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.
Just another member of the insane Freak Show the Democrat Party has become.
Like every one of the other America-haters seeking the honor of fulfilling Obama’s dream of destroying the United States, he goes to extremes to appeal to whiny crybabies that don’t get everything they want handed to them free gratis, so they view the system and country as unfair, bigoted, racist and oppressive.
Those running are the worst examples of American humanity. Those they appeal to are absolutely repulsive.
Golly Jupiter this guy is so stupid him and Cosio-Cortez would make good pair of Disney Charatures
Speaking strictly as a resident of California, what’s the problem?
@Michael: Why dont you go sober up before posting again….
@Michael: Speaking strictly as an American, I do NOT want the entire country run like California. THAT’S the problem.
@Michael:
No one wants to be ruled by people who think the answer to feces in the streets is banning straws.
@DrJohn:
I get it. Democracy’s great unless you don’t get your way.
@Michael: You think having poverty and homelessness so absolutely out of control that public defecation is acceptable to the larger part of the nation?
@Deplorable Me:
I live in California, and what you’re describing isn’t happening anywhere near where I live.
Also: we’re not talking about races for city council. What you’re describing wouldn’t automatically have happened if Clinton had won.
@Michael:
Yet you live in California and you believe that allowing the people that vote in representatives that create those conditions should also control the election of the representatives for the entire country. The left likes to use “income inequality” as a rallying cry and campaign issue, yet nowhere is it worse than in California. Do wealthy liberals in California make their wealth available to solve the problem (all that money in the “wrong” hands, as De Blasio, the mayor of the other public toilet that would like to control the leadership of the country puts it) or do they simply build their walls higher and hire more security?
I know you live in California, which might render you incapable of understanding how other people think, but how could you possibly view this as attractive to anyone but elitists in California or New York?
Wouldn’t it? What of Hillary’s background gives you such confidence? Such dismal conditions are not solely restricted to California or New York; any city that has suffered extended liberal governance has fallen into disrepair and poverty. Why would anyone expect Hillary not to extend the ruinous polices of illegal immigrant sanctuary, high taxes which drives businesses away, taking good jobs with them and social deterioration?
Try to look at it from an American, not Democrat, point of view.
@Michael:
You mean like trying to use the 25th Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, claims of Russian collusion, obstruction of justice and/or eliminating the Electoral College to get rid of the duly elected President?
Let’s look at how parochial the views of big city Ny’ers and CA’ers are.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not even heard of a garbage disposal unit in sinks all over the rest of the nation.
Outlawed until 1997 in NY, most of the housing there doesn’t have this machine.
She’s not sure we should, either!
Just because she didn’t and having one scares her.
She probably missed the fact that garbage disposers help keep the rodent population down.
She neglected her garden plot because she went away for a couple of weeks.
Shock and Awe, it grew plants right out of the soil!
She, again, was shocked.
Most elected CA pols have no connection with the land or farming, either.
As a result they have voted (over & over again) to protect some fingerling fish or tadpole over CA’s almonds, avocados, artichokes, grapes, garlic, onions, rice, etc., crops!
Apply that stupidity to the nation and our breadbasket heartland will look as barren as CAs Central Valley.
Foods we used to grow here in the USA are now imported from Mexico, Central and South America, even Vietnam and Philippines!
As to your obliviousness about the homeless situation in CA, we left 6 yrs ago but kept in touch.
The homeless camps are growing, getting worse, coming closer to more & more people’s homes.
One guy in Venice, CA gave up on selling his millions dollar home on a canal by the beach because the homeless were so close to it no buyer made an offer.
CalTrans has to use bulldozers to scrape filth where the camps are every day lest more diseases spread to the general population.
I guess you missed the fact that Typhus has spread to Los Angeles City Hall workers because the rats, mice, lice and ticks have moved from the homeless camps into the buildings downtown.
Educate yourself:
Venice Beach
Anaheim just by the stadium (camps start 30 seconds in)
Santa Ana
Downtown Los Angeles
Oakland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRBbmWej_j4 Santa Cruz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI0OQkJvEaY Berkeley
No, we do not have this problem in Utah, where I moved.
There are a FEW homeless who are given beds every night but are free to refuse to use them.
@Deplorable Me:
One person, one vote. That’s the opposite of elitist.
What’s more American than “one person, one vote”?
@Nan G:
First, we’re not talking about electing “California pols”; we’re talking about people voting for president. The candidates would still be chosen in the same way. Moving to a popular vote in the general election would not mean that local pro-feces candidates would suddenly be on the ballot.
Second, if you’re actually-factually concerned about the president not being familiar with the ins and outs of hands-on agricultural production, how on Earth do you justify your support for Donald Trump?
You’ve taken the opportunity here to list things you hate about California and Californians, but they don’t really have any bearing on voting for the president in the general election.
@Michael:
It’s also the opposite of our Republic, which was put in place to keep states like yours ruling and ruining the entire country.
The Electoral College. It’s as American and America can get.
@Deplorable Me:
How do you figure?
@Deplorable Me: Mike is drunk again he now doesnt understand the electoral college.
@Michael: Because The United States is a REPUBLIC. Democracies last until the mob realizes they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. Then they fall. Republics last until there are no longer any patriotic citizens in the legislature. I think we may be getting close.
What preceded CA filling with pro-feces elected officials?
The mob rule of pure democracy.
We used to have a Dem, a GOP, a Green, an X, a Y , and/or a Z primary.
Then the ballot allowed the public to choose from among those.
Now CA has a 1st and 2nd place winner going on the ballot altho BOTH are Dems.
Add to that a dumping of the Electoral College and you have mob rule real quick.
The oblivious city folks on the coasts will always get elected over the sparsely populated fly-over country’s candidates.
AOC is a good example…..
Dumb as a post, perhaps even an actress who tried out for that role so as to be a front for powerful non-electible creeps, and incapable of identifying with people from other places than NYCity.
Her Green New Deal has been adopted by 90 other Dems even tho it is infeasible and, by her own admission, just a ploy for a redistributive commie takeover.
Clinton is a sexual predator but at least he is hetero. The minute this country chooses a reprobate like Butt… this country is finished.
@Michael:
There’s a reason this country is a Republic and not a democracy. Do I remember correctly that you said you were an educator?
@Michael:
So you haven’t run across that in the Constitution yet?
Buttigieg lost it with me when he tried to play the poor, gay victim to Pence’s “oppression”. Why does the left accept liars so readily? Why does lying not destroy their trust? They certainly like to imagine Republicans being condemned for lying often enough, yet they are so ready to accept liberals lying to them merely as business as usual… which, for them, it is.
@DrJohn:
It’s a democratic republic, in which we vote for our representatives. Eliminating the Electoral College wouldn’t change that. The EC doesn’t factor into any other part of our electoral system, and we’re still a republic.
Yes, which is probably why I understand the topic better than you appear to.
@Bookdoc: Eliminating the Electoral College would not change the fact that the United States is a republic. You need to look up the definition.
@Michael:
You “understand” the topic from a strictly Democrat point of view. The Electoral College did exactly what it was designed to do; protect most of the nation from the influence of the few. However, since this resulted in YOUR candidate’s loss, you feel it should simply be discarded, like you would relegate a new car to the junkyard because you left the lights on and ran the battery down and it failed to start for you when you wanted to go to Starbucks. One disappointment does not define obsolescence. Grow up.
@Deplorable Me:
Election of Senators by the state legislators used to be in the Constitution, too, but that was eliminated. Now it’s one person, one vote for senators — quite American.
In fact, “one person, one vote” is the way we run all other elections in our society. Are you saying that the Presidential election is the only genuinely American aspect of our entire political system?
Why do you hate America?
@Michael:You are an Ignoramus.
A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution. A democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.
The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual’s rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue.
@Deplorable Me:
People have been arguing against the Electoral College for decades. It’s unfortunate that you don’t pay enough attention to know this.
It’s also unfortunate to know that you see full participation in the electoral system as a capital-D Democratic obsession.
@Michael:
Did you skip the class on the Electoral College? May I suggest the Federalist Papers to you?
@kitt:
First of all, you should indicate that you’re quoting someone else when you’re doing so. Those aren’t your words, but you’re trying to pass them off as yours.
Second, a democratic republic uses the will of the people to choose the representatives who will govern. That’s the system we live under. Eliminating the Electoral College would not turn the United States into a pure democracy. The people would still be voting on a president, not doing the job of president themselves.
The Electoral College affects one single solitary election of all the many and varied elections we have in our society. If you think that doing away with it would turn our country into a direct democray, you’re going to need to make your case for that position.
@DrJohn:
What you might do is make your case like an adult.
@Michael: That doesnt change the fact you are an ignoramus Mikey, and not only have no understanding of our form of government but dont want any understanding of it.
Doc made an excellent suggestion you simply reject it out of hand for fear you would be shown the paper they gave you after college did not automatically make you an expert in the major you chose.
That only applies to a particular state electing that state’s representatives. That makes sense. However, as we have seen, it would be disastrous to use a simple majority for national elections.
I only hate your socialist, police state version you wish to transform it into.
I don’t waste time on whiny, sore loser crybabies who stamp their feet and hold their breath every time they lose an election. I’ve noticed no one has ever chosen to address this via a Constitutional amendment. Why?
Your party’s version of “full participation” has come to include illegal immigrants. You’ve lost all credibility.
@kitt:
I rejected it because I want to hear his case in 2019, not Madison’s case from 1787.
A case was made back then for counting three-fifths of some people for the purposes of apportioning representation. Do you want me to remain open-minded about that, as well?
@Deplorable Me:
Wrong again!
Sweet mother of God, do some research before you spout off.
@Michael: Wow the federalist papers contains that? SMH Ignoramus…..
You must be correct reading the words of the founders and debates for and against federalism could never better help anyone understand the original intent of the founders. How they came to compromise on issues that have had America have the world’s longest surviving constitution, in spite of those trying to fundamentally transform it.
Sweet mother of God, do some research before you spout off. take your own advise ignoramus.
@Michael:
I thought this signal set the tone
.
You do not, FWIW, and I was quite polite.
@Michael:
Your example is of some people discussing it, not proposing an amendment and voting on the amendment. So, try again, socialist.
Back to the subject of why the rest of the nation would want people who voted to despoil their own state through stupidity… why would we? The example of San Francisco, LA, Sacramento, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Detroit, Flint, etc, etc, etc is more than enough to provide resounding support to the current system which keeps people free of such deterioration.
@kitt:
Yes. Federalist #54 makes the case for the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Compromise also made it into the actual Constitution.
The Constitution has been changed twenty-seven times. The processes for change are built into the Constitution. The framers knew that it would happen and prepared for it.
@Deplorable Me:
I’m sorry. I can’t hear you over the sound of those goalposts you’re moving.
At any rate:
It appears that you didn’t even read the article.
@DrJohn:
Perhaps, but you did ask this:
That question has been used here more than once simply as a prelude to telling me how stupid I am. Perhaps I was preconditioned by that. You also asked this:
…Which comes across as incredibly snarky, rather than polite. You did some tone-setting of your own.
I’d still like to hear your case for the Electoral College. Getting rid of the EC would, in no way, change the United States from a republic to a direct democracy.
@Michael:
Yeah, I read it, right up to the point where there was a vote for an amendment, at which point the article went strangely quiet. Again, instead of bitching and moaning about not getting your way every time you want it, why don’t you address it through the proper methods and change it? What’s wrong… not enough infants wanting things the way YOU want them?
@DrJohn: Did you hurt him widdle feewings? You are a meanie. Meanie, meanie, meanie. He has probably screamed a hole in the sky because of your meanie-ness.
@Deplorable Me:
What does that even mean? The article didn’t end at that point.
@Deplorable Me:
Interesting take, since DrJohn was the first to whine about the tone of the interaction, but you go with it, buddy.
@Michael:
How can that statement even be true. What if the popular vote decides the constitution should be abolished?
Only speech they agree with be allowed
No private ownership of guns
Every suspicion allows full search of every aspect of your life
No due process, popular opinion for conviction of a crime
Seems we are getting quite close to your democracy in many ways.
@kitt:
Liberals simply believe what they want to believe is the truth. They fully accepted that all their masters had the goods on Trump and collusion, only to silently accept the fact that it was all based on lies. They’ve turned California’s big cities into latrines and they think that is what everyone else would want. They think objecting to an “investigation” based totally on lies is obstruction of justice. They simply like to create their own reality, because it is easier to discard and change.
@kitt:
Because it is. If we eliminate the Electoral College, we are still voting for our representatives, which is what makes a republic. Nobody is talking about turning the United States into a direct democracy like ancient Athens, which is what you seem to be thinking of.
Eliminating the Electoral College would in no way change the methods by which the Constitution can be amended. They are unrelated topics.
Has nothing to do with the Electoral College.
Has nothing to do with the Electoral College.
Has nothing to do with the Electoral College.
Has nothing to do with the Electoral College.
You do not understand what the Electoral College is, or, if you do, you’re pretending not to know for reasons I can’t understand.
@Deplorable Me: If you feel that kitt made valid points in the comment you’re citing, you either don’t understand what the Electoral College is, or you’re pretending not to understand.
@Michael: Your definition of republic is incorrect, go look it up or refer to my previous post.
Better yet correct my defintion by posting your definition of Republic
If mine is correct your entire last post is inane.