Jump to content
ByWatterson

OFFICIAL IAW IS GAY FOR SAINT PETE BUTTIGIEG THREAD

Recommended Posts

Not that we have a responsibility to the global south, and our leaders aren't elected for them as well, but it's really hard for Americans to support free trade (which does have broad, shallow benefits to Americans) when it's reputation (primarily gathered after china joined the WTO) is a crushing loss for workers here with virtually no social safety net or effective job training/rehabilitation for individuals and small cities impacted. All that for cheaper widgets (due to relatively low wages and exporting of pollution and labor standards) and more efficient markets (necessary but a subtly felt effect)

 

Fix the safety net, re/education systems, and getting at least some high wage work to smaller metro areas (e.g. through telecommuting or high speed regional rail for commuting to big cities) and free trade wouldn't be such a pariah. But the ball has been dropped in the past, and this is the natural result, no matter how right you are by the numbers. People remember losing the big factory in town, not the small number of jobs at many smaller companies that have popped up since then. Just like the tax law, people didn't really notice the lowered tax withholding/lower tax burden, but they did notice having to owe taxes or having a smaller refund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Massdriver said:

You said Bernie or Warren are the way to go if we want to help as many people as possible, not that they are sincere or authentic. I don’t doubt Bernie believes he’s doing the right thing. Being wrong on trade is a big deal though and he’s wrong. He can’t be the person to help people if he wants to restrict trade with other nations. 

 

Why is TPP bad and NAFTA isn’t? They’re both good overall. No trade agreement would ever be perfect. 

 

And Bernie disagrees on NAFTA . https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/sanders-statement-on-nafta-replacement-

 

He thinks NAFTA is bad and the replacement is bad. He doesn’t believe in trading with poor countries. He never has and never will. He would hurt the global poor. 

 

I think @b_m_b_m_b_m said it better. TPP was bad. NAFTA wasn't, and I disagree with Bernie on that but there is reason to be against broad free trade. I think Bernie is simply trying to refocus the conversation to helping Americans who are being harmed by hyper capitalism, not being against the global poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I hope Pete's campaign can withstand your constant barrage of sick, totally substantive retweet burns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Greatoneshere, I respect @b_m_b_m_b_m and many others I debate with here, but I disagree with his very first statement about not having a responsibility to the global south. We have a responsibility to people everywhere in the world as humans and as a rich nation, just as the rich class in this country have an obligation to the poor citizens here. We are rich here, nearly all of us by world standards. Our duties to others do not magically disappear whenever an imaginary line is crossed. We should trade with peaceful nations and we should open our borders up to peaceful people throughout the world through mutually beneficial border agreements. These two things should go without saying since it actually benefits everyone here too. Many of the jobs lost throughout the 2000s and before were not  because of trade. Technological progress in manufacturing alone is a huge factor in the secular decline of manufacturing jobs in America. We are quick to blame our trading partners, but even if we erected trade barriers and forced factories to be built here, robots would do most of the work. Those jobs are gone. 

 

The truth is the jobs are gone and politicians should have the guts to admit what economists universally say. Free trade is a net gain for both nations trading. They should then tell people what they will do to help the small portion of people negatively impacted. Standing against trade hurts the least fortunate globally and hurts consumers throughout the United States. 

 

Since Democrats are proposing so many social insurance programs, they are in the best position to tout the benefits of trade while offering help to those negatively impacted by it. Just a friendly reminder, the Nordic countries that Bernie used to mention in his 2016 campaign as shining beacons embrace free trade. Advocating protectionism is not the way to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This won't mean much to most here, but this brief bio was in the regional paper here this morning (obviously with Notre Dame on the cover):

 

zEvRMRL.jpg

 

Basically just summarizing his bio and contrasting him to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2019 at 6:20 PM, Jason said:

 

 

He probably should have stayed in the closet about this part of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been meaning to ask:

 

Is the thread title IAW's idea, or did someone edit that? :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

So is the first name logo thing just what we’re doing now? 

Jeb! I mean... Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

So is the first name logo thing just what we’re doing now? 

I think it is if your last name is Buttigieg. 

 

:p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

I've been meaning to ask:

 

Is the thread title IAW's idea, or did someone edit that? :p 

 

......I did it.

 

AND I'M NOT SORRY BECAUSE GUYS:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ByWatterson said:

 

......I did it.

 

AND I'M NOT SORRY BECAUSE GUYS:
 

 

 

Damn, currently ahead of Harris, Booker, Warren and I guess Gillibrand?

 

Warren and her list of policy proposals make her one of the strongest candidates for me, so far. Buttigieg is making a name for himself; it'd be a hilarious if he were a VP pick and got to debate Pence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Damn, currently ahead of Harris, Booker, Warren and I guess Gillibrand?

 

Warren and her list of policy proposals make her one of the strongest candidates for me, so far. Buttigieg is making a name for himself; it'd be a hilarious if he were a VP pick and got to debate Pence. 

 

Pence after shaking hands with Buttigieg:

 

giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cb9e0e7565a377677

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is a fan willing to give me a summary of what they like that they think "Mayor Pete" is going to do? I haven't watched all of his  town hall segment, but I find it worrying how much he can say that "sounds" good without actually saying anything. I don't really know what he'll do. I just know he's unhappy about similar things. And it makes me uncomfortable that not saying what he'll do is in fact his stated strategy: he wants to tell people what he cares about rather than the "minutiae" of policy.

 

If I had other reason to believe he'd be good at policy, that could be okay. But right now, I don't. I don't expect to be a great judge of specific policy quality, but I can evaluate whether it seems like a candidate is actually trying to tackle the challenges in forming it, and then I can see how others respond to their proposals and how they respond in turn. Observing that allows me to build confidence that they will at least put in a competent effort, and that's what I'm missing with him.

 

Saying what's wrong is easy. Addressing what's wrong is hard. I want evidence that he can do that latter.

Share this post


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

Anyone who is a fan willing to give me a summary of what they like that think "Mayor Pete" is going to do? I haven't watched all of his  town hall segment, but I find it worrying how much he can say that "sounds" good without actually saying anything. I don't really know what he'll do. I just know he's unhappy about similar things. And it makes me uncomfortable that not saying what he'll do is in fact his stated strategy: he wants to tell people what he cares about rather than the "minutiae" of policy.

 

If I had other reason to believe he'd be good at policy, that could be okay. But right now, I don't. I don't expect to be a great judge of specific policy quality, but I can evaluate whether it seems like a candidate is actually trying to tackle the challenges in forming it, and then I can see how others respond to their proposals and how they respond in turn. Observing that allow me to build confidence that they will at least put in a competent effort, and that's what I'm missing with him.

 

Saying what's wrong is easy. Addressing what's wrong is hard. I want evidence that he can do that latter.

 

These are exactly the reasons I laid out earlier in this thread about why I'm very hesitant about him. He's a shifting goal posts politician and he feels inauthentic. He's the only Democratic candidate still accepting lobbying money and his elitism is pretty plainly obvious. I'm open to learning more about him, but I'm skeptical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

What's wrong with elites running the country? I'm all for it.

 

i didn't vote for you monty python GIF

Share this post


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

I have no problem with philosopher kings. Greek aristocracy, but not a plutocracy or oligarchy.

 

As long as they're actually the best of us. 

Quick reminder that virtually everyone in this current administration, Trump included, and the house and the Senate, is a member of the elite by any definition you choose, even aside from their status as national level political leaders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I enlighten everyone as to how the rule of the "philosopher kings" in Athens ended?

 

Hint: not well for Athens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Quick reminder that virtually everyone in this current administration, Trump included, and the house and the Senate, is a member of the elite by any definition you choose.

 

Trump inherited his status, as did many of his worst players. That's not Greek aristocracy.

 

Also, wealth != excellence. I'm simply saying that if there were a way to determine the true elites that is not about money or manipulation, I'd be for it.

 

Buttigieg strikes me as of that class of excellence of parts - character, insight, service, honesty. I thought his answer last night on the police chief, for instance, wherein he clearly articulated why he took action, and some regrets he has, was a complete home run. In a word, I guess, I want thoughtful leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SFLUFAN said:

Should I enlighten everyone as to how the rule of the "philosopher kings" in Athens ended?

 

Hint: not well for Athens.

 

I mean, there was a plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...