PDA

View Full Version : Mayor Pete Buttigieg On Biography, Policy and Politics.....



MMC
05-18-2019, 07:36 AM
Hugh Hewitt interviewed Bootyjudge. Who talked about his service and background. Hewitt gave up some slow hanging curveballs. But then jacked him on the SCOTUS. The mope tried to say the Repubs changed the seats on the SCOTUS and then switched it back when they gained power. LMAO. He also did the usual with appeasing Iran. The Iranians would luv for a Demo to be President. As they know they can play any Democrats for a sucker. Note what he says about Jefferson too.




PB: And I think there’s a fair amount of self-awareness right now, maybe not with everybody, but certainly among many in the Democratic Party that we’ve lost our grasp on these communities. A lot of these are the kinds of places that were the bedrock of my party at one time, and yet as we know, it’s where so many voters turned away from us, especially in 2016.


PB: Everything about geopolitics ought to be daunting to any mortal. I mean, if you take seriously the responsibilities of the office, and the issues and the sometimes unsolvable problems that hit the president’s desk, then that should put some humility in you. Then again, you know, every dynamic that the U.S. has operated in has been complicated. There’s, you know, centuries-old tribal and interreligious conflicts that explain what’s been going on in the Middle East, but you could in many ways say the same thing about Europe in the time of World War I or World War II, which the U.S. perhaps never mastered but obviously played a decisive role in a better outcome when it came to something like World War II. Look, the thing that’s really alarming when you think about something like Wahhabism, which is definitely an ideology or religious fanatical ideology that fuels a great deal of extremism and terrorism around the world is that it’s propagated by a Saudi regime that we think of, or at least treat as an ally. And so many of our relationships around the world, whether it’s with Saudi Arabia or in a different way with Pakistan, our incredibly, I’m trying to think of the right word, I’d say two-faced, but well, yeah, in a way, it is. And we can be two-faced about it, too, as a country, because we’re perfectly happy to work with these countries in one dimension even while they’re doing things that undermine our interests in another. And I think until we have a little more consistently between our interests and our values, we’re going to continue to find ourselves being confused and sometimes harmed by what happens around the world.


HH: Do you find Iranians’ variant of Shia extremism to be more dangerous to the world than the Sunni variant that we see in the Taliban and perhaps in Hamas and some of the more radical elements of Wahhabism?


PB: Well, you know, not unlike Christianity when it is motivating someone to do something extreme. It can have a thousand different flavors. The real question is what’s going on with the regime, the government, that’s given the power and the apparatus of the state and intelligence service and a military, and what do they do with their ideology? Iran, I think, is a little more complex than the Saudi picture, because I think there’s, frankly, a less unified regime, not that the Saudi regime is homogenous, either. But you look at Iran and the dynamic that’s gone over the years between those who have the most fidelity to the revolution, and those who really want to see change, the moderates. The problem, of course, is that whenever moderates come to power in Iran, the U.S. has a way of undermining them. I mean, imagine if you’re an Iranian politician who put all your eggs in the basket of saying let’s make a deal with the Americans. We really can trust them, and it’ll make everybody better off. And of course, now you’re going to have a lot of egg on your face. And so the hardliners keep getting empowered with each turn of the wheel. The setup for conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians is one where I guess we feel like we have a side, because we’re more aligned with the Saudis. But in some ways, nothing good can come of one side totally dominating and winning that particular conflict. And of course, the Israelis in particular are worried about…


HH: There’s a view in the national…there’s a national security view that the Iranians used the idea of moderate members of the regime as a tactic to confuse members of the West, and that the Supreme Leader is the Supreme Leader is the Supreme Leader, and the IRGC is the IRGC, and their Rommel is Soleimani, and that all this other stuff is just fluff to draw in well-meaning but naïve Westerners into conversations with a hardline regime. Do you reject that, Mayor Pete?


PB: Mostly. I mean, look. Every country has enough complexity that its players can play us off against one another. And there’s layers and layers to what’s going on there. But there’s also something real. I mean, the extent to which I think their regime really was threatened by some of this protest and street action that happened a few years ago, I think, is real. We’re talking about a country with millions of people. You know, we talk about them on the news, or in classrooms. Like you just had this colored space on a map, and everything’s the same. And then if you actually go there, and admittedly, I’ve not gone to Iran, but every country I’ve set foot in has proved to be dramatically more complicated than you would think. And they had their own politics. You know, Iran, the Iranian regime does not speak for all of the Iranian people as a unit any more than, you know, you could say that there are no moderate politicians in the U.S., and we’re all secretly enthusiastic Trump supporters. It just doesn’t work that way.



HH: Would you, if you are in fact the president, try and take the United States back into the JCPOA?


PB: Yes. The JCPOA was designed to reduce or eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran. We didn’t do it as a favor to Iran. We did it for U.S. security interests. If we’re going to do something again, we can always look at ways that it might be done differently. But I believe it made us safer, and I believe getting out of it has contributed to instability in the region. I mean, it set off a chain reaction that now has people wondering whether the National Security Advisor, one of the same people who led us into the war in Iraq, is trying to put us on a course to some kind of military confrontation that nobody needs with Iran as well.


HH: Now I am, this is an interview, not a debate. So when I disagree with you, I just let it pass. But let me ask you if you think the JCPOA under President Obama, and before President Trump withdrew from it, in any way constrained Iranian behavior in the region.


PB: Well, the JCPOA was about their effort to get nuclear capability. The bad behavior in the region is another story. And no, I don’t think that it really constrained their regional activities. I think that you know, in order for that to happen, we have to have a stronger regional security framework overall. Look, we know that the IRGC has all kinds of extracurricular activities, many of them targeting American interests, many of them things we would consider nefarious. But you also can’t ask one deal or one policy to solve everything. The focus of the JCPOA was the nuclear issue, and I think it helped when it came to that particular issue.



HH: Let me conclude with the issue that most troubles me about the Democrats, including you, Mayor Pete, which is you are in favor of expanding the Supreme Court and packing the Court up to 15 justices, which would be profoundly destabilizing. I’ve been teaching Con Law for 25 years. I wouldn’t want the Republicans to do it or the Democrats to do it. Are you open to persuasion on that, because it is such a bad idea?


PB: I am in favor of anything that will depoliticize the Supreme Court. And as you know, I think, in fact, you know better than I do, was it six times or seven times that America has changed the number and/or structure of the justices? Anyway, at least from time to time…...snip~


https://www.hughhewitt.com/mayor-pete-buttigieg-on-biography-policy-and-politics/

MMC
05-18-2019, 11:39 AM
Pete Buttigieg Wants Us All To Stop Naming Things After Thomas Jefferson (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/05/18/pete-buttigieg-wants-us-all-to-stop-naming-things-after-thomas-jefferson-n2546531)


TheWashington Free Beacon (https://freebeacon.com/politics/buttigieg-on-renaming-things-named-after-thomas-jefferson-its-the-right-thing-to-do/)reports that 2020 presidential candidate and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg believes that Americans should begin renaming events and landmarks after President Thomas Jefferson because "it's the right thing to do" due to the fact he owned slaves.


The Democratic candidate sat down with Salem media radio host, Hugh Hewitt, Friday to discuss a variety of issues including whether or not Thomas Jefferson should continue to be honored with the Jefferson-Jackson dinner hosted by the Democratic Party across the country in honor of the two men thought to be the founders of the Democratic Party.


Buttigieg did note that, "we are all morally conflicted human beings" and added that Democrats should not delete Jefferson from history, but also should not continue to insert him in modern-day affairs by naming new things after him either.....snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/05/18/pete-buttigieg-wants-us-all-to-stop-naming-things-after-thomas-jefferson-n2546531



This new breed of Democrat is certainly caught up with the moral affliction of his fellow man.

Peter1469
05-18-2019, 12:36 PM
He is apologizing every time he opens his mouth- he is a puff.

MMC
05-18-2019, 05:05 PM
He is apologizing every time he opens his mouth- he is a puff.
He still went on to attack Pence. Then Hewitt told him like it was, that the majority of the country don't give a shit if he is gay and likes to swap spit with his man. That it wont be an issue for the country. lol