2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Scooter »

So wes, how about pointing out three ideas from Buttigieg's speech that you don't agree with, and explain to us how what Trump proposes will be better.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

oh, did the mayor of bumfukt, Egypt, make a speech?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DyQtqn0bA4

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Big RR »

Speaking of pointless slogans and videos...

come on wes, you can do better than that. Mouthing silly emotionally charged BS like baby killing, open borders, censorship (who no one is supporting, especially Buttigieg). you want to discuss issues, discuss them; you want to post BS because you think you're funny--go ahead, but don't criticize others for what they choose to post. Your choice.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Scooter »

I suspected as much, the same answer you give when asked to identify what you like about Trump's speeches.

The only thing you ever remember about those is the unison of the straight arm salutes.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

don t criticize?

god forbid.

free speech wasn t meant for us to be able to criticize others.

right?

baby killing open borders and censorship are the themes of the left.

sorry if I didn t say it more politely.

tough shit, Penelope.

how about YOU be honest about it?

User avatar
RayThom
Posts: 8604
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:38 pm
Location: Longwood Gardens PA 19348

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by RayThom »

wesw wrote:oh, did the mayor of bumfukt, Egypt, make a speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njGH7zNsNIU
Did you contribute in the renewal process for Plan B? If so, I'll give you your $2 back if you just go away.

You can serve a higher purpose if you'll just spend more time fixing your pick-em-up truck.
Image
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.” 

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

I ve tried raythom, gob refused my money politely, years ago, and he did not send me the paypal info the last time that I offered.

just put me on ignore.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Scooter »

You intentionally didn't follow his instructions to get his paypal info, so you could pretend that you wanted to contribute and that he didn't cooperate. Which is what you are doing now.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Big RR »

wesw wrote:don t criticize?

god forbid.

free speech wasn t meant for us to be able to criticize others.

right?

baby killing open borders and censorship are the themes of the left.

sorry if I didn t say it more politely.

tough shit, Penelope.

how about YOU be honest about it?
Who said don't criticize? You were the one railing against memes and gifs, not me. All I was saying was if you wanted to discuss something rationally, avoid the slogans and BS and let's discuss it openly; let's not pretend anyone is endorsing baby killing, open borders, or censorship. I have yet to see anyone on the left or right say "let's kill babies" or "let's do away with all borders" or "let's have the government regulate all speech"--the positions of the parties in the debate are much more nuanced than that. You want to join the debate--then by all means do by pointing out what specific issues you disagree with. You want to just stir the pot and spout off slogans and memes, go right ahead, but then expect for others to point out your hypocrisy. You want to be impolite--fine, but at least be accurate. It's all up to you.

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

well that is the most dishonest post I have ever read from you.

first, you said don t criticize. re read your post.

your other three points about abortion immigration and censorship are disingenuous , at best.

most dems in the race support abortion in the third trimester up to the point of birth. to me that is baby killing

your little "all borders" thing is too cute by half

and you don t have to regulate "all speech" to abridge the freedom of speech.

don t bullshit me , RR

you tell me not to criticize what others post?

read the little thingy at the top of this page, and all pages....

"....above all ARGUE!"

I guess that I could argue without criticizing what others post, but I wouldn t be very effective in my arguments then, would I?

eta- #double standard

Big RR
Posts: 14048
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Big RR »

Pardon me wes, I agree I did say "don't criticize others for what they choose to post" when referring to your apparent attempt to be humorous (in response to theirs), but I see this as quite different from saying "don't criticize". By all means criticize whatever position you choose, but let's not get bogged down in the BS.

As for your other points--please show me which candidate has supported abortion "up to the point of birth" and specifically what they have said regarding the position. So far as I know, no candidate supports that position.

As for "open borders", if it doesn't mean open the borders to all, what does it mean. I have yet to see one candidate who has said we should abandon any and all border control or access of immigrants. Personally, I'd rather discuss specific positions than a silly position no one supports, but it's your dime.

Abridging the freedom of speech (at least in the Constitutional sense) involves government action, and that is something we can discuss. That some people say we should be more polite and should avoid offending others is a very different thing, and we can discuss that. But please be more specific what sort of censorship you are against--and don't say all censorship, we all practice some form of self censorship in the way we choose to speak and write and present our ideas, and I'd be surprised if you would argue we shouldn't.

As for arguing, I am all for it; but I would prefer to argue the real issues which face us, not some kind of fantasy position you believe the "other side" (or democrats, or liberals, or whatever) stands for. In this thread alone, the positions of Buttigieg are being discussed, and I would be interested in understanding which positions he has presented that you disagree with or oppose.

As I said, you are free to post what you want, as are we all, but don't you think it's much better to discuss real issues? I do.

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

well, my exasperation over your lawyerly semantics prevented me from fully reading your post, but I did catch a snippet about free speech and govt....


let me riddle you this.....

you tube and other platforms use the public airwaves and public right of ways for their signals......

they have become utilities, the primary forum for info and debate.

they also got special protection from lawsuits because they are "platforms", "public squares" and not "publishers"

I heard it myself in congressional hearings.....

now...., they have said that they ARE ?publishers" and they censor views which they do not agree with or that they judge to be " offensive" or "dangerous"

they can t have it both ways.

perhaps we should take away their allotted portions of the digital spectrum, if they can t stomach free expression, within the law?

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11264
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Crackpot »

I doubt it RR. If he didn’t relentlessly attack strawmen he might have to face the fact that his positions are indefensible
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Sue U »

wesw wrote: you tube and other platforms use the public airwaves and public right of ways for their signals......

they have become utilities, the primary forum for info and debate.

they also got special protection from lawsuits because they are "platforms", "public squares" and not "publishers"

I heard it myself in congressional hearings.....

now...., they have said that they ARE ?publishers" and they censor views which they do not agree with or that they judge to be " offensive" or "dangerous"

they can t have it both ways.

perhaps we should take away their allotted portions of the digital spectrum, if they can t stomach free expression, within the law?
You are so wrong on so many levels, as to both law and technology, that you would have to be purposely misinterpreting virtually everything on the subject so as to conform what you "heard" to your own preconceived notions.

But that's nothing new.
GAH!

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

whatever, comrade.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Sue U »

wesw wrote:whatever, comrade.
It's not whatever. It makes a difference because in the real world where regulation occurs the facts actually matter. But you natter away in your wilful ignorance because you're too lazy to actually learn anything.
wesw wrote: you tube and other platforms use the public airwaves and public right of ways for their signals......
The entire premise here is categorcially wrong. Youtube and other "platforms" do NOT use public airwaves.
wesw wrote:they have become utilities, the primary forum for info and debate.
Whether Youtube or any platform is a medium for information and debate is irrelevant to whether they are "utilities," and they clearly are not. The Internet as a whole could be classified as a utility for FCC regulatory purposes, like telephone service used to be in the olden days, but the FCC is NOT pursuing that course.
wesw wrote:they also got special protection from lawsuits because they are "platforms", "public squares" and not "publishers"
This is absolutely false; Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and similar social media are NOT public forums ("public squares") but ARE PRIVATE forums. They do not have any "special protection" from lawsuits. However, because of they way they are operated, it is very difficult to get liability to attach to them under traditional principles of law.
wesw wrote:I heard it myself in congressional hearings.....
Either your hearing or your brain is broken, probably both.
wesw wrote:now...., they have said that they ARE ?publishers" and they censor views which they do not agree with or that they judge to be " offensive" or "dangerous"

they can t have it both ways.
They're not "having it both ways." As PRIVATE actors they can do what they want with their businesses. Why do you hate capitalism?
wesw wrote:perhaps we should take away their allotted portions of the digital spectrum, if they can t stomach free expression, within the law?
Social media are not "allotted" any portion of the digital spectrum; that's not how either technology or broadcast regulation works.
GAH!

wesw
Posts: 9645
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:24 am
Location: the eastern shore

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by wesw »

well, they certainly do use the public airwaves, and spectrums , ever heard of Wi-Fi? the cloud? satellites? cable?

many more examples.

I only read the first line of your post as that was as far as I was willing to wade into your pile of bullshit.

lawyers..... :roll:

thanks for playing.....

I was writing to RR anyway , little miss buttinsky.

8-)

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11264
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Crackpot »

You have absolutely no fucking clue.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8542
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Sue U »

wesw wrote: well, they certainly do use the public airwaves, and spectrums , ever heard of Wi-Fi? the cloud? satellites? cable?
Try learning what "public airwaves" actually are. (You won't, because lazy and content to remain ignorant.) But here's a hint: They are NOT wifi, the cloud, satellites or cable.
wesw wrote:I only read the first line of your post
Of course you did.
GAH!

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: 2020 Presidential Candidates: Pete Buttigieg

Post by Econoline »

Following up on my earlier post...
  • Trump’s big problem is that he’s unpopular
    Democrats should worry less about him and more about everything else on the ballot.

    By Matthew Yglesias | @mattyglesias | matt@vox.com | Jun 12, 2019, 4:00pm EDT

    If you look at Donald Trump’s polling lately, it sure looks like he’s in trouble for reelection.

    A June 11 Quinnipiac poll showed Trump losing 40-53 to Joe Biden. He’s also down 51-42 to Bernie Sanders, 41-49 to Kamala Harris, 42-49 to Elizabeth Warren, 42-47 to Pete Buttigieg, and 42-47 to Cory Booker.

    All plausible contenders at this moment can take heart in the fact that just 40 to 42 percent of the population feels like voting for Trump’s reelection. The public is mostly saying they want to vote for any Democrat, and the strongest pattern so far indicates better-known Democrats do better than the more obscure ones.

    None of this means that Trump is a sure bet to lose the election in 2020 — public opinion can change fast and there’s nothing particularly predictive about polling this far out — but it’s a pretty clear snapshot of public opinion right now.

    Trump, for now, is unpopular. FiveThirtyEight’s’s polling average shows Trump currently has a 42 percent approval rating. He’s unpopular and losing despite the huge field arrayed against him; he’s unpopular and losing despite Democrats’ confused message on impeachment; and he’s unpopular and losing despite some very real continued ability to successfully manipulate the media.


    The head-to-head polling doesn’t really tell us much about events 18 months in the future, but it does tell us there’s no counterintuitive process whereby Trump secures the votes of tons of people who say he’s doing a bad job as president. He is getting the votes of basically the exact same share of the population as thinks he’s doing a good job. And as of now, that doesn’t look like it’s nearly enough people to win.

    Democrats are very anti-complacency after being taken by surprise in 2016. Ben LaBolt, a former Barack Obama spokesperson who now works at a communications consulting firm, set a lot of heads on fire over the weekend with an Atlantic article charging that Democrats were blowing 2020 already. Trump is spending a ton of money on reelection ads, LaBolt argued, and Democrats aren’t running their anti-Trump ads yet. Obviously, consultants would love it if rich Democrats would turn their anti-Trump fervor into early ad spending, but whatever Trump is doing right now clearly isn’t working. Saving resources for the future when he may hit upon something that does work and needs to be countered seems perfectly sensible.

    Rather than being either complacent or paralyzed by fear, Democrats should probably take a modest amount of reassurance from Trump’s bad polls and try worrying about everything else for a minute.

    There are some things to worry about! Democrats have done pretty well in 2019 special elections, for example, but considerably worse than they did in 2017 and 2018. Their special surge in 2017 represented a huge increase in grassroots activism and energy in response to Trump’s win. The 2019 backslide seems to reflect a post-midterms diminishment of that intensity. Yet in state elections this year in Virginia, Kentucky, and Louisiana, Medicaid expansion — and with it health care for tens of thousands of people — will be on the line. These are tough elections about which available public polling has little to say and where time, energy, and money are likely to be extremely valuable.

    Then there’s the 2020 Senate map. To govern in 2021, Democrats will need to win a long-shot Senate race or two as well as winning two races in Arizona and Colorado, which are by no means gimmes. The real question is will whoever winds up running in Montana, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Texas, and elsewhere have an energized and determined group of people behind them. Democrats have struggled to secure the party establishment’s most favored recruits in several of these races, though there are limits to the central party’s recruiting wisdom.

    There are no guarantees of anything in politics, but it’s as close to a sure thing as you’ll find that these important, down-ballot elections are going to be tougher races than the presidential election.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

Post Reply