indri🐉🐝🍷🚲
@indri4biking.bsky.social
chemistry, transportation, climate
#TeamPete
#TeamPete
Too many. Including Democrat and independents.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
November 13, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Too many. Including Democrat and independents.
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
Tell me if you see "persuading hardcore MAGA" in that PBS article.
November 13, 2025 at 3:07 PM
Tell me if you see "persuading hardcore MAGA" in that PBS article.
Sure. But you actually have to *find* a statement saying what you claim that "fantasy" is. Or rather many statements b/c "liberals" means a category, not just one individual.
November 13, 2025 at 2:32 PM
Sure. But you actually have to *find* a statement saying what you claim that "fantasy" is. Or rather many statements b/c "liberals" means a category, not just one individual.
More "belligerently stupid" than claiming that "liberals have this fantasy that if you put Pete Buttigieg on Fox News enough times, he'll win over their diseased, conspiracy-ridden brains."?
November 13, 2025 at 2:17 PM
More "belligerently stupid" than claiming that "liberals have this fantasy that if you put Pete Buttigieg on Fox News enough times, he'll win over their diseased, conspiracy-ridden brains."?
Nobody believes that Pete talking common sense on Fox News wins over hard core MAGAs. The target are those who watch it by default, b/c their spouse/father is watching it, in a waiting room ...
November 13, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Nobody believes that Pete talking common sense on Fox News wins over hard core MAGAs. The target are those who watch it by default, b/c their spouse/father is watching it, in a waiting room ...
It's actually a good example how opinion can be manipulated and a narrative created. Just claim "he stopped talking about X" and play a clip of Y. Few people are watching whole town halls or debates to see that he did in fact talk about X too. And other repeat the claim without checking the source.
November 13, 2025 at 5:47 AM
It's actually a good example how opinion can be manipulated and a narrative created. Just claim "he stopped talking about X" and play a clip of Y. Few people are watching whole town halls or debates to see that he did in fact talk about X too. And other repeat the claim without checking the source.
I was closely following *Pete* at the time, that's why I know that the arguments in that video are wrong, misleading and/or made up.
Politicians change their pitch all the time and sometimes it's even justified by new information, but Pete specifically did not and it's easy to prove.
Politicians change their pitch all the time and sometimes it's even justified by new information, but Pete specifically did not and it's easy to prove.
November 13, 2025 at 5:47 AM
I was closely following *Pete* at the time, that's why I know that the arguments in that video are wrong, misleading and/or made up.
Politicians change their pitch all the time and sometimes it's even justified by new information, but Pete specifically did not and it's easy to prove.
Politicians change their pitch all the time and sometimes it's even justified by new information, but Pete specifically did not and it's easy to prove.
The idea that Pete stopped talking about SCOTUS reform b/c donors allegedly didn't like it was completely made up. He continued talking about it, including at a debate just around the time that narrative was created.
November 12, 2025 at 11:14 PM
The idea that Pete stopped talking about SCOTUS reform b/c donors allegedly didn't like it was completely made up. He continued talking about it, including at a debate just around the time that narrative was created.
Pete changed his wording a little after Sanders and Warren chased each other to the left but he never changed any policy position. He put more emphasis on mental health for example b/c that's what voters wanted to talk about. And got more into the details of reducing drug prices.
November 12, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Pete changed his wording a little after Sanders and Warren chased each other to the left but he never changed any policy position. He put more emphasis on mental health for example b/c that's what voters wanted to talk about. And got more into the details of reducing drug prices.
Mehdi Hasan is one of the people spreading the edited interview with Stephanopoulos and using it as "evidence" for Pete changing his position on m4a when in fact he explicitly talked about a public option and even called it "m4a who want it".
November 12, 2025 at 11:11 PM
Mehdi Hasan is one of the people spreading the edited interview with Stephanopoulos and using it as "evidence" for Pete changing his position on m4a when in fact he explicitly talked about a public option and even called it "m4a who want it".
Buttigieg didn't move at all in 2020. People just either projected their own ideas onto his words or deliberately created that narrative. With clips of him talking about "medicare for all" carefully edited to leave out the "who want it" part for example.
November 12, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Buttigieg didn't move at all in 2020. People just either projected their own ideas onto his words or deliberately created that narrative. With clips of him talking about "medicare for all" carefully edited to leave out the "who want it" part for example.
I'd say the characterization of his positions or rather of him changing his position is wrong. He didn't express himself as well as he usually does in that one interview though.
November 12, 2025 at 4:41 PM
I'd say the characterization of his positions or rather of him changing his position is wrong. He didn't express himself as well as he usually does in that one interview though.
Are you ok?
He's been standing up for air traffic controllers, he's been campaigning in VA and NJ for candidates who have flipped seats, he's doing a town hall. And he's helping a friend.
He's been standing up for air traffic controllers, he's been campaigning in VA and NJ for candidates who have flipped seats, he's doing a town hall. And he's helping a friend.
November 12, 2025 at 4:40 PM
Are you ok?
He's been standing up for air traffic controllers, he's been campaigning in VA and NJ for candidates who have flipped seats, he's doing a town hall. And he's helping a friend.
He's been standing up for air traffic controllers, he's been campaigning in VA and NJ for candidates who have flipped seats, he's doing a town hall. And he's helping a friend.
AIPAC currently isn't the same as AIPAC 30 years ago. The Netanyahu government isn't the same as under Yitzhak Rabin, who got murder for trying to make peace.
November 12, 2025 at 3:55 PM
AIPAC currently isn't the same as AIPAC 30 years ago. The Netanyahu government isn't the same as under Yitzhak Rabin, who got murder for trying to make peace.
Grossman was AIPAC president when Pete was in middle school. When Yitzhak Rabin was the Prime minister working on peace deals and autonomy for Palestinians. And got assassinated for it.
He later was DNC chair and his endorsement had nothing to do with Israel. The world was different in 1994 vs 2019.
He later was DNC chair and his endorsement had nothing to do with Israel. The world was different in 1994 vs 2019.
November 12, 2025 at 3:52 PM
Grossman was AIPAC president when Pete was in middle school. When Yitzhak Rabin was the Prime minister working on peace deals and autonomy for Palestinians. And got assassinated for it.
He later was DNC chair and his endorsement had nothing to do with Israel. The world was different in 1994 vs 2019.
He later was DNC chair and his endorsement had nothing to do with Israel. The world was different in 1994 vs 2019.
True about the president, I should have checked the result of the AI search.
Can you point me to the source of the claim that he endorsed Buttigieg in 2020?
Can you point me to the source of the claim that he endorsed Buttigieg in 2020?
November 12, 2025 at 3:32 PM
True about the president, I should have checked the result of the AI search.
Can you point me to the source of the claim that he endorsed Buttigieg in 2020?
Can you point me to the source of the claim that he endorsed Buttigieg in 2020?
AIPAC mainly donates to Republicans. Why should any Democrat explicitely "denounce" one of many rightwing organizations? Obviously they shouldn't actively court them.
November 12, 2025 at 2:48 PM
AIPAC mainly donates to Republicans. Why should any Democrat explicitely "denounce" one of many rightwing organizations? Obviously they shouldn't actively court them.
There's no president of AIPAC. Not sure whose endorsement you mean. Pete, like most other candidates, didn't appear at any AIPAC event which should have made rather clear that he wasn't interested in their support.
November 12, 2025 at 2:31 PM
There's no president of AIPAC. Not sure whose endorsement you mean. Pete, like most other candidates, didn't appear at any AIPAC event which should have made rather clear that he wasn't interested in their support.
$50 from someone working for AIPAC. Do you think people should be excluded from supporting candidates and causes based on who they work for? Or what someone thinks their personal opinion might be on any specific issue?
November 12, 2025 at 2:18 PM
$50 from someone working for AIPAC. Do you think people should be excluded from supporting candidates and causes based on who they work for? Or what someone thinks their personal opinion might be on any specific issue?
He never took any money from AIPAC.
Do you take him seriously now that this is settled?
Do you take him seriously now that this is settled?
November 12, 2025 at 5:48 AM
He never took any money from AIPAC.
Do you take him seriously now that this is settled?
Do you take him seriously now that this is settled?
Any evidence that what you call "bundled donations of people affiliated with corporate groups" isn't just donations by people *working for* Microsoft or Kaiser?
B/c that's what the OpenSecret data actually show.
B/c that's what the OpenSecret data actually show.
November 11, 2025 at 10:17 AM
Any evidence that what you call "bundled donations of people affiliated with corporate groups" isn't just donations by people *working for* Microsoft or Kaiser?
B/c that's what the OpenSecret data actually show.
B/c that's what the OpenSecret data actually show.
So getting $14m from a single donor is acceptable b/c it's "just a doctor" (who has the wealth to throw away this kind of money on a doomed campaign).
But limited donations from maybe 100 people working for a company you don't approve of is "egregious" corruption?
Talk about different standards.
But limited donations from maybe 100 people working for a company you don't approve of is "egregious" corruption?
Talk about different standards.
November 11, 2025 at 10:12 AM
So getting $14m from a single donor is acceptable b/c it's "just a doctor" (who has the wealth to throw away this kind of money on a doomed campaign).
But limited donations from maybe 100 people working for a company you don't approve of is "egregious" corruption?
Talk about different standards.
But limited donations from maybe 100 people working for a company you don't approve of is "egregious" corruption?
Talk about different standards.
Maybe the one asking has to be the candidate rather than some rando on social media?
November 11, 2025 at 8:35 AM
Maybe the one asking has to be the candidate rather than some rando on social media?
He's "unfit for public office" b/c you are making stuff up? As I said, inventing some imaginary persona to get mad at.
November 10, 2025 at 10:22 PM
He's "unfit for public office" b/c you are making stuff up? As I said, inventing some imaginary persona to get mad at.
That Boot-Edge-Edge came from Pete's campaign, with signs and all. But I remember Trump being extremely proud the first time he said it.
November 10, 2025 at 10:20 PM
That Boot-Edge-Edge came from Pete's campaign, with signs and all. But I remember Trump being extremely proud the first time he said it.