Pete Buttigieg is seeking the democrat nomination for President of the United States. The more he speaks the more dangerous he appears. He has a number of policy positions that can be positively frightening. He seeks to dismantle America one piece at a time.
Buttigieg would erase Thomas Jefferson from history:
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said Friday that things named after President Thomas Jefferson should be renamed because that’s the “right thing to do.”
Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., who became the rising star of the 2020 Democratic primary, echoed the far-left calls to rename buildings or events that carry the names of prominent U.S. figures on the grounds that they were owners of slaves.
The mayor was asked during “The Hugh Hewitt Show” on radio whether the name of the annual Indiana Democratic dinner, named the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, should be renamed as both presidents were holders of slaves.
“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Buttigieg said, according to the Washington Free Beacon. He then offered a tepid defense of the Founding Father while agreeing that events shouldn’t be named after him.
Never mind that Jefferson’s words were the bedrock of the philosophy that eventually allowed all in this country to be free.
Buttigieg favors reparations
Regarding racial justice, he proposes that the U.S. “create a commission to propose reparations policies for Black Americans and close the racial wealth gap.” When he appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe back in March, he said he had not seen “a proposal for a cash transfer that people would be able to come together around and view as fair,” although he added that he saw “some kind of accounting for the persistent racial inequities today.” However, in speaking with MSNBC’s Rev. Al Sharpton in April, he did endorse the concept of a commission. His other priorities on racial justice include defending affirmative action and voting rights, addressing inequality in the criminal justice system, and supporting self-determination for indigenous peoples.
None of my ancestors owned slaves.
Buttigieg would do away with the electoral college- which essentially would leave the country completely in the tyrannical control of California and New York
And on the Electoral College, he asserts, “States don’t vote, people vote, and everyone’s vote should count exactly the same.” The best means of abolishing the Electoral College would be a constitutional amendment, but that will take time. In the meantime, he proposes enacting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote.
He thinks that Christianity is the same as radical Islam and Wahhabism:
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg equated radical Shia Islam and the Islamic ideology behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks with Christianity’s capacity for extremism Friday.
Buttigieg made the comparison during a Friday radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, arguing that radical Islam, like Christian-motivated extremism,”can have a thousand different flavors.” His comments came in response to the question of whether he believed that radical Iranian Shia Islam was more dangerous than Wahhabi Islam — a variant of Islam that originated in Saudi Arabia and serves as the impetus for much of radical Islamic terrorism.
“Well, you know, not unlike Christianity when it is motivating someone to do something extreme, it can have a thousand different flavors,” Buttigieg said of radical Islam.
The Indiana mayor failed to specify any instances of Christian extremism comparable, in his view, to Wahhabist suicide bombings and mass public executions.
He’s another of those cretins who believe America was never as great as advertised
“So many of the solutions, I believe, are gonna come from our communities. Communities like the one where I grew up, which is an industrial mid-western city,” the former South Bend, Indiana mayor stated. “That is exactly the kind of place that our current president targeted with a message saying that we could find greatness by just stopping the clock and turning it back.”
“That past that he is promising to return us to was never as great as advertised, especially for marginalized Americans… and there’s no going back anyway.”
This is so colossally stupid that I don’t know where to start. No country in the history of the Earth has done more for freedom and prosperity.
He’s cool with late term abortions:
Democratic South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 presidential candidate, defended the choice to have an abortion in the third trimester at a town hall Sunday.
Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Buttigieg whether there should be “any limit on a woman’s right to have an abortion.”
“No, I think the dialogue has gotten so caught up on where you draw the line, that we’ve gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line, and I trust women to draw the line when it’s their life,” Buttigieg answered.
Finally, he blasted Fox News for its “lies”:
White House hopeful and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg on Saturday blasted Fox News Channel personalities in a statement to supporters defending his decision to appear on the cable news network for a town hall.
“I strongly condemn the voices on Fox and the media that uncritically amplify hate and the divisive sort of politics that gave rise to the presidency. Their goal is spread fear and lies, not serve as honest brokers with the American people,” Buttigieg said in a statement shared to social media without naming any employees of the network.
Lies? Like two years of Trump colluding with Russia? Like Trump being a traitor?
Of course, candidates need to stake out niches that separate them from the rest of the pack, but so far this year all democrats want to do is expand the freedom to murder babies at any time, open the borders, allow illegals to vote and kill the economy.
That will really make America great again.
What me worry?
UPDATE
Let’s have a look at the job Mayor Pete has done in South Bend
Crime? Here.
Crime index? Here
Is everybody happy?
But Buttigieg’s focus on downtown has been criticized for coming at the expense of other neighborhoods. More than a quarter of the population still lives at or below the poverty line, well above the national average of 14%.Crime is also high. There were 15 murders, 93 rapes and 345 robberies per 100,000 in South Bend in 2017, compared to six, 52 and 339 per 100,000 in 2010, according to City-Data.com.
….
Should Buttigieg, a piano-playing polyglot bidding to become the youngest and first openly gay US president, remain a serious contender in the Democratic primary, his record on race relations in South Bend is likely to come under forensic scrutiny. Two in five African Americans in the city live below the poverty line, which is almost double the national poverty rate for African American households, according to a study by the city in 2017.
The mayor recently faced questions over a 2015 speech in which he used the phrase “all lives matter”, often interpreted as neglecting the specific grievances of African Americans, as well as his demotion of the city’s first black police chief, Darryl Boykins.
A judge in Indiana is yet to rule on whether to publicly release five tapes of secretly recorded conversations between police officers that led to the removal of Boykins in 2012. Buttigieg’s opponents believe the tapes could include white officers using racist language, potentially igniting tensions in the city.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
@kitt:
Here:
Happy to help.
Not at all. None of the things you listed has anything to do with the Electoral College.
@Michael: I understand the Electoral College and what purpose it serves. I also FULLY understand why sore losers wish to get rid of it. I notice there was no problem with it when Obama was elected. Did you notice the absence of Republicans crying about how illegitimate or unfair that was?
@Deplorable Me:
Again, people have been arguing against the Electoral College for decades.
Study from 2009:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40895.pdf
Article from 2012:
You are nearly always wrong.
@Michael: People have been arguing against it for decades some have no understanding of it others have an excellent grasp and want to disenfranchise more rural America even entire states that depend less on government and its promises of the benefits other peoples tax dollars.
@Michael: People complain about the weather, too… and they don’t do anything about it. Again, why don’t you whiny crybabies DO something about the crap you constantly whine about? Well, here’s why… because, while the crybabies are LOUD, they aren’t anywhere near a majority. Most people are adult enough to accept election results and move on. But not delicate flowers like Petie. Or you.
@kitt:
Nobody would be disenfranchised. That’s a talking point you picked up somewhere. Let me lend a hand:
Exactly nobody would be disenfranchised if the Electoral College were eliminated.
You mean like New York and California?
Low-population states would still have two senators. They’d still have the same number of representatives that they had before. The only election that would be affected is the presidential election, and there would still be a president — eliminating the Electoral College would not turn the United States into a direct democracy.
@Deplorable Me:
Sweet Jesus, they are.
Everything you have typed today has been incorrect. At this point, posting links to prove you wrong is beginning to feel like kicking a puppy.
@Michael: Its incremental creep, like the 17th amendment took the best interests of the state out of the senate now You can not recall a senator, they can only be expelled by the congress. Stuck 6 years with someone who once elected can simply ignore what is best for his state or even follow the party platform. 13 Senators have switched parties while serving since the amendment.
Without the 17th the people could march on the state capitol and demand a recall.
@kitt: There has never been a mechanism in the Constitution for recalling Senators.
@Michael:
Practically everyone between the two cesspools would be disenfranchised. But, liberals rarely care about anyone but themselves.
More of your altered reality? You wish it to be so, so you SAY it is so?
Did you ever imagine that the people who created the Constitution knew a little more about government than some crybabies that get their feelings hurt when they lose an election?
@Michael: There certainly would never be a second term for Party jumpers or those that did not vote favorably for the States interests.
The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered but eventually rejected
resolutions calling for this same type of recall [recall of Senators by the state
legislatures as provided in the Articles of Confederation]. … In the end, the idea
of placing a recall provision in the Constitution died for lack of support — at
least from those participating in the ratifying conventions. The framers and the
ratifiers were consciously seeking to remedy what they viewed as the defects of
the Articles of Confederation and some of their state constitutions, and for many
of them this meant retreating from an excess of democracy.
source http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/id51.htm
An ammendment that allowed recall would certain assist in draining the swamp.
It’s called impeachment.
Article II, Section 4
@Deplorable Me:
That word has an actual definition, which I have already posted in this thread. Some other state of affairs might exist if the Electoral College were abolished, but “disenfranchisement” is not one of them. Words have meanings.
Sure, but I know that even they disagreed about these issues.
@Michael: Trump wants to do away with the EC. This seems to be ignored by the press, and ignored by the GOP.
He claims it would be much easier for him to win the election on the popular vote than the EC.
Regardless of the deluge of opinions one might throw at that statement, one has to ask why there’s such a conflict here?
The Dems find themselves poised to win popular vote elections because they get more of the young, poor, and over-educated/under-experienced block, which are easy segments to exploit. With a complicit media/entertainment complex, an 18-year-old will vote democrat because they watch Jimmy Kimmel and SNL, not because they can think for themselves.
But if/when the EC goes away, you’re going to see a culture shift. Non-liberals will finally start to fight their way into media/entertainment and there will be a balance. The popular vote will be just fine, and the fear–or hope, if you are a Dem–that every election will favor Dems will be unfounded.
You already see pushback from Bill Maher and Trevor Noah and others…
Things will come back. They went too far left, and I believe the far left is starting to see how batsh*t crazy they’ve become and are finally pulling themselves back.
Oh, and Trump is great President. He’ll win EC and the popular vote in 2020, easily.
@retire05:
Article II is about the Executive Branch. Senators cannot be impeached.
@Michael:
Section 4.
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article II Annotations
https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/who-can-be-impeached.html
Can you admit when you’re wrong, Michael?
@Nathan Blue:
Okay. Even accepting your analysis, I’d still like the Electoral College to be abolished. One person, one vote.
@Michael: Voters can be disenfranchised when their votes don’t count, such as each vote by an illegal immigrant canceling out the vote of a legal citizen. Again, not something liberals fret over too much, as long as they can get ahold of enough political power to ensconce them in power permanently, such as what HR-1 is supposed to accomplish.
Democrats are too cowardly to address their desires directly. Instead of pushing for a Constitutional amendment, they want a law that forces Electoral College delegates to vote, not for the candidate that won the state, but for the popular vote winner… DISENFRANCHISING the voters of that state. But, again, what liberal cares?
@retire05: Cmon…. Michael is NEVER wrong (in his own mind).
@retire05: He may know it by a different name but it is the same process.
Ten Senators Expelled. The Constitution simply states that each house of Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”. When the Senate expelled William Blount in 1797 by a nearly unanimous vote, it had reason to believe he was involved in a conspiracy against the United States.
Will history repeat itself not likely as Senators that may be involved with the coup attempt would be seen as martyrs. I think a couple have retired or died.
@kitt: Very few legislators seem willing to go out on a limb and stand up for the right thing. Perhaps only Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. Republicans would rather be polite and just let the matter go with a tongue lashing, but Democrats like to use the powers of impeachment as a political weapon. As long as the media stands behind them, they get more and more bold.
@retire05:
Yep. I was incorrect about impeachment. Senators can, in fact, be impeached.
@kitt: I was incorrect. Senators can be impeached. There has, however, never been a mechanism for the popular recall of senators.
@Michael: Sometimes I mix up original drafts with what was actually ratified. There should be a way for those represented to be able to call them to account, but should be and reality are not the same.
@kitt:
We are in agreement.
@Michael: Democracy, is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for lunch. Yes, it really is just that simple. I’m a Californian and this state SUCKS and is sucking more and more every single day. I like freedom and Kommieforniastan isn’t that.
@John Galt: Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass.
@Michael: People are not letting the doorknob hit them in commifornia or the big rotton apple, hows that school budget going look as more and more taxpayers run for the hills?People pull their kids from the schools because of the sex education they want to push on the kids.Your state seems a real mess.
@John Galt: There are good jobs everywhere cheaper housing, taxes and utilities, your kids dont have to be stuck in a school system ranking in the bottom 10 of the nation. Go find America.
@Michael: Yeah, that’s just one of the problems with your state; you’ve driven off anyone with a rational mind and all that’s left are those that think people shitting in the streets is just fine as long as there is a liberal government to idolize. As you lose more and more tax dollars, the tax burden, debt and spending goes up and up and up. And all you worry about is making it MORE liberal.
Again, common sense Americans don’t want that nation-wide.
Don’t you feel kind of sorry for Mayor Pete?
Now, the Dems/Lefties/Progs have moved past black REPUBLICANS being “not black enough.”
Past feminist women REPUBLICANS “not being female enough.”
Past lesbian REPUBLICANS “not being real lesbians.”
Now the Left is attacking DEMOCRAT Mayor Pete for not being gay enough!
Yup.
He & hubby posed for a Time magazine cover in front of their country style home.
And the attack came thusly:
LOL!
(Cisgender ….gay man. How does she get up in the morning with such an unfunctioning brain?)
Apparently, as Dems eat their own, “gay” equals straight & white, while “queer” equals promiscuous and colored.
Whew!
Can’t keep it all straight without a scorecard!
If the LGBT community won’t support Mayor Pete, why should ANY Dem do so???
Intersectional identity politics moves faster than the Left can keep up with.
@Nan G: I guess even liberals aren’t “authentic” if they can’t properly check all the boxes to fulfill the character that is accepted by liberals. Yet, I have no delusions they will see their own hypocrisy.