Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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a candidate and simply being able to discuss it in an educated way as one of many constitutional systems he considers outdated.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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that being said, it's interesting to me that my takeaway from listening to Mayer Pete is that with him running, I have the feeling I should cross Beto off the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Today I'm picking Harris/Buttigieg. 

Warren/Buttigieg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders / Warren .  Nothing like Vermont / Massachusetts to get the southern vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I don’t think we have a chance in hell of a Beto/Mayor Pete ticket, in either order.

I can’t imagine we’ll ever see two white men on the Democratic side ever again - even if one of them is gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Foosters said:

Buttigieg/Abrams all fucking day

ALL FUCKING DAY.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCANDAL!

Obviously at some point there will be some legitimate negative backlash. No way he can keep these good vibes going forever. How he and the public respond will be interesting. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would also assume someone told him this info.  who has time to watch political coverage on tv all day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

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

No, not at all.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

who has time to watch political coverage on tv all day?

Someone who's truly Presidential. Duh.

#executivetime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Message Board User said:

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

 

And as I expected, watching the first 20 seconds of this interview with Chris Wallace explains Pete's comment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

And as I expected, watching the first 20 seconds of this interview with Chris Wallace explains Pete's comment. 

 

Pete needs to go on Fox News as much as possible, if only to help educate that audience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete needs to go on Fox News as much as possible, if only to help educate that audience. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Pete needs to go on Fox News as much as possible, if only to help educate that audience. 

It won't work. They don't want to be educated. They want someone to confirm their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

It will work. Not on diehard Trumpkins, but other Republican viewers. 

Not as long as he's a Democrat.

Which means never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...