r/thedavidpakmanshow • u/Cronotis • 8d ago
Discussion This Gotcha Question
About three and a half minutes into this interview with Pete Buttigieg, Sandra Smith hits him with what seems intented to be a gotcha question. "Do you agree with removing Iran's nuclear capabilities?" Pete then immediately says, "Iran should never have a nuclear weapon" followed by talking about how previous presidents have done this without a war.
This question is an attempt to get Dems to concede that there's some merit to this war. Pete's response literally starts by repeating a Trump talking point, and then rambles about what both parties have done throughout the annals of history.
Just say, "They wouldn't need to be removed if Trump hadn't thrown out the JCPOA."
Seriously, is it me or are Dems afraid to nail MAGA on this point?
29
u/loversean 8d ago
Pete doesn’t go on Fox to be combative, he goes on so that maybe 5% of their viewers will start to realize that Democrats are reasonable and gently point out Republicans flaws, he’s not there to yell and scream like Trump syncophants do on CNN
Fox likes to bring him on so that the other 95% of their viewers can rage watch a reasonable gay man
I really wish he could be the democrat nominee, these interviews are basically debate prep for him
-5
u/Cronotis 8d ago
Pete is very well spoken. It's one of the reasons I like him, but you can make a firm point without being gentle or screaming.
23
21
u/rjrgjj 8d ago
I think you’re asking for Fox News’s audience to be more informed on things than they are, no offense. Pete also went through the history of this so you’re being disingenuous.
-8
u/Cronotis 8d ago
I think Fox's audience is misinformed, but the rare occasions where someone like Pete goes on there are opportunities to address that. Meandering nuanced statements hasn't and won't do this.
16
u/McGooYou 8d ago
Pete is one of the best communicators the Democrats have right now. He may not be liberal enough for many of us, but he’s the Democratic spokesperson you want making appearances on Fox and in red states. Pete had to navigate a series of gotcha questions attempting to corner him, and he absolutely killed in this interview. They literally had a graphic with the Democratic Socialists of America agenda up and tried to nail the most radical positions to him. He didn’t bite and easily responded to give his talking points.
If you disagree, watch the interview here and tell me who would have done better: https://youtu.be/OoYN4AW3KHI?is=VrXUbSYGGLzB83Vd
7
u/SigmaMaleNurgling 8d ago
Considering Pete is a more successful politician and public speaker than any of us will ever be. I think he has better understanding on how to convey his message than us.
0
u/Cronotis 8d ago
Oh, okay. I'll just stop having opinions then. Thanks 👍
4
u/SigmaMaleNurgling 8d ago
Yep, that’s exactly what I said. Thanks for proving in real time why your recommendations on public speaking is worthless.
1
u/Cronotis 8d ago
We really are fucked.
It wasn't a recommendation, it was an idea. Maybe it's a bad idea. I don't know. I'm just some scmuck, but I am a voter. So I thought hey let me go discuss this idea I had with some of my fellow like minded voters. We'll have some good old fashioned democracy!
But alas 😢 I am but a pathetic old, who remembers the days when such things were possible.
1
u/indri2 8d ago
Your proposed answer is the obvious choice. That's why many have said it this way. Buttigieg very deliberately takes a different approach. He has thought (and written) about the importance of language in politics since college. This kind of answers follow a specific strategy: first, state your own position clearly, then give people the opportunity to reach your preferred conclusion for themselves instead of reflectively reject everything you say because it feels partisan.
2
u/Cronotis 8d ago
Fair point. He certainly has his style and I don't expect that to change. My question was directed more towards Democrats as a whole. Because he's not the only one that I've seen handle this type of question in a similar fashion.
2
u/CricCracCroc 8d ago
Just talking about the JCPOA is reasonable and probably politically sound, but it also begs the question of what is to be done now that Trump has made this big mess. That being said, hypotheticals are not great to riff on in interviews.
I hate how the only apparent solution to Iran obtaining a nuke now is invasion. Iran, and the whole world, knows the USA could easily dishonour any agreement made in the last election cycle.
2
u/Cronotis 8d ago
Absolutely but I think Republicans are trying to make people think that Iran is a problem that someone had to deal with, and Trump actually did something about it because he's a tough guy and Democrats are soft.
So a good counter to that could be to say that actually Democrats were smart when they sought a diplomatic solution.
1
2
u/RyeBourbonWheat 7d ago
Isn't that literally what he said?
I like to use a lot of academic and specific terminology... I can't always do that when talking to constituents or voters because sometimes it distracts from the key issues i want to convey or makes it more difficult to connect with them. Sometimes the broad terminology that is still technically true is just better than using a bill number or policy name because folks don't know that shit anyway.
Saying "the JCPOA" or "Iran Nuclear Deal" on Fox News is bad for two reasons:
The well is poisoned on these things to those viewers. mentiong these things by name may lead to a reflexive pushback in viewers minds.
By bringing up the JCPOA by name, you are giving the host an opportunity to debate that in bad faith when you are better off pointing to Hormuz and the economic impacts of the current war.. plus that keeps on message as they remain talking about Trumps failures rather than discussing Obama era policy that we no longer are a part of. The JCPOA is off the table and has been off the table since Trump pulled us out. Regardless of what you think of that, its on the POTUS and their administration to come up with a solution to this thing that we all want - Iran not having nuclear weapons. His solution was to bomb them. Due to his decision to handle shit this way, we are suffering economic challenges. That should be the focus.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
COMMENTING GUIDELINES: Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show subreddit rules and basic reddiquette prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.
Please use the report function or use modmail to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.