record of Trump and Republicans willingness to trash military vets. He'd just be another. I'm sure Trump will say Pete "just drove cars" or something else to diminish his service. I have no problem with military service as resume building. The fact he served expands life experience. Seeing first hand what goes on in active duty is positive to me no matter how a draft dodger will spin it. If nothing else, that line of attack will put a spotlight on why Trump got 5 deferments and never once volunteered.
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
If i'm right, it's already packaged, with "witnesses" ready to go. This kind of thing is at the heart of the Lee Atwater (killed Dukakis for Bush Sr with Willie Horton & the tank thing) tactics that Republicans used to become the majority minority. Dubya was a draft-dodger too, more or less, and got Kerry with the Swift Boat thing. I knew Atwater a little in the early 80s and the stuff he said was soooo predictive that it has colored my view of presidential campaigning ever since. Gave up on politics entirely after Obama went to #### in his first six months, sure that only a fiery unicorn of a reformer could divert us from the inevitable crash. Mayor Pete got me back in. Not fiery, but decent & sure. I think he's our last chance.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
OK. I said one week at the max. Today is one week, I think. Anyways, I have taken @Sinn Fein 's commentary here of the Mayor Pete event and added it to my photo page.
I also added a foreword and wrap up covering my night. First draft. Lemme know if you see any errors.
Mike Schmuhl and Lis Smith (In Support of Pete for America)
November 21, 2019
Belles Cocktail House
Lexington, KY
Thanks for everything Sinn.
Happy Thanksgiving all.
skol asylum
Footballguy
Great work guys.
Also, maybe I'm in the minority, but I never knew Sinn Fein was really Terry McAuliffe.
Actually, I think it was Tate Donovan I was thinking of...
https://www.google.com/search?q=tate+donovan&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ACYBGNT0mycVvxjFoleG8dHxygUbvWlg2A:1574955998346&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKscWmoI3mAhVaHjQIHYCcDyUQ_AUoAXoECA4QAQ&biw=412&bih
Also, maybe I'm in the minority, but I never knew Sinn Fein was really Terry McAuliffe.
Actually, I think it was Tate Donovan I was thinking of...
https://www.google.com/search?q=tate+donovan&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ACYBGNT0mycVvxjFoleG8dHxygUbvWlg2A:1574955998346&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKscWmoI3mAhVaHjQIHYCcDyUQ_AUoAXoECA4QAQ&biw=412&bih
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr Anonymous
Footballguy
It's coming long before that. And it's gonna come from the Dems, not the Republicans.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
There is no doubt about this. Lots of hate on Twitter already. Anecdotal, but Kamala Harris supporters seem most likely to go ad hominem.
Bonzai
Footballguy
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
On the contrary, I thought he was a poor writer. Between the anger and the constant cursing, it read like a rant you'd read on Facebook.
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Thnx man.
I am working on a version for a broader audience right now. In it, I am changing my comments slightly. Gonna make them a little more professional.
I still have the number for one of the students. I will forward the info. However, since they are not yet Pete supporters, I am hesitant about using their photos for a wider audience.
Legally, I have all of the copyrights necessary, but politically speaking, it has potential risks. The last thing that I want to do is give any local opponents an opportunity to accuse the campaign of misrepresentation. This has happened before.
I will post some examples next week and give everyone an opportunity to comment.
Also, because of the poor lighting and no flash, the pics are technically not very good. But, I don't think that's a big issue in telling the story.
Thnx for the links too. More later. Busy day for me here.
Mystery Achiever
Footballguy
A little anecdote on interest among young voters:
At the parade yesterday, a bunch of 20-somethings were walking through the crowd with a life-size Pete cutout, an ipad to register people for his list, and PA For Pete stickers.
I also asked them if he had any planned local appearances and apparently he made a pit stop pretty close to me last month,
At the parade yesterday, a bunch of 20-somethings were walking through the crowd with a life-size Pete cutout, an ipad to register people for his list, and PA For Pete stickers.
I also asked them if he had any planned local appearances and apparently he made a pit stop pretty close to me last month,
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic
Footballguy
The twitter discourse about this has been hot garbage. Par for the course on there, I guess.
In one corner, you have Sanders fans who are simultaneously arguing that 1) Universal free public college won't benefit the rich because the rich send their kids to private schools, and 2) Universal programs are more politically viable because the rich benefit from them too.
In the other corner, you have people totally ignoring the fact that by paying higher taxes, rich people still end up being the losers in these universal free college plans. Framing the Warren/Sanders plans as "handouts to the rich" is a little disingenuous, and claiming that the middle class would fund such programs (as the woman in that twitter thread did) is pretty much a straight-up lie.
Overall, if our goal is to reduce college expenses for disadvantaged kids, tuition assistance isn't the way to go. For the poorest kids, living expenses are the biggest financial hurdle in college, not tuition. The biggest winners of zero-tuition programs, both universal and means-tested, would be middle class families.
caustic
Footballguy
Gotcha. I think if I'm Pete, my main concern w/r/t young voters is their propensity to side with "transformational change" candidates - Bernie & Warren dominate the 18-29 cohort, old age be damned. Pete has consciously positioned himself as more of a pragmatist, which helps him with certain groups of people, just not young voters IMO. Personally, I'm an under-30 voter myself - I'm not really a burn-the-house-down lefty but I still come away a little unimpressed after reading through some of Pete's plans. I was intrigued when he kicked off the campaign talking about "generational justice" as a priority of his, but I haven't seen that priority translated into policy yet.
Navin Johnson
Footballguy
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
I think AOC answered that one for you. But cool to see him using Republican rhetoric. Shows what he is.
Tweets from AOC:
“Just like rich kids can attend public school, they should be able to attend tuition-free public college,” the freshman lawmaker said.
In a follow-up tweet she said, “Everyone contributes & everyone enjoys. We don’t ban the rich from public schools, firefighters, or libraries bc they are public goods.”
“Many children of the elite want to go to private, Ivyesque schools anyway,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted arguing that schools benefit from having an array of students, rich and poor.
“I can’t believe we have to remind people of this, but it’s GOOD to have classrooms (from pre-k through college) to be socioeconomically integrated,” she said.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
My intuition is that this is exactly right. Billionaires aren't sweating a $30K/yr bill for their state's flagship public university. But middle class families -- and this includes folks in the upper middle class -- often do. Speaking as someone in the UMC with one kid in college and one more on her way, free college would be a nice windfall for my wife and me, and it would materially affect our net worth. But public policy shouldn't be designed to benefit people like me who are already financially secure. This proposal is like the home mortgage interest deduction all over again.The biggest winners of zero-tuition programs, both universal and means-tested, would be middle class families.
Edit: Seriously, the Karamazov household would make out like bandits under this policy. I have one kid at a public flagship one state over (in-state reciprocity) and the other is heading to a land-grant in a different region of the country with partial reciprocity (Western Undergraduate Exchange). When you consider that we've already got probably more college money squirreled away than what we'll really need, this is just a pure hand-out to me. As wonderful as I am, I can't credibly argue that this is good policy-making.
Last edited by a moderator:
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Should we charge you for K-12? This would be good policy making by your standards.
But I take it your a Republican.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
No, I think we have the balance about right currently. Everybody gets free access to a general education that's necessary for nearly any line of work. If you want further education or vocational training beyond that, you're the one who's going to primarily reap the benefits so you're the one who should primarily pony up. (Providing free K-12 education is really part of the social safety net, not a public good, but I'm fine with that). We subsidize higher education by approximately the right amount IMO.
And no, I'm not a Republican.
I'd say if we are going to expand "free" education, we should probably do it on the preschool side.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I mean, right now we have a system that works approximately like this:
K-12 education: free for everybody (who chooses to go to a public school)
BS/BA: heavily subsidized for everybody (who chooses to go to a public school)
Graduate degrees: almost entirely paid for by the student
That balance strikes me as exactly right. All three types of education are both excludable and rival, so none of them is really a public good in the technical sense, although that won't stop people from using that term. We provide public funding for education because we think it's better to provide up-front support in the form of education than back-end support in the form of welfare, and I fully endorse that decision. But at some point, it's just unfair to ask blue-collar families to subsidize law school degrees and MBAs for upper-middle class kids.
(I don't honestly know how or how much we subsidize vocational training -- I would be fine with treating it like undergraduate education).
K-12 education: free for everybody (who chooses to go to a public school)
BS/BA: heavily subsidized for everybody (who chooses to go to a public school)
Graduate degrees: almost entirely paid for by the student
That balance strikes me as exactly right. All three types of education are both excludable and rival, so none of them is really a public good in the technical sense, although that won't stop people from using that term. We provide public funding for education because we think it's better to provide up-front support in the form of education than back-end support in the form of welfare, and I fully endorse that decision. But at some point, it's just unfair to ask blue-collar families to subsidize law school degrees and MBAs for upper-middle class kids.
(I don't honestly know how or how much we subsidize vocational training -- I would be fine with treating it like undergraduate education).
skol asylum
Footballguy
Simply expand high school two more years and teach trades/college generals. Expand property taxes to pay for it. You could make those two years optional. Anything above that, expand grants and low interest loans. I'm not buying total free rides for 4 year degrees though I also could really use it for my two kids.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
1. It's less subsidized than it used to be. Most states have dramatically reduced their support for public universities. But in most states undergraduates still don't pay the full cost (distinct from price) of their attendance.
2. Student debt isn't a serious issue in this particular area. Students attending public universities for undergraduate degrees aren't the horror stories you hear about -- those are people seeking graduate degrees and/or people attending for-profit universities.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
You got me -- I really don't know very much about the economics of public universities.
msommer
Footballguy
1.How much was the subsidy before the cutbacks
2. Why are the current subsidy levels better than the previous ones? What are they achieving in terms of education and not budget balancing
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It varies from state to state, but as a general rule of thumb, it was common for state governments to fund around half of public universities' budgets prior to the financial crisis. That number is now significantly lower in most states, and as low as single digits in some states. I think University of Florida is public in name only. My state still covers about 40% of my university's budget, but we're not normal unfortunately.
I'm not opposed to increased state support for higher ed. I'll cop to being self-interested here since higher state funding makes my life easier, but I think we've veered a little too far in the "not subsidized quite enough" direction.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
A focus group conducted for his campaign over the summer in South Carolina found that many African-Americans, and particularly black men, were uncomfortable with him being a gay, married man. Earlier this month, Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina lawmaker and number three Democrat in the House, said many older African-Americans struggle with the fact that Mr Buttigieg is gay. “A lot of people my age . . . feel that way,” said Mr Clyburn, 79, before adding that younger African-Americans would be more tolerant.
https://www.ft.com/content/aac96998-11aa-11ea-a7e6-62bf4f9e548a
pollardsvision
Footballguy
Parents and trusted adults have spent a generation allowing (encouraging, even) children to make make major financial decisions that they are not equipped to make?
In the current set-up, it it entirely possible for someone of little means to pay for a quality education that will lead to great employment prospects.
But when you give 18 year olds that have never had a job or paid a bill access to endless amounts of cash, some really bad decisions happen (loans for private or for-profit schools, stupid majors, not graduating, taking forever to graduate, bloated lifestyle expenses, etc).
Any "solution" proposed that does not involve stopping or heavily, heavily regulating the current system of taxpayers backing predatory loans to 18 year olds is not one I can take seriously. If we don't stop dumping funny money into the system, then keeping college costs in check is just a pipe dream.
Won't happen, of course, because too many people one both sides of the aisle are feasting off these kids.
msommer
Footballguy
Do you have statistics to back up this assertion or is it opinion.
Care to share your reasoning for calling student loans predatory?
pollardsvision
Footballguy
When you loan large sums of money to people with no job, no credit history, no financial literacy at all, and no real inspection to make sure the borrower has a good plan to pay it back, I call that predatory.
These loans aren't bankruptable. Why? Because they are generally terrible loans. If they were bankruptable nobody would do them.
Statistics? We got an entire generation of citizens drowning in student loan debt. A true crisis. What other statistics would you like?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s a sad truth. And here’s what they’re not telling you: it’s the old, conservative blacks who vote in these states, not the young ones. Young blacks, like young people everywhere, are far more progressive than their elders, but they don’t show up at the ballot box. The older people do, the churches organize their voting (a tradition in states like South Carolina that goes back to the Civil Rights marches), and they control things.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
This gets back to the point I was making in the other thread - not only do many white Christians (usually older) that would normally vote R think their way of life is under attack but the same holds for black Christians (usually older) who would normally vote D.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Imagine if school loans were evaluated by loan offic4ers for potential return, actuarial assurances the loans would be repaid, or are at least a good financial bet. Would Arts History, Women's studies, Black Studies, Psychology majors even be able to obtain school loans. I get that engineers, architects, computer designers and systems analysts would, but the others?
Folks are making bad economic decisions. this allows universities to continue perpetuating and propagating an educational system designed for the1700's and pricing models based on hysteria. When the crash comes, and it will come, it will fall hard.
Folks are making bad economic decisions. this allows universities to continue perpetuating and propagating an educational system designed for the1700's and pricing models based on hysteria. When the crash comes, and it will come, it will fall hard.
This is an interesting question. Certainly a model of funding college where liberal arts essentially disappear would not be ideal either.
ren hoek
Footballguy
There doesn't seem to be any explanation for this other than guaranteed loan programs that subsidize extravagant cost increases by universities. Like a drifter walking into a car lot with no job or collateral and pulling out with a brand new Land Rover. Pure insanity.
I do wonder how a "K-16" approach to college would handle cost versus the federally-backed windfall we have now. Something's got to give.
I do wonder how a "K-16" approach to college would handle cost versus the federally-backed windfall we have now. Something's got to give.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Nor would I suggest that it would be. I suggest, however, that going into massive debt to graduate with a degree in psychology with no idea how one is going to be employed to pay back the loan for a degree which is not marketable is unwise and needs to be discouraged. We need civil engineers, materials developers, bioengineers, civil engineers, geneticists, doctors and the like and a lot less degreed waitress at TGIFridays. I don't drop a Ferrari engine in my 1973 Ford Pinto. Our expectations of a college education have not been matched with a rational economic evaluation of its worth or application. Some college is wonderful. All college is stupid ,and we are allowing, even encouraging stupid people to make stupid decisions on government loans. Lets stop. Lets deliver the bad news before we couple the bad news with the worse news of massive debt. Hey, high school c- student who took three years to complete your freshman year of college and who is hoping to pass his music appreciation class to keep eligible, and who is thinking that maybe a degree in sociology will be the way to go because he sort of gets the concepts and there are a lot of hot chicks in that major; you are not college material. You are going to regret going into debt for a degree which will not get you employed. Go to Vo tech. Become a plumber. My plumber makes more than I do, at least on a per hour basis. Learn to do HVAC, install solar, tailor cloths, mine, do flat work, something, but don't get 6 figures in debt hoping the employment fairy is going to bail you out. There are no fairies, never were. There is no Santa. The world has harsh realities whether you want to face them or not. Bills come due.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
You know all about that, you seem to ignore the student burden and what enriches those institutions that somehow get more costly when technology should render those institutions useless.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
Also I paid for my one step daughter to go to college and she graduated with very little debt. She makes six figures and does well.
My niece who took out over 100k in loans. Got masters from Otis's school and was Beto's press secretary is a much worse position and 31. But she was raised by a single mother.
In the end Trump and corporate dems benefit me a lot. I know it's wrong or the life expectancy in the USA, the wealthiest country on earth wouldn't be declining. Where else is this happening?
My niece who took out over 100k in loans. Got masters from Otis's school and was Beto's press secretary is a much worse position and 31. But she was raised by a single mother.
In the end Trump and corporate dems benefit me a lot. I know it's wrong or the life expectancy in the USA, the wealthiest country on earth wouldn't be declining. Where else is this happening?
