What's new
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 *** (1 Viewer)

adonis said:
I can't imagine the 18-29 folks continuing to vote for Sanders when Beto and Buttigeig become better known.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I think Sanders and Beto are kind of similar in the following way. They're both perceived as likable -- and they are. But in both cases, I think their perceived likability is enhanced because of their most recent opponents. Beto's likability is decent to begin with, but it goes up about 50% when you put him next to Ted Cruz. Same thing with Bernie when you put him next to Hillary.

Young people like Bernie right now because they're still comparing him in their minds to Hillary. When they start comparing him to Beto or Buttigieg or some of the other candidates instead, he won't get that same magic bump any longer. (Same when people start comparing Beto to Sanders or Harris instead of to Cruz.)

Hopefully Trump will find things more difficult in 2020 for the same reason.

 
But are Pete and Beto really progressives in the way Bernie is a progressive? When asked they seem pretty cagey about it. Today Pete asserted that he was a capitalist, but a “Democratic capitalist”. What does that even mean? (Actually I’m still not sure what “Democratic socialist”’means either. 

 
timschochet said:
But are Pete and Beto really progressives in the way Bernie is a progressive?
Click to expand...
No. What does that have to do with anything? You keep thinking that people care about policy. Doesn't the way former conservatives all flocked to Trump dispel that notion to a large extent? (Or the way Bernie sympathies overlapped with Trump sympathies to a surprising extent?)

People on this message board care about policy, but we're all weird. People in real life care about other qualities instead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
But are Pete and Beto really progressives in the way Bernie is a progressive? When asked they seem pretty cagey about it. Today Pete asserted that he was a capitalist, but a “Democratic capitalist”. What does that even mean? (Actually I’m still not sure what “Democratic socialist”’means either. 
Click to expand...
I thought he explained it pretty well given time constraints

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
No. What does that have to do with anything? You keep thinking that people care about policy. Doesn't the way former conservatives all flocked to Trump dispel that notion to a large extent? (Or the way Bernie sympathies overlapped with Trump sympathies to a surprising extent?)

People on this message board care about policy, but we're all weird. People in real life care about other qualities instead.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree, but I have noticed that true Bernie fans tend to be policy wonk types. So they may be skeptical of this guy. 

 
timschochet said:
But are Pete and Beto really progressives in the way Bernie is a progressive? When asked they seem pretty cagey about it. Today Pete asserted that he was a capitalist, but a “Democratic capitalist”. What does that even mean? (Actually I’m still not sure what “Democratic socialist”’means either. 
Click to expand...
Probably worthy of an extended conversation.  Could be interesting to break down the different varieties.

 
adonis said:
It's interesting this is seen as a bad thing.

To me, it's an opportunity.  Put someone in a position of authority who has a clear vision, the intelligence and analytical skills and experience to evaluate some of the proposals, and you may have someone who can get behind some creative and compelling data-based, policy-based, science-based, rational policies that aren't encumbered by decade-long historical voting trails on the issues.

Certainly could end up being a good thing.
Click to expand...
All the data-based, policy-based, science-based, rational policies in the world didn't help him see the homeless people right in front of him at Harvard and South Bend.  Didn't open his eyes to the victims of the US war in Afghanistan.  Didn't cause him to take umbrage with McKinsey's Saudi clients.  Didn't raise questions about his tacit support for ethnic cleansing in Israel.

I can understand not knowing the ins and outs of every policy plank, being a mayor seeking the presidency and all.  I get how likable and earnest the approach is.  But I'm really not trying to hear about "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done" right now.  Because all that ever seems to happen when Republicans and Democrats join their hands together is things get worse.  I'm not looking for someone that's ready and willing to grease every palm in DC.  

I want to hear someone who can talk about the systemic rot and grave injustice in this country.  Someone that speaks to the poor and forgotten like they actually know what it's like.  If he doesn't have a hard and fast opinion about this stuff by now- and a serious platform for how to address it- to me he's either playing both sides, insulated/indifferent to the real world consequences of public policy, or just plain naive.  And he's definitely not the latter.  

 
ren hoek said:
All the data-based, policy-based, science-based, rational policies in the world didn't help him see the homeless people right in front of him at Harvard and South Bend.  Didn't open his eyes to the victims of the US war in Afghanistan.  Didn't cause him to take umbrage with McKinsey's Saudi clients.  Didn't raise questions about his tacit support for ethnic cleansing in Israel.

I can understand not knowing the ins and outs of every policy plank, being a mayor seeking the presidency and all.  I get how likable and earnest the approach is.  But I'm really not trying to hear about "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done" right now.  Because all that ever seems to happen when Republicans and Democrats join their hands together is things get worse.  I'm not looking for someone that's ready and willing to grease every palm in DC.  

I want to hear someone who can talk about the systemic rot and grave injustice in this country.  Someone that speaks to the poor and forgotten like they actually know what it's like.  If he doesn't have a hard and fast opinion about this stuff by now- and a serious platform for how to address it- to me he's either playing both sides, insulated/indifferent to the real world consequences of public policy, or just plain naive.  And he's definitely not the latter.  
Click to expand...
Have you ever ran for office? If not you should. Be the change you want to see in others. Start small if you want; something local. Go door to door. See if there is a marketplace for your ideas.

 
ren hoek said:
All the data-based, policy-based, science-based, rational policies in the world didn't help him see the homeless people right in front of him at Harvard and South Bend.  Didn't open his eyes to the victims of the US war in Afghanistan.  Didn't cause him to take umbrage with McKinsey's Saudi clients.  Didn't raise questions about his tacit support for ethnic cleansing in Israel.

I can understand not knowing the ins and outs of every policy plank, being a mayor seeking the presidency and all.  I get how likable and earnest the approach is.  But I'm really not trying to hear about "reaching across the aisle" and "getting things done" right now.  Because all that ever seems to happen when Republicans and Democrats join their hands together is things get worse.  I'm not looking for someone that's ready and willing to grease every palm in DC.  

I want to hear someone who can talk about the systemic rot and grave injustice in this country.  Someone that speaks to the poor and forgotten like they actually know what it's like.  If he doesn't have a hard and fast opinion about this stuff by now- and a serious platform for how to address it- to me he's either playing both sides, insulated/indifferent to the real world consequences of public policy, or just plain naive.  And he's definitely not the latter.  
Click to expand...
The article you seem to be getting this from was pretty ridiculous.  It basically dissected a book he wrote and drew ridiculous conclusions based on the things he didn't include that the author of the article thought he should've included.

Did these insights come from an interview with Pete, where the author could raise these specific questions and get Pete's direct feedback?  No, what the author did was to read into the lack of comments on specific issues, draw his own conclusions, link them together with other "inferred" truths about Pete, and paint a narrative almost entirely devoid of substance about what was written and unlikely to represent what Pete himself would say.  

If, in an interview with Buttigeig, the author asked specific questions about his concerns and Pete dismissed them, that'd be another subject entirely.

Honestly, that guys article is the worst kind of journalism.

 
Is that the role of the executive, to have set in stone policies, to have fully formed legislative policies?  They certainly should have agendas and goals, but the path there should be ready to go and no room for adjustment/evolution?  Should the president be the source of legislative work rather than Congress?  I wonder if we have the relationship backward these days, giving way too much deference (and power) to the White House?  I think Congress and the President should clearly work together, but the emphasis on working in concert with one another does nothing more than entrench party politics and hinder actual legislative debate and production.  I’m fine with a candidate who has less than specific routes to end goals, they’re not pigeon-holed to methodology that way

 
That one guy said:
Is that the role of the executive, to have set in stone policies, to have fully formed legislative policies?  They certainly should have agendas and goals, but the path there should be ready to go and no room for adjustment/evolution?  Should the president be the source of legislative work rather than Congress?  I wonder if we have the relationship backward these days, giving way too much deference (and power) to the White House?  I think Congress and the President should clearly work together, but the emphasis on working in concert with one another does nothing more than entrench party politics and hinder actual legislative debate and production.  I’m fine with a candidate who has less than specific routes to end goals, they’re not pigeon-holed to methodology that way
Click to expand...
And they never officially fail to do something because they never said specifically what they planned to do. Its convenient .

 
NCCommish said:
And they never officially fail to do something because they never said specifically what they planned to do. Its convenient .
Click to expand...
So we cheated and we lied and we tested
And we never failed to fail, it was the easiest thing to do
You will survive being bested, somebody fine will come along
Make me forget about loving you and the Southern Cross

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amid all this talk about his ability to win over Rust Belt voters and whether people will vote for an openly gay man, we should not overlook the fact that he successfully convinced another man to change his last name to Buttigieg.

 
NCCommish said:
And they never officially fail to do something because they never said specifically what they planned to do. Its convenient .
Click to expand...
Sure, fine, part of the political game and all that.  Even at it's base, though, Congress still has to pass a bill before a president can make it law.  Failure and blame is still quite fluid in our system.  Perhaps I’m off on how I see the current method of “debate” from Congress and the President, but it seems wholly inadequate to actually developing policy that impacts what most us citizens would consider issues of concern and import

 
zftcg said:
Amid all this talk about his ability to win over Rust Belt voters and whether people will vote for an openly gay man, we should not overlook the fact that he successfully convinced another man to change his last name to Buttigieg.
Click to expand...
Good point

 
That one guy said:
Sure, fine, part of the political game and all that.  Even at it's base, though, Congress still has to pass a bill before a president can make it law.  Failure and blame is still quite fluid in our system.  Perhaps I’m off on how I see the current method of “debate” from Congress and the President, but it seems wholly inadequate to actually developing policy that impacts what most us citizens would consider issues of concern and import
Click to expand...
You elect a president to steer an agenda. Do I think Bernie is getting everything he wants on every policy? Of course not I'm not an idiot. Hell depending on what happens in the Senate he may not get anything right away. But do I know his policies? Yes. Do I believe he will fight for them with all the power at his disposal? Yes. Do I think he'll sellout? No. And for me a good compromise isn't a sellout. But it has to be a good compromise not one where the people against get everything and you get some relative scraps.

Take Medicare for All. Say we get there but you have to allow for private insurance as well to pass it. That's a good compromise and it's what I think we'll get. Some people will have private insurance and there will be private hospitals. It's how most of these first world countries systems operate. But that's what you get when you demand and fight for more than that. You can't start off asking for that. Or just kind of wish washy want something not real clear on what but you know something.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
No. What does that have to do with anything? You keep thinking that people care about policy. Doesn't the way former conservatives all flocked to Trump dispel that notion to a large extent? (Or the way Bernie sympathies overlapped with Trump sympathies to a surprising extent?)

People on this message board care about policy, but we're all weird. People in real life care about other qualities instead.
Click to expand...
I care about honesty, authenticity, forward thinking and empathy.  That’s why I felt Sanders resonated so well last time with me - he had those things in spades compared with Hillary and definitely Trump.  I still feel that way but think there’s newcomers this time around that tick those boxes (Mayor Pete, Yang and my hometown girl Abrams).  But to reiterate what I’ve said numerous times - I’m voting for whoever is the D candidate running against Trump no matter who it is.

 
timschochet said:
That’s great news for Pete and of course Sanders and Biden are nearby, but what an embarrassing result for Warren. She should be ahead in her home state. 
Click to expand...
Warren is definitely having a hard time it seems like.

But more broadly, I think it's good to keep in mind how small the differences between the number of people actually naming one candidate vs another an n=371 poll with a huge field, because there's a lot of polls like this making the rounds. I think one of the pollsters tweeted a warning about this a couple days ago.

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
Cliff's notes?
Click to expand...
CHUCK TODD:

All right. And the final question I want to ask you about: the Second Amendment. You come from a Second Amendment state, some might argue, whatever that means to folks. Do you think the Second Amendment, as it's written, prevents gun control the way the Supreme Court says it does?

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG:

I don't think it has to because we've already decided within the framework of the Second Amendment that we're going to draw a line somewhere, right? “Shall not be infringed" clearly doesn't mean that you're entitled to a nuclear weapon. I mean, somewhere in between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we're going to draw a line about what makes sense. In the same way that my right to free speech doesn't include yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, in the same way that, as one Supreme Court justice said, "My right to swing my fist ends where somebody else's nose begins." There are common sense limits that a thinking society can live by, while making sure that we honor the lifestyle of sporting, which is where so many family bonds are created. And they're just a deep part of our tradition. And the idea that people should be equipped to defend themselves if they need to.

 
Hey @Sinn Fein, any plan to update your first post with links to content for Pete?  Interview links, media events, links to policy positions?

Always helpful for the new folks who want to catch what he's all about, and for folks like myself who would be curious if there are new interviews/events out that I may have missed.

 
Juxtatarot said:
CHUCK TODD:

All right. And the final question I want to ask you about: the Second Amendment. You come from a Second Amendment state, some might argue, whatever that means to folks. Do you think the Second Amendment, as it's written, prevents gun control the way the Supreme Court says it does?

MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG:

I don't think it has to because we've already decided within the framework of the Second Amendment that we're going to draw a line somewhere, right? “Shall not be infringed" clearly doesn't mean that you're entitled to a nuclear weapon. I mean, somewhere in between a slingshot and a nuclear weapon, we're going to draw a line about what makes sense. In the same way that my right to free speech doesn't include yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, in the same way that, as one Supreme Court justice said, "My right to swing my fist ends where somebody else's nose begins." There are common sense limits that a thinking society can live by, while making sure that we honor the lifestyle of sporting, which is where so many family bonds are created. And they're just a deep part of our tradition. And the idea that people should be equipped to defend themselves if they need to.
Click to expand...
Somebody needs to popularize an example of the First Amendment's limitations that doesn't come from one of Justice Holmes's two worst decisions ever.

 
Ima call da Bootyjudge (who a you ta judge?!) my own word - a datacrat. We've had em before - prominent 1980 3rd-party candidate John Anderson, Bill Bradley kinda, Dukakis in '88, Simon & Tsongas in '92. The Democratic Party hasn't had one since Clintons felt our pain. Obama is often mistaken for a datacrat because of his even-handed approach, but he never let a solution get in the way of governance.

Datacrats are problem solvers and we don't have them anymore because solving problems makes terrible TV. Creating problems is far more photogenic and clickable. That is why we have so many problems. That is why we have a victim culture, which the journo who did that piece (click his name in it and you'll see the list of his every "What's wrong with...." article for his magazine) is an excellent example of - blaming his subject for not running for saint while he's running for office. He is part & parcel of why we are so broken and why we ALL need blame ourselves for the negligence which helped create it. Now, I'm a flaming leftist - i already KNOW we're going to crash bad & soon and would much rather see a flaming reformer bellow Jeremiads and indictments, and only then in the few moments when i actually care y'all be saved from what you done. Then i see this li'l man from this li'l town and his li'l slice o' sense and care for the li'l guy made me nostalgic for the decades i cared.

Exhibit A in my defense of Mayor Pete is his label for himself - progressive. Now that word has been abused more than most others in the political lexicon recently because people without the courage to be called liberals adopted it. Da Bootyjudge is a progressive - looks at the promise for mankind, the cost for mankind, the fairness to mankind in each issue & answer he encounters. Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican who is the only President who ever held the door open for the li'l guy) was a progressive. Aware of language, Mayor Pete realized that labeling himself that way would shut up the snowflakes long enough to get a few ideas across AND happened to be the original truth. I've been wanting to see America with a President who responds to sitches with that kind of style since the 2nd Kennedy got shot. nufced

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/is-pete-buttigieg-a-transformational-candidate.html

A critique on his lack of clarity on immigration, along with a possible way for him to stand out from the pack by taking the issue of illegal immigration seriously.
Click to expand...
The only reason to touch immigration is to rouse racists or, to be kinder to some, those who notice that that the major difference between today's America and the America that found them useful is the difference in skin color & primary language of their neighbors. The issue itself is a sinkhole and anyone with a brain in their head stays as far away from it as possible. We can neither open nor close our borders. We have to make it reasonably difficult to enter & live in this country and that causes illegalities to be perpetrated and human tragedies to occur. Immigration, illegal & otherwise, has always been and always will be a relatively static, irresolvable issue for as long as America is a prosperous country. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
The only reason to touch immigration is to rouse racists or, to be kinder to some, those who notice that that the major difference between today's America and the America that found them useful is the difference in skin color & primary language of their neighbors. The issue is a sinkhole and anyone with a brain in their head stays as far away from it as possible. We can neither open nor close our borders. We have to make it reasonably difficult to enter & live in this country and that causes illegalities to be perpetrated and human tragedies to occur. Immigration, illegal & otherwise, has always and always will be a relatively static, irresolvable issue for as long as America is a prosperous country. 
Click to expand...
I think he can talk about it effectively.

Just say that protecting our borders is incredibly important and that illegal immigration is a matter of national security.  We need to do everything possible to protect our country and borders, and prevent folks from coming in illegally.  It's issues 101 for countries.

Talk tough about the need to enforce laws and borders, but also talk compassionately about how to deal with folks who are here.

Take serious the threats, but don't overhype them.  Redirect concerns.  Otherwise you cede the ground to extremists who will try to scare folks and paint democrats as unconcerned about border security.

This goes for all candidates on the democratic side, not just Pete.  There are threats to our country, and they do come in through our borders.  It's incredibly important to protect our citizenry from threats both domestic and abroad.  Speak seriously about them, but specifically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
I think he can talk about it effectively.

Just say that protecting our borders is incredibly important and that illegal immigration is a matter of national security.  We need to do everything possible to protect our country and borders, and prevent folks from coming in illegally.  It's issues 101 for countries.

Talk tough about the need to enforce laws and borders, but also talk compassionately about how to deal with folks who are here.

Take serious the threats, but don't overhype them.  Redirect concerns.  Otherwise you cede the ground to extremists who will try to scare folks and paint democrats as unconcerned about border security.

This goes for all candidates on the democratic side, not just Pete.  There are threats to our country, and they do come in through our borders.  It's incredibly important to protect our citizenry from threats both domestic and abroad.  Speak seriously about them, but specifically.
Click to expand...
in Bootyjudge terms, that would be running against Trump instead of for America.

we have horses that are out of the barn, mainly climate change & immigration & campaign reform. anyone who runs heavily on any them without revolutionary new answers is issue-whoring

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just listened to his speech to the LGBT community.

You know what? I think this guy can beat Trump.

And you know what else? He makes me feel good.

 
adonis said:
wikkidpissah said:
The only reason to touch immigration is to rouse racists or, to be kinder to some, those who notice that that the major difference between today's America and the America that found them useful is the difference in skin color & primary language of their neighbors. The issue is a sinkhole and anyone with a brain in their head stays as far away from it as possible. We can neither open nor close our borders. We have to make it reasonably difficult to enter & live in this country and that causes illegalities to be perpetrated and human tragedies to occur. Immigration, illegal & otherwise, has always and always will be a relatively static, irresolvable issue for as long as America is a prosperous country. 
Click to expand...
I think he can talk about it effectively.

Just say that protecting our borders is incredibly important and that illegal immigration is a matter of national security.  We need to do everything possible to protect our country and borders, and prevent folks from coming in illegally.  It's issues 101 for countries.

Talk tough about the need to enforce laws and borders, but also talk compassionately about how to deal with folks who are here.

Take serious the threats, but don't overhype them.  Redirect concerns.  Otherwise you cede the ground to extremists who will try to scare folks and paint democrats as unconcerned about border security.

This goes for all candidates on the democratic side, not just Pete.  There are threats to our country, and they do come in through our borders.  It's incredibly important to protect our citizenry from threats both domestic and abroad.  Speak seriously about them, but specifically.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you're going to have a few candidates who are basically open border types, and that position is going to generate a lot of votes come primary time. Whoever wins the nomination will have to strike a balance that does not alienate the leftists but also retains enough mainstream appeal to beat Trump.

 
[scooter] said:
The problem is that you're going to have a few candidates who are basically open border types, and that position is going to generate a lot of votes come primary time. Whoever wins the nomination will have to strike a balance that does not alienate the leftists but also retains enough mainstream appeal to beat Trump.
Click to expand...
If he took an open borders stance towards immigration, i'd have a big problem with that.  It's just the wrong position, and if it's the wrong position in general, it's the wrong position in the primary.

 
adonis said:
[scooter] said:
The problem is that you're going to have a few candidates who are basically open border types, and that position is going to generate a lot of votes come primary time. Whoever wins the nomination will have to strike a balance that does not alienate the leftists but also retains enough mainstream appeal to beat Trump.
Click to expand...
If he took an open borders stance towards immigration, i'd have a big problem with that.  It's just the wrong position, and if it's the wrong position in general, it's the wrong position in the primary.
Click to expand...
I don't think Buttigieg is going to embrace open borders. But it's a popular issue on the far left, and if another candidate embraces it (to pander to voters), then Buttigieg and other centrists will have to slant their pitch to the left in order to win over those leftist voters. And that could end up hurting him in the general election.

 
I was talking to my mom (2016 Bernie supporter) and stepfather (2016 Hillary supporter) about giving Mayor Pete a look, and received this email from my mom just now:

Just spent about two hours watching a bunch of video clips of him on different subjects and, wow, he is AMAZING!!  So smart, so personable, so willing to address tough subjects without being nasty, so aware of what is going on and needs to be done. 
Click to expand...
Sign two more up for the Mayor Pete train.  :prouddaughter: 

 
On conservative websites Buttigieg is suddenly getting special attention of the sort normally reserved for AOC. But they don’t seem to know how to react to him. Most of the comments so far are crude, bigoted remarks which use his last name for wordplay. 

 
timschochet said:
On conservative websites Buttigieg is suddenly getting special attention of the sort normally reserved for AOC. But they don’t seem to know how to react to him. Most of the comments so far are crude, bigoted remarks which use his last name for wordplay. 
Click to expand...
I actually think that plays into Buttigieg's hands.  One of the advantages he has going for him - in relation to Trump - is that Buttigieg is the adult in the room - so if the childish name calling comes out - that just makes those in the middle a little less likely to want to associate with that.

 
I'm going to guess Trump is using some of his executive time to come up with derogatory nicknames for Mayor Pete.  

I imagine him with a burger on his side table, wadded up pieces of paper all over the floor...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(HULK)
Dave Berry's Year in Review
Replies
2
Views
780
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top