Jump to content

Buttigieg 2020

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Buttigieg’s argument is that you can’t properly tackle those issues without democratic reform first.

That's nonsense, because you can.  Hard but doable.

It comes across as a shitty defeatist argument.  That's why I don't like it.

Dems are demographically set for a big win if they don't shit the bed.  Act like fucking winners.  Not whiners.

It's like you spend 10 years trying to get your offensive line/tight end in shape to win it all, and right before the season, you argue that everyone should switch to 7 man football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Hank Kingsley
Hank Kingsley

and English.   

henrygandorf
henrygandorf

look dude, i understand that the political forum is "the wild west", but in a sea of bad takes and unnecessary obnoxiousness for the sake of theater likely stemming from some sort of irrational fear,

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster

Now that it’s over... Pete wasn’t ready to be President, but a giant fuck you to the Bernie crew for how personal and intense the attacks got against him.  

Posted Images

tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think there should also be a distinction between platforming and positioning this (rethinking supreme court structure) as a candidate and simply being able to discuss it in an educated way as one of many constitutional systems he considers outdated.

we should want our candidates/elected officials to be able to answer all our questions, not just the 4 they've memorized for soundbytes. 

That's absolutely correct.  However, in our current media environment, even answering the question provides soundbytes to the opposing side.

If any of these guys gets a Green New Deal question I simply don't want them focusing on  the necessity of unionized jobs in a new economy.  I want them to talk about carbon, and not get sucked into a conversation that can be used by the opposition.

Yes, it presumes that the electorate can't handle too much info.  Which is a presumption I'm not afraid to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

That's absolutely correct.  However, in our current media environment, even answering the question provides soundbytes to the opposing side.

If any of these guys gets a Green New Deal question I simply don't want them focusing on  the necessity of unionized jobs in a new economy.  I want them to talk about carbon, and not get sucked into a conversation that can be used by the opposition.

Yes, it presumes that the electorate can't handle too much info.  Which is a presumption I'm not afraid to have.

it's also tricky because we're 20 months from the general and 11 months from the first primaries.  not to mention we have 10+ candidates on the dem side.

right now, mayor pete is still in the "this is who i am" phase.  we don't even know really what his "platform" is yet.

in a world where every single stance is based on self-preservation (read - electoral college debate), it's nice just to hear well thought out responses and researched opinions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21064

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

That's nonsense, because you can.  Hard but doable.

It comes across as a shitty defeatist argument.  That's why I don't like it.

A Republican Presidential candidate has won the popular vote once in the last 30 years.  Think about what that does on a subconscious level in this country let alone the obvious issues that come with it.

Gerrymandering and voter suppression are blatant and rampant. The electoral college is a joke. 

Not confronting these major issues sounds defeatist to me.  With a fairer and cleaner electoral process it will be easier for this country and government to come together and create major policy changes.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

A Republican Presidential candidate has won the popular vote once in the last 30 years.  Think about what that does on a subconscious level in this country let alone the obvious issues that come with it.

A 15 minute google of electoral college and a passing idea of the warped representation we get from the Senate?  I don't really have to worry about anyone's subconscious level when I can just read a wiki entry on these topics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Not confronting these major issues sounds defeatist to me.

Sure does.  Which is what I want Dems to do, Democratically and in a straight forward way.  Going a "court packing" route isn't confronting.  It's taking dangerous steps that are bad from a vote getting standpoint and worse from a "it will bite you in the ass" standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

in a world where every single stance is based on self-preservation (read - electoral college debate), it's nice just to hear well thought out responses and researched opinions.

While all of this is fair, I do think it's important for him to outline what your priorities are and what they aren't.  I actually want him not to prioritize this.  I think it's bad if he doesn't clarify that it isn't a priority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 21064

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

Sure does.  Which is what I want Dems to do, Democratically and in a straight forward way.  Going a "court packing" route isn't confronting.  It's taking dangerous steps that are bad from a vote getting standpoint and worse from a "it will bite you in the ass" standpoint.

Court packing is not a signature of Buttigieg's platform and never has been. It's always been presented as a question to him, and he has answered it directly saying it's something that should be considered.

Abolishing the electoral college, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico (if they want it) are actual positions that he holds. 

And one reason Buttigieg is getting a lot of attention is because he's not playing it safe with typical rhetoric that won't "bite him in the ass".  His conviction and authenticity make him stand out. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, RCRanger03 said:

Beto/Buttigieg 2020?

if just for the Pence VP debates

too much heat at the bottom of the ticket, you'll have people wishing they were reversed.

but if that ticket could win texas and indiana, then who the f knows.

kamala or warren with pete as vp could work, although pete would be better being the brains behind the whole operation, instead of a figurehead vp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 10:44 AM, Foosters said:

 

Universal background checks poll really, really strong.  Because the people answering the polls have not a fucking clue what a Universal Background Check is.  Start polling on the specifics and the polls drop like a rock.

If he is as smart and as honest as you guys claim he is, he should avoid these type of dumb platitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Universal background checks poll really, really strong.  Because the people answering the polls have not a fucking clue what a Universal Background Check is.  Start polling on the specifics and the polls drop like a rock.

If he is as smart and as honest as you guys claim he is, he should avoid these type of dumb platitudes.

Or maybe the past 20 years of mass shootings have changed people's opinions on this topic and they aren't weird gun nuts like you. Straight up banning high capacity magazines is now a popular opinion to Americans, don't feed me a bunch of BS about background check nuance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
Just now, GSU&UT said:

Or maybe the past 20 years of mass shootings have changed people's opinions on this topic and they aren't weird gun nuts like you. Straight up banning high capacity magazines is now a popular opinion to Americans, don't feed me a bunch of BS about background check nuance.

Polls on the UBC are worthless.  No one knows what the term means.  It sounds good.  So people support it.

I would support requiring a NICS check for all gun sales.  Open it up and make it free.  If that's what you mean by UBC, I support it too.  I also don't have a problem getting rid of high capacity mags.  As for NICS, just have a database where the seller can input the buyer's social security number and get a thumbs up or thumbs down immediately.  Hell, get everyone a free national ID card.  You have to have it to vote and to buy a gun.  I am fine with that.

But unfortunately that's not where it stops.  Many UBC proposals include registering all guns, waiting weeks for the sale, and charging transfer taxes from $80 to $200 per gun.  That just won't fly with the public.  Polling on these provisions is where support falls off a cliff.  Americans don't want the government knowing what guns they own.  They don't want to wait weeks to buy a gun.  They don't want to pay a $200 tax to transfer their ruger 10/22 that is 50 years old and worth $50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Polls on the UBC are worthless.  No one knows what the term means.  It sounds good.  So people support it.

I would support requiring a NICS check for all gun sales.  Open it up and make it free.  If that's what you mean by UBC, I support it too.  I also don't have a problem getting rid of high capacity mags.  As for NICS, just have a database where the seller can input the buyer's social security number and get a thumbs up or thumbs down immediately.  Hell, get everyone a free national ID card.  You have to have it to vote and to buy a gun.  I am fine with that.

But unfortunately that's not where it stops.  Many UBC proposals include registering all guns, waiting weeks for the sale, and charging transfer taxes from $80 to $200 per gun.  That just won't fly with the public.  Polling on these provisions is where support falls off a cliff.  Americans don't want the government knowing what guns they own.  They don't want to wait weeks to buy a gun.  They don't want to pay a $200 tax to transfer their ruger 10/22 that is 50 years old and worth $50.

I'm calling BS on this. Where is your non-Fox news polling to indicate this? Most of the public supports a longer wait time on gun purchases, again not everyone is some weird Shaggy gun nut like you and Tahoe.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

 

Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER].
  Favor Oppose No opinion
  % % %
Oct. 5-11, 2017; * Less than 0.5%
GALLUP
Requiring background checks for all gun purchases 96 4 *
Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales 75 24 1
Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police 70 29 1
Edited by GSU&UT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm calling BS on this. Where is your non-Fox news polling to indicate this? Most of the public supports a longer wait time on gun purchases, again not everyone is some weird Shaggy gun nut like you and Tahoe.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

 

Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following. [RANDOM ORDER].
  Favor Oppose No opinion
  % % %
Oct. 5-11, 2017; * Less than 0.5%
GALLUP
Requiring background checks for all gun purchases 96 4 *
Enacting a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales 75 24 1
Requiring all privately-owned guns to be registered with the police 70 29 1

You should have no problem passing those laws then.  Good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You should have no problem passing those laws then.  Good luck!

LOL at this pivot, you talked about popular support not about the chances of a law getting passed which we all know is entirely different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45761

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, NWBuck said:

Warren/Buttigieg 

I think this is where I'm at, but Beto's energy and appeal will keep him in the running I think.  I still don't get the love for Harris, but I'll give her a shot in the debates in June.  From a policy and standing up to the dotard's bullshit angle, I think Warren wins that and it isn't close.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28825

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

Mayor Pete got a little Dotard in him (so to speak)?

If he already knew they had been on Fox News but lied about it anyway for no good reason, that would be Trumpian. He might have just made a mistake. An adult would admit he was wrong. 

I'll bet Pete is an adult. Anyone want to bet against me?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, not at all.

Mistaken or bad information. The idea that he straight-up lied is silly.

especially considering his issue profile would likely prompt a reply like, "i would encourage everyone to go on all of these shows to get their opinions out to the people."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1798

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

agreed.  i think they don't really know what to make of him right now.  if there's an obvious attack, i'm not seeing it.

You know a lot of them are itching to attack his sexuality but even FNC knows in 2019 that's going to hurt their ever shrinking advertisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29199

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He talks past Trump and has cleverly reclaimed Republican values (faith, freedom, security) in his own progressive way. It will work. 

 

it helps when our current president abandoned all values of both parties long ago.  left them wide open to snatch up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
18 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He talks past Trump and has cleverly reclaimed Republican values (faith, freedom, security) in his own progressive way. It will work. 

 

Even if it doesn’t work, there’s no reason not to try.  It’s impossible for Mayor Pete to be more harmful to their audiences than the trash they would be broadcasting otherwise. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 359

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

He talks past Trump and has cleverly reclaimed Republican values (faith, freedom, security) in his own progressive way. It will work. 

 

Your faith in the idea that Republican voters actually care about any of those things is touching.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...