How Would Pete Be Handling This?

[TheNomad]

Since we are all huddled inside listening to our neighbors loud coughing and preparing to die, let's discuss THIS lol

So, of anyone in this democratic primary, I personally felt Mayor Pete was a rare, authentic candidate.  Authentic in every way.  I felt he was a man ready to self-sacrifice to do a job for America instead of, well, funding his family and businesses through use of the office etc.  I felt like he was someone who - during a crisis like this - would be able to not only handle such a situation well, but would be able to CONNECT with Americans and make them feel safe.  To make us feel we were all in this together and we would do fine ultimately.

The reason I feel that, he is younger and comes with something of an inner care for other people.  If you met him, he's someone very "vulnerable" in that if just feels like he's another person on the street.  A Mayor can make you feel like that I suppose.  I felt NOTHING like that from other candidates.

What I felt from everyone else except for maybe Yang, just HARD political shells bent on blasting the other to make their voice heard.  Or, old political barnacles stepping up because "it's my turn" with nothing real to offer.  Or, ppl obsessed with tossing numbers or rejecting the numbers of others.

Pete was like F that, we live in a new reality, we have problems unsolved for a generation, we have NEW problems not understood by ppl on this stage, etc.

I feel if we saw him at the pulpit during this, we would all feel much more assured and much more willing to sacrifice anything.  I think younger ppl are, in part, making huge light of this because where is the information coming from?  A president is supposed to LEAD through a thing like this.  Maybe they don't believe the threat because they don't believe HIM.

[Warren Dew]

There isn't any simple solution here. You either kill a bunch of old, rich people by letting the epidemic run its course, or you ruin the lives of a bunch of young, working class people by sacrificing the economy to stop the epidemic.

It's a choice that nobody can handle well, because there's no good solution. Personally, I think in the face of that choice, Pete would crumple like used toilet paper, because he doesn't seem like the kind of person who can deal with difficult choices.

[TheNomad]

(03-22-2020, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: There isn't any simple solution here.  You either kill a bunch of old, rich people by letting the epidemic run its course, or you ruin the lives of a bunch of young, working class people by sacrificing the economy to stop the epidemic.

It's a choice that nobody can handle well, because there's no good solution.  Personally, I think in the face of that choice, Pete would crumple like used toilet paper, because he doesn't seem like the kind of person who can deal with difficult choices.

The way I view the Office?  The Office of the President of the USA?  Much differently as I get older.  I think a lot of ppl want that strong personality or someone standing there who is John Wayne or even Laura Roslin (fic. please look up) who can look at the cylon and decide whether or not to push that button.  While I loved Roslin and Wayne, a President has advisors for a reason.  A president does not have to be extremely knowledgeable in any particular sub-category.  It's about the way that person leads and how they humbly surround themselves with knowledgeable people.  I believe the Leader in a presidency has a strong background in chain of command to recognize they are at the top.

The top is never necessarily about you having been a CEO or a Banker or a Chairman.  It seems America has an obsession with leaders who handled money successfully unless they are Senators or Congresspeople.  Those seem to be the only avenues to that position.  Or, reaching back, you could have the right name or the right associations that want you there.

You mention two choices, I don't believe in 2 choices any more.  I just cannot.  I've lived long enough now to see that leads to nothing but gridlock.  You are correct there may be no good solution right now.  But we can still have the foresight to look to when this is over.  I sense the leadership at that time is gonna look very different.  I hope it does.  I also think the appearance of that leadership will inform us to where we are in the Turning.  But I was gonna post something there is probably full on right now Day 1 of the High.  It still feels like the Crisis, but we have been in Crisis for quite some time already.  Or at least, the attitude or catalyst that is pushing the High.

Who has language for this stuff except those who made it up.  I feel like 2008 was the beginning of the end of the High.  Or wtf ever.

[Eric the Green]

Bernie Sanders would have handled it well. Put forth broad-minded solutions, take the best of what you can get, and act swiftly. That would have been his approach. He was the best candidate.

But the best of a rather poor lot. Generation X is cynical of government, so candidates from that generation are not very good candidates. They may be highly skilled at other things, but the people who stepped up to politics from that generation are not their best ("they're not sending their best"-- DJT ha ha). So we are left with Boomers, mostly, and some of them are good candidates, but so far they have not been very good presidents. And we have the old Silents from the war baby cusp. They had great potential, but their time is about up.

I have to agree with Warren about Pete. Millennials may produce some good leaders, but they have not yet emerged either. Americans still do prefer a John Wayne type or a rich man. They want someone who gives the impression of being relatable, yet a strong and confident leader. They could probably elect a woman. But now that Biden has decided to choose a woman veep candidate, and probably needs to avoid choosing a senator, the field of possibilities is quite narrow and unlikely to produce a potential successor to him.

I hope he doesn't choose Harris. It's an attractive choice since she's ethnically diverse and a senator from a safe blue state. But two nasal-talking candidates won't come across too well in the campaign. She has zero chance of ever being elected president, and even if she succeeds Biden before his term is up she will likely lose an election in 2024.

[TheNomad]

(03-23-2020, 02:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bernie Sanders would have handled it well. Put forth broad-minded solutions, take the best of what you can get, and act swiftly. That would have been his approach. He was the best candidate.

But the best of a rather poor lot. Generation X is cynical of government, so candidates from that generation are not very good candidates. They may be highly skilled at other things, but the people who stepped up to politics from that generation are not their best ("they're not sending their best"-- DJT ha ha). So we are left with Boomers, mostly, and some of them are good candidates, but so far they have not been very good presidents. And we have the old Silents from the war baby cusp. They had great potential, but their time is about up.

I have to agree with Warren about Pete. Millennials may produce some good leaders, but they have not yet emerged either. Americans still do prefer a John Wayne type or a rich man. They want someone who gives the impression of being relatable, yet a strong and confident leader. They could probably elect a woman. But now that Biden has decided to choose a woman veep candidate, and probably needs to avoid choosing a senator, the field of possibilities is quite narrow and unlikely to produce a potential successor to him.

I hope he doesn't choose Harris. It's an attractive choice since she's ethnically diverse and a senator from a safe blue state. But two nasal-talking candidates won't come across too well in the campaign. She has zero chance of ever being elected president, and even if she succeeds Biden before his term is up she will likely lose an election in 2024.

Mayor Pete did not present well in the beginning.  He had to learn how to make love to the camera.  It's a thing I guess that has to be done now.  I remember him in 2019 and the difference is startling. 

I talk about Pete because he is relatable.  He had to learn how to be that.  He was (maybe is in private) a kind of stale personality.  Not someone flashy.  But Reagan the actor and a reality tv person?  That's what america trusts?

Cynical, hell yes.  I don't trust any of it.  As you know in this archetype, I have never known a time when government worked.  I may not know it before I'm gone.  Why would I not be cynical?  We get judged for a lot of things but that one seems obviously not our fault.

I would go so far as to say these books helped me out of cynicism.  I campaigned for Pete.  I couldn't have imagined that for myself a while back. 

Now that he is not involved, I will not vote.  I envisioned Pete as a person that could be, for me, a spark of a 1st Turning.  I envisioned (maybe with blind faith) he could capture his party.  The fact he did not capture it brings me full circle to my BELIEF that the current system cannot work and still is a game.  I won't play it.  I won't accept the best of the bad bunch.

They had a chance with Pete for victory.  I want ppl to imagine Pete on a debate stage with this president.

A veteran alongside a dodger.  Someone with a heart alongside a bully.  Someone with real faith as opposed to someone courting believers.  The difference would be SO stark, I believe ppl would have a real eye opener to what has been going on for the longest time.  The only thing he had against him was being gay.  I believe if he had a wife and a young child, it may have been a vision of camelot.  America could use a healthy dose of that in 2020.  I think the president would come out of something like that looking like a washed up fool.  Not because the other would toast him in barbs, but precisely that he WOULDN'T.

Our politics has a swamp to crawl out of.  It's a filthy process and Pete was a dose of wholesome.  Yeah, someone is gonna say gay is not wholesome, but that's the perspective I wished to avoid if he weren't.  Some ppl still can't get past that.

[David Horn]

(03-23-2020, 02:53 AM)TheNomad Wrote: … They had a chance with Pete for victory.  I want ppl to imagine Pete on a debate stage with this president.

A veteran alongside a dodger.  Someone with a heart alongside a bully.  Someone with real faith as opposed to someone courting believers.  The difference would be SO stark, I believe ppl would have a real eye opener to what has been going on for the longest time.  The only thing he had against him was being gay.  I believe if he had a wife and a young child, it may have been a vision of camelot.  America could use a healthy dose of that in 2020.  I think the president would come out of something like that looking like a washed up fool.  Not because the other would toast him in barbs, but precisely that he WOULDN'T.

Our politics has a swamp to crawl out of.  It's a filthy process and Pete was a dose of wholesome.  Yeah, someone is gonna say gay is not wholesome, but that's the perspective I wished to avoid if he weren't.  Some ppl still can't get past that.

Pete will be back. He would never have made it all the way this time; ageism would have done him in. We'll need him in the 1T, but he's probably out for the remainder of the 4T.

[TheNomad]

(03-23-2020, 11:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-23-2020, 02:53 AM)TheNomad Wrote: … They had a chance with Pete for victory.  I want ppl to imagine Pete on a debate stage with this president.

A veteran alongside a dodger.  Someone with a heart alongside a bully.  Someone with real faith as opposed to someone courting believers.  The difference would be SO stark, I believe ppl would have a real eye opener to what has been going on for the longest time.  The only thing he had against him was being gay.  I believe if he had a wife and a young child, it may have been a vision of camelot.  America could use a healthy dose of that in 2020.  I think the president would come out of something like that looking like a washed up fool.  Not because the other would toast him in barbs, but precisely that he WOULDN'T.

Our politics has a swamp to crawl out of.  It's a filthy process and Pete was a dose of wholesome.  Yeah, someone is gonna say gay is not wholesome, but that's the perspective I wished to avoid if he weren't.  Some ppl still can't get past that.

Pete will be back.  He would never have made it all the way this time; ageism would have done him in.  We'll need him in the 1T, but he's probably out for the remainder of the 4T.

When you envision those two men on a debate stage, what do you see?  I am only curious.

Pete is a small guy.  Slight and maybe what 5'8?  The president remember hovering behind Hillary and "stalking" her? I'm convinced had it not been Hillary Clinton - or any woman - none of "this" would have happened. 

So, here's this pragmatic guy who is only there because he wants to serve, speaking in a very measured and almost quiet tone vs a flashy roar and quip of a gameshow host/mafia don.  Unfortunately, too many are wooed by the latter.

But how do you see that playing out?  I want to envision it as such stark contrast ppl couldn't help but see the difference.  But that's me.

[pbrower2a]

(03-22-2020, 10:28 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: There isn't any simple solution here.  You either kill a bunch of old, rich people by letting the epidemic run its course, or you ruin the lives of a bunch of young, working class people by sacrificing the economy to stop the epidemic.

It's a choice that nobody can handle well, because there's no good solution.  Personally, I think in the face of that choice, Pete would crumple like used toilet paper, because he doesn't seem like the kind of person who can deal with difficult choices.

The deaths of prominent people in other countries is no indication that CORVID-19 is a "rich person's disease". Poor people are vulnerable to it. There will be plenty of bad judgments. CORVID-19 differentiates itself from many other viral infections by its uncharacteristic lethality. If one gets treatment for a lesser infection and gets exposed to CORVID-19 then one's excessive caution can get one killed. If one confuses CORVID-19 with some slighter attack and does not get treatment, then one risks dying of it for getting treatment too late. That is the tough decision for a person.

What normally happens is that a viral attack on respiratory systems circulates, kills some people already on the brink of death, but after people get mild infections they are no longer vulnerable because they have developed immunity. 

As for young adults -- a two-month lay-off is something from which they can recover. They have plenty of time in which to rebuild (so long as they stay healthy, of course. Figure that people will be quite stir-crazy after the quarantine ends. Figure that a quarantine is an opportunity to learn some marketable skills on line that make one more adept at what one already does. If one is laid off then one can make applications elsewhere. If you are using the time to play video games and watch replays o games of the 2019 Detroit Kittens  baseball team, then you are a schmuck and a loser. How one responds to hardship is a genuine test of character as demonstrated by farm kids who went off to war and (unless killed or crippled) came back more competent and confident. 

Nobody has a reasonable estimate of how many people this virus will kill and what the prognosis is for survivors. It may not be as reliably deadly as HIV/AIDS, but it is certainly easier to contract. 

People can make plans for this disease should they contract it. What do they take to the hospital? The cell-phone, the laptop computer, headphones, writing materials, a change of clothes, an address book... if I am obliged to go to a hospital 150 miles away then  it might be practical to drive.

I strongly suggest connecting to Project Gutenberg on the web (it is free, and it is a library containing practically all extant books in the public domain.

I hope that I am not sugar-coating this. You can make the best of a bad situation or you can make it worse. 

I expect serious shortages and gouging once the economy comes back on line. Deaths could range in anything from the few thousands to several million... even at the worst the Black Death left plenty of economic opportunities in its wake for survivors and weakened the feudal dependency that crushed the soul out of medieval life. Lower rents and shorter commutes, anyone?

[pbrower2a]

(03-23-2020, 02:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bernie Sanders would have handled it well. Put forth broad-minded solutions, take the best of what you can get, and act swiftly. That would have been his approach. He was the best candidate.

But the best of a rather poor lot. Generation X is cynical of government, so candidates from that generation are not very good candidates. They may be highly skilled at other things, but the people who stepped up to politics from that generation are not their best ("they're not sending their best"-- DJT ha ha). So we are left with Boomers, mostly, and some of them are good candidates, but so far they have not been very good presidents. And we have the old Silents from the war baby cusp. They had great potential, but their time is about up.

X did give us Barack Obama, who would crush Trump in an electoral match-up were it not for the 22nd Amendment if he so desired. His style of government might be more appropriate (as shown by someone of similar temperament such as Eisenhower). We could use his virtues again. Integrity, caution, and overall decency are traits worthy of seeking in a political leader. Is anyone not sickened by the arrogance, cruelty, abrasiveness, dishonesty, corruption, and demagoguery of Donald Trump? 

Quote:I have to agree with Warren about Pete. Millennials may produce some good leaders, but they have not yet emerged either. Americans still do prefer a John Wayne type or a rich man. They want someone who gives the impression of being relatable, yet a strong and confident leader. They could probably elect a woman. But now that Biden has decided to choose a woman veep candidate, and probably needs to avoid choosing a senator, the field of possibilities is quite narrow and unlikely to produce a potential successor to him.

I wish that we would consider big-city mayors with the caveat that they should not be machine hacks incapable of thinking outside the box. There is suburbia and there is rural America. Rural America produces the food, and whether one is a city-slicker like Donald Trump or such a farmer-turned-politician such as Joni Ernst or Devin Nunes (Yuck on those three!) one had better have a good farm policy lest food shortages bedevil at the least our export numbers if not cause food shortages here. One is anti-agriculture if one fails to take global warming seriously.

Quote:I hope he doesn't choose Harris. It's an attractive choice since she's ethnically diverse and a senator from a safe blue state. But two nasal-talking candidates won't come across too well in the campaign. She has zero chance of ever being elected president, and even if she succeeds Biden before his term is up she will likely lose an election in 2024.

After Trump, we are going to need to have some shrewd legal minds to undo the legal mess that we are in as a nation.

[David Horn]

(03-23-2020, 05:07 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(03-23-2020, 11:33 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-23-2020, 02:53 AM)TheNomad Wrote: … They had a chance with Pete for victory.  I want ppl to imagine Pete on a debate stage with this president.

A veteran alongside a dodger.  Someone with a heart alongside a bully.  Someone with real faith as opposed to someone courting believers.  The difference would be SO stark, I believe ppl would have a real eye opener to what has been going on for the longest time.  The only thing he had against him was being gay.  I believe if he had a wife and a young child, it may have been a vision of camelot.  America could use a healthy dose of that in 2020.  I think the president would come out of something like that looking like a washed up fool.  Not because the other would toast him in barbs, but precisely that he WOULDN'T.

Our politics has a swamp to crawl out of.  It's a filthy process and Pete was a dose of wholesome.  Yeah, someone is gonna say gay is not wholesome, but that's the perspective I wished to avoid if he weren't.  Some ppl still can't get past that.

Pete will be back.  He would never have made it all the way this time; ageism would have done him in.  We'll need him in the 1T, but he's probably out for the remainder of the 4T.

When you envision those two men on a debate stage, what do you see?  I am only curious.

Pete is a small guy.  Slight and maybe what 5'8?  The president remember hovering behind Hillary and "stalking" her? I'm convinced had it not been Hillary Clinton - or any woman - none of "this" would have happened. 

So, here's this pragmatic guy who is only there because he wants to serve, speaking in a very measured and almost quiet tone vs a flashy roar and quip of a gameshow host/mafia don.  Unfortunately, too many are wooed by the latter.

But how do you see that playing out?  I want to envision it as such stark contrast ppl couldn't help but see the difference.  But that's me.

Pete's style is to slice him up while smiling in his face.  He's erudite, which plays both ways. Trump has trouble with basic English, but that's OK with his posse, who speak in similar fashion.  If Pete's smart, and he certainly is, then the way to beat Trump is to piss him off the point that he goes 90% incoherent.  

In any case, it would be wonderful to watch.

[Eric the Green]

(03-24-2020, 06:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-23-2020, 02:25 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Bernie Sanders would have handled it well. Put forth broad-minded solutions, take the best of what you can get, and act swiftly. That would have been his approach. He was the best candidate.

But the best of a rather poor lot. Generation X is cynical of government, so candidates from that generation are not very good candidates. They may be highly skilled at other things, but the people who stepped up to politics from that generation are not their best ("they're not sending their best"-- DJT ha ha). So we are left with Boomers, mostly, and some of them are good candidates, but so far they have not been very good presidents. And we have the old Silents from the war baby cusp. They had great potential, but their time is about up.

X did give us Barack Obama, who would crush Trump in an electoral match-up were it not for the 22nd Amendment if he so desired. His style of government might be more appropriate (as shown by someone of similar temperament such as Eisenhower). We could use his virtues again. Integrity, caution, and overall decency are traits worthy of seeking in a political leader. Is anyone not sickened by the arrogance, cruelty, abrasiveness, dishonesty, corruption, and demagoguery of Donald Trump? 

Quote:I have to agree with Warren about Pete. Millennials may produce some good leaders, but they have not yet emerged either. Americans still do prefer a John Wayne type or a rich man. They want someone who gives the impression of being relatable, yet a strong and confident leader. They could probably elect a woman. But now that Biden has decided to choose a woman veep candidate, and probably needs to avoid choosing a senator, the field of possibilities is quite narrow and unlikely to produce a potential successor to him.

I wish that we would consider big-city mayors with the caveat that they should not be machine hacks incapable of thinking outside the box. There is suburbia and there is rural America. Rural America produces the food, and whether one is a city-slicker like Donald Trump or such a farmer-turned-politician such as Joni Ernst or Devin Nunes (Yuck on those three!) one had better have a good farm policy lest food shortages bedevil at the least our export numbers if not cause food shortages here. One is anti-agriculture if one fails to take global warming seriously.

Quote:I hope he doesn't choose Harris. It's an attractive choice since she's ethnically diverse and a senator from a safe blue state. But two nasal-talking candidates won't come across too well in the campaign. She has zero chance of ever being elected president, and even if she succeeds Biden before his term is up she will likely lose an election in 2024.

After Trump, we are going to need to have some shrewd legal minds to undo the legal mess that we are in as a nation.

No doubt Obama could have beat Trump. His score is 19-2. He was practically invincible. He was a cusper and so closer to the time when politics was more respected among young people deciding on their careers. Many Xers born further into the X years grew up under Reaganomics and cynical attitudes were stronger. I see no Xers who score high or otherwise show they can be effective candidates. Harris is smart but she is very poor as a presidential candidate. I voted for her for senate and for CA AG which she won by a razor thin margin. But president is a harder prize to win and candidates need high skills as candidates and must have the qualities that appeal to Americans as their leader.

[TheNomad]

(03-24-2020, 10:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Pete's style is to slice him up while smiling in his face. 

That's not really true.  He had to learn how to be "political" on the fly.  He's not naturally a spiteful or quick-witted person.  He's very learned and knowledgeable, yes.

I guess I'm always thinking of perception.  That IS what politics is mostly made of at that level.  All else seems to be in the background especially in elections.

So, here's a rather soft spoken person looking upward at this tall, old, haggard BULLY.  In a way, that could work against him.  Some in the ignorant populace would be imagining how they don't want "America" to look like Pete and want it to look more like what I just described.  But not so many as to destroy a chance, I think.

But when informed, you have a military veteran who knows weapons and defense, he's multi-lingual, he knows matters of the future infrastructure, etc.... just so different.  SO different.

I felt that what was needed this time is that stark contrast.  The idea of going with anyone in the president's age range, anyone who looked remotely like him (old, tired, worn), someone who has that rough exterior we have come to know with politicians - the multi-layers of "grime" on them from so many years of just GRIND....... to put that up against the president is doom.  It FEELS like apple v pear.  It doesn't feel like anything different.

I was all about "here is the new guy, the new WAY, the representation of America moving forward instead of revving the engine in neutral".

For me, that stark contrast - I felt - was going to push forward the Saeculum and further into the movement.  I feel like we aren't moving as we should.  Ppl here have tried to determine or call where we are IN the Crisis.  But I feel like we are stuck a little bit.  I am not talking like decades, but a few years.

I thought if someone like Pete was installed NOW, it could "ferment" good things in the entirety and cause maybe a smoother or easier transition.

[David Horn]

(03-24-2020, 07:13 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 10:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Pete's style is to slice him up while smiling in his face. 

That's not really true.  He had to learn how to be "political" on the fly.  He's not naturally a spiteful or quick-witted person.  He's very learned and knowledgeable, yes...

Pete is certainly quick-witted, and has been since he arrived on the public scene.  It's his strongest weapon.  When Trump called him Alfred E Neuman, he quipped that he totally missed the reference (understandable for his age), looked it up and credited Trump for using "a literary reference".  Note: Trump never used it again.

[TheNomad]

(03-25-2020, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 07:13 PM)TheNomad Wrote:

(03-24-2020, 10:58 AM)David Horn Wrote: Pete's style is to slice him up while smiling in his face. 

That's not really true.  He had to learn how to be "political" on the fly.  He's not naturally a spiteful or quick-witted person.  He's very learned and knowledgeable, yes...

Pete is certainly quick-witted, and has been since he arrived on the public scene.  It's his strongest weapon.  When Trump called him Alfred E Neuman, he quipped that he totally missed the reference (understandable for his age), looked it up and credited Trump for using "a literary reference".  Note: Trump never used it again.

Unlike others, his quips come from his staff.  The man has a sense of humor, but he isn't naturally ready to trade barbs.  I almost hate that politics pushes ppl to do that.

The Newman reference, how priceless an example of what I am saying.  The president would say something like that, and imagine this other person on the stage with a bewildered look.  It's exactly the type of stark contrast I am talking about.

I had thought that contrast would be so refreshing and unexpected, it would push voters to be like "wow, we have NEVER seen this in recent memory" and younger ppl especially might be refreshed by it and unnumbed to the process.

We've had battling and barbing for so long,  I don't know many ppl know what to expect but that.