Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (Member)

Questioning Pete Buttigieg history?

Politics   (2,363 Views 84 Comments)
9,594 Visitors; 826 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 7 of Questioning Pete Buttigieg history?. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Creating doubt about liberal candidates is an important job in Trump's re-electionre-election campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Creating doubt about liberal candidates is an important job in Trump's re-electionre-election campaign.  

It worked very well in the last election.   If you remember me posting about the anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Sander's supporters after he lost the nomination being as bad as the republicans.  I'm wouldn't be surprised if they didn't invent the phrase "lock her up".  But them sitting out the election was deplorable to me.

However, creating doubt about the opposite party is really just campaigning.  It's not enough to present your best side and your platform, you have to smear the other side.  

 

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 6:21 PM, Tweety said:

I can respect someone not liking the candidate but do not respect the idea of sitting out the vote if he gets the nomination or writing in another candidate, or voting a party that's bound to lose.  I understand 100% that voting your conscious is what some people do.  

That's all I'll say, you've said your reasoning why and so please don't respond because there is absolutely nothing you can say that will have me condone you not voting for Mayor Pete should he be the nominee.

I knew several people that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton because they felt she wasn't the best candidate.  I respect that, but I wonder how many sitting out put Trump in office.  Their idea of was voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil.  

I'm with the a few others there.  The best candidate is the one who has the nomination against Trump.  Period.

Thanks for listening. 

I guess soon since I know can vote in the primaries I should make up my own mind.  😂

Please do not attempt to take my statement out of context. 
"I will not vote for someone because of the "Democrat Party," aka vote blue. I want to know your history. What have you done? We can not make the same mistake as in 2016. If former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend is elected, it will alter the 21 st century and the progress that could be made. There is still time to undo the mistake of President Cheeto, aka Trump. We have to get on the same page regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I am over these candidates' focus on President Cheeto. As a voter, I want to know what you have done in the past and what do you plan to do, especially on the topics of the economy, healthcare, education, and foreign policy."


Yes, I stand by my words. That is why today's Congress and President fail to represent the interest of the people that vote. It is imperative this election to VOTE for a person that is is going to serve the people and not just the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BCgradnurse said:

I am sick and tired of the "purity tests" that some will not let go of. Get over it. We don't have that luxury right now.  The main goal is to nominate someone who can defeat Trump.  Not voting=a vote for Trump.  

I think we all need to agree. In my opinion, voting is essential. We need to elect someone with character. As a child, my mother would say true character exists when a person can not do anything for you, but you give them what you have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Creating doubt about liberal candidates is an important job in Trump's re-electionre-election campaign.  

No, I am sorry I do not work, nor do I support President Trump, aka Cheeto. I know it is important to vote. The research on Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend Indiana is essential.  Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg increased the racial divide. He had more people move out of the town of South Bend, Indiana. As mayor, his constituents' homes were torn down since it was not up to code and bothered never built affordable housing in South Bend, Indiana. He had no idea the schools in South Bend, Indiana, was segregated. As mayor, he squandered the federal relief package. There was no diversity in his administration. Please let me know which part of my statement was inaccurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tweety said:

It worked very well in the last election.   If you remember me posting about the anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Sander's supporters after he lost the nomination being as bad as the republicans.  I'm wouldn't be surprised if they didn't invent the phrase "lock her up".  But them sitting out the election was deplorable to me.

However, creating doubt about the opposite party is really just campaigning.  It's not enough to present your best side and your platform, you have to smear the other side.  

 

First, there is no us vs them. This election is for WE the people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, luv2 said:

First, there is no us vs them. This election is for WE the people. 

 

Of course the election is for "WE the people".  

I will disagree with the semantics of "us vs. them".  We are not united, we have separate parties, we have many disagreements and philosophies.  While it doesn't have to be adversarial and sound combative with an "us vs. them" type of attitude, and I wish it wasn't, but it is a matter of what I believe vs. what "they" believe.

I do however, believe in "the will of the people" and surrender when people and issues I vote for lose, which happens most of the time actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, luv2 said:

Please do not attempt to take my statement out of context. 
"I will not vote for someone because of the "Democrat Party," aka vote blue. I want to know your history. What have you done? We can not make the same mistake as in 2016. If former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend is elected, it will alter the 21 st century and the progress that could be made. There is still time to undo the mistake of President Cheeto, aka Trump. We have to get on the same page regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. I am over these candidates' focus on President Cheeto. As a voter, I want to know what you have done in the past and what do you plan to do, especially on the topics of the economy, healthcare, education, and foreign policy."


Yes, I stand by my words. That is why today's Congress and President fail to represent the interest of the people that vote. It is imperative this election to VOTE for a person that is is going to serve the people and not just the party. 

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying.  I truly admire the research you do and are sharing.

 I've always been registered independent until this year (in Florida Independents can't vote in primaries) and I too would not vote just for a Democrat because he/she was a Democrat.  I look at the person and history (albeit not as thoroughly as you).    I voted Republican once for a mayoral election here.

Often for me it's enough to hear a candidates stance on issues that matter to me such as LGBT issues with Republicans traditionally oppose, or the environment.  If I hear "climate change is a hoax" you don't get my vote even if the other candidate has flaws, it's an easy decision.  Other times, particularly in local elections it's not that easy.

It's quite clear you're not voting for Mayor Pete in the primary and I shouldn't have made the leap that should he get the nomination you wouldn't vote for him to get Trump out.

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tweety said:

Of course the election is for "WE the people".  

I will disagree with the semantics of "us vs. them".  We are not united, we have separate parties, we have many disagreements and philosophies.  While it doesn't have to be adversarial and sound combative with an "us vs. them" type of attitude, and I wish it wasn't, but it is a matter of what I believe vs. what "they" believe.

I do however, believe in "the will of the people" and surrender when people and issues I vote for lose, which happens most of the time actually.

That is precisely why we can not vote for someone because we liked their speech or statement. It may seem as though candidates are saying something significant, but states nothing like Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend Indiana. How do they allow their staff to be treated like Senator Elizabeth Warren ( her campaign ignored the mistreatment of six minority women) and Senator Amy Klobuchar's (she bullies her staff as nurses we know what it means to have a high turnover rate mean)? How come no one questions Senator Amy Klobuchar's history as DA, she allowed innocent minorities to go jail for life and let cops get away with murder by calling it " justified murder"?  

Edited by luv2
add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 10:39 AM, toomuchbaloney said:

Creating doubt about liberal candidates is an important job in Trump's re-electionre-election campaign.  

 

23 hours ago, Tweety said:

It worked very well in the last election.   If you remember me posting about the anti-Clinton rhetoric from the Sander's supporters after he lost the nomination being as bad as the republicans.  I'm wouldn't be surprised if they didn't invent the phrase "lock her up".  But them sitting out the election was deplorable to me.

However, creating doubt about the opposite party is really just campaigning.  It's not enough to present your best side and your platform, you have to smear the other side.  

 

How Senator Amy Klobuchar mistreats her staff: 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/amy-klobuchar-staff-2020-election

Senator Amy Klobuchar mistreatment of minorities in the criminal justice system

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, luv2 said:

That is precisely why we can not vote for someone because we liked their speech or statement. It may seem as though candidates are saying something significant, but states nothing like Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend Indiana. How do they allow their staff to be treated like Senator Elizabeth Warren ( her campaign ignored the mistreatment of six minority women) and Senator Amy Klobuchar's (she bullies her staff as nurses we know what it means to have a high turnover rate mean)? How come no one questions Senator Amy Klobuchar's history as DA, she allowed innocent minorities to go jail for life and let cops get away with murder by calling it " justified murder"?  

Well, surely people are because you can't be the only person that knows about it.  

But yes, the point being that people don't look deep into candidates but only on the surface at what speeches make the headlines, and what their ads say.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 4:36 AM, toomuchbaloney said:

Exactly. The premise that Buttigieg NEVER answers any question is hyperbole. An exaggerated statement not to be taken seriously. 

Trump is a tyrannt who is escalating an assault on our rule of law.  The DOJ and Senate are complicit.  The military has already shown itself willing to lie about assassinations and allow political positioning of troops on our border to influence voter opinion. The Judiciary is being stacked with poorly qualified Trump sycophants. Trump is now unchecked to simply cheat in as many ways as he can think of to remain in power. The popular vote is already more or less irrelevant. 

You are exactly correct that we must unite in support of a liberal candidate. In my view, that requires looking more for the things which unite and move us forward. Posting nothing but articles and videos critical of liberal opponents to Trump is building what coalition and future? We don't know who the candidate will be but it is likely to be someone you currently don't like. A candidate who may enjoy a bit more doubt in the anti Trump voting block because of your efforts.

Hesitation to choose the better candidate because of a planted doubt. That couldn't possibly work to Trump's advantage could it?

This is a critical time. 

Vote blue no matter who...especially the Senate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.