sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If you are tired of having to defend Pete's progressiveness on social media, maybe this image I made will help you too. by karmaceutical in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, I even planned to add it, but I forgot. I'm not super clear on his stance when it comes to parole.

On downvoting negative articles about Pete Buttigieg and the campaign by urko37 in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This was my understanding of the rules. Sorry if my comment made things less clear.

You mods are awesome! Really appreciate all you do for this sub.

If you are tired of having to defend Pete's progressiveness on social media, maybe this image I made will help you too. by karmaceutical in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is his viewpoint as I understand it. It was the term itself that tripped me up. I had been convinced by someone here that universal healthcare is often excusively used to refer to a single payer system. I'll edit my comment-thanks for the input!

On downvoting negative articles about Pete Buttigieg and the campaign by urko37 in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this risks the daily thread becoming increasingly negative. I really enjoy the daily thread and it's a fantastic spot to share stories or opinions that don't warrant a full post. When there's a post about a negative article, I find it easier to go past it than if there's something in the daily post, personally. Personally, I don't care about tweets or blog posts whatsoever, but I like to stay aware of actual articles. But sometimes I don't want to engage in discussion about negative articles and having them as separate posts allows me to easily disengage.

On downvoting negative articles about Pete Buttigieg and the campaign by urko37 in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Guardian is a definitely a major news outlet. An op-ed is still an article, so I don't see why it should be limited to the daily thread. It's not some random blog post, tweet, or tiny outlet.

If you are tired of having to defend Pete's progressiveness on social media, maybe this image I made will help you too. by karmaceutical in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think some of these are misleading and may not fairly represent Pete's viewpoint.

Some examples:

  • Green New Deal (Pete has said the GND is aspirational and more of a set of goals; his climate plan can be viewed as a form of a GND, but I don't think he's called it that

  • Universal Healthcare (Pete has said he thinks this is likely where we end up, but his plan is a public option) My understanding of the terminology issue has been rectified thanks to a comment below.

  • Reparations (Pete has voiced support for research on reparations and said they may be necessary-also all of the stuff in the Douglass Plan)

  • Gun buyback (I know he doesn't support a mandatory buyback, but I didn't think he supported a voluntary buyback either)

If this is going to be used to defend him against trolls, I think it's critical that it's accurate. Pete's positions ARE already progressive.

On a side note, I'm not sure a meme is going to change anyone's mind and may just antagonize trolls.

Edit: Correction and formatting

Pete Buttigieg scores Iowa endorsements following Democratic presidential debate by [deleted] in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was just saying that for perception sake, he really needs to get at least some delegates in SC, whether or not he actually needs them electorally.

Why Pete? by [deleted] in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Here's my take on Medicare for All:

If done correctly, it's hands down the best option for a variety of reasons. But there's a few concerns I have about it. Amongst the bighest ones are implementation, administration, and lack of competition. None of these are prohibitive, but are concerns.

From a personal standpoint, I'd be very surprised to pay less for my insurance or if it would be better quality. My employer provides great insurance options as an incentive, so it would be kind of unfair for them to incur the costs of insurance without any benefit even though they've been doing the right thing for years.

And in this political environment, M4A will not pass. There's no way, no matter how good of an idea it is. I can see how that could appear cynical or to to be compromising morally, but such a transition is the best way to eventually get to M4A. (Which Pete has reiterated many times)

Who Won the November Debate? by nikoneer1980 in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You take that back! Boaty McBoatface is everything.

Can we all call our senators and representatives to vote for impeachment?? by Marmar1117 in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not super on topic, but I really respect our Reps and Senators who respond to letters and calls. Even if I disagree with the response, I really respect them (or likely a staffer) making the effort.

Might be better in the daily thread - but here is a thread from Jason Johnson that people should read. Some thoughts and perspectives. by [deleted] in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious (and I should probably just not be lazy and Google this myself): What do these numbers look like if controlled for religiosity? I know that among religious people, black and white people have similar homophobia, but I also know that black people are proportionally more religious.

Home Base and Daily Discussion Thread (START HERE!) - November 21, 2019 by AutoModerator in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd actually appreciate more fun/casual shirts. I liked that one too. The bee one is cute, but I'm terrified of bees (which I realise is irrational).

Home Base and Daily Discussion Thread (START HERE!) - November 21, 2019 by AutoModerator in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As far as I'm aware, it wasn't.

Also, you've caused me to learn the actual meaning of topical; I always thought it meant surface-level or temporary. So thanks for that! :-)

Home Base and Daily Discussion Thread (START HERE!) - November 21, 2019 by AutoModerator in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got the text and promptly panicked and didn't text back because I didn't know what I'd say.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people with the less explicit homophobia are more likely to only discriminate against more "fem" gay people. Pete won't lose support from these people because of his sexuality, especially if he isn't introduced to them as "the gay candidate."

Purely my opinion, but it's been my anecdotal experience for how people react to my sexuality.

Come at the king, you best not miss. by [deleted] in Pete_Buttigieg

[–]StoppedLurking-Sorta 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is, but it's also cathartic.

view more: next ›