comment: >
  
  Propagandists at Fox can clip the smart remark off the end and only replay Brett asking a "tough" question.
context: It told me a lot about Pete’s character when he took paternity leave to be a Dad to a baby that he adopted.  Also told me a lot about the sickos (Tucker) who made light of him. >
  
  TWO pre-mature babies. >
  
  I wish I was half as sharp at Pete.  We need more people like him in public office. >
  
  He's not doing anything about Southwest airlines so i would hope not >
  
  R U sure?  Do you know that for a fact? >
  
  Pete looks great on these shows. He is sharp in coming back against these ridiculous attacks. But it really is more style than substance. 
  For example Ro Khanna and bernie asked Buttigieg to implement fines & penalties on airlines for cancelling flights but he ignored/delayed implementing them. 
  Weeks before southwest fiasco New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) sent a warning of "the deeply troubling and escalating pattern of airlines delaying and canceling flights" particularly during holidays. She outlined various actions he could take to deter the practice.
  The demands for tougher enforcement in a concurrent letter to Buttigieg by Democratic U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Alex Padilla
  One week before the Southwest scheduling disaster, 34 attorneys general led by Colorado Democrat Phil Weiser sent another letter begging Buttigieg to “impose significant fines for cancellations and extended delays that are not weather-related or otherwise unavoidable.”
  It makes sense he isnt doing anything. In recent months, Southwest has been lobbying Buttigieg’s department on “airline customer service and consumer protection issues” and “fare fees,” according to federal filings. >
  
  
  For example Ro Khanna and bernie asked Buttigieg to implement fines & penalties on airlines for cancelling flights but he ignored/delayed implementing them.
  
  Because that's not how it works, as both Khanna and Bernie should know perfectly well. He can't just implement fines on a whim without clear rules and investigations, that would be abuse of power (and quickly thrown out in court). In order to make a rule there has to be a process that takes a long time and it still has to be based on laws passed by Congress. There are multiple rules on their way through that process, but DOT had to first reverse a decision made in the last months of 2020 that made the process even more difficult.
  None of this would have had any influence on the SWA mess. At all. >
  
  Those were complaints from 2020 or maybe early 2021. I'm not sure about the exact amount, but I think the number of complaints has been at least 10 times higher in the last 2 years than ever before. 
  More staff dealing with those complaints could only be hired in February/March, after the budget passed and there are not nearly as many more as numbers of complaints. I don't know anything about the inner workings, but given Pete's history I'd expect that they tried to find ways to make the process a lot more efficient. There's obviously a huge backlog though. 
  New rules have to be based on the existing authority of DOT and go through a lengthy process, with time for comments.
  Because all this takes a lot of time Pete tried the "soft" approach to get the airlines to "voluntarily" do what they should. That seems to have mostly worked with things like hiring more staff, paying them more and reducing flights to a realistic schedule. Until the storm hit.
  Then he "motivated" the airlines to promise compensations for hotels, meals and ground transport in case of cancellations and delays that are their fault. They hadn't guaranteed that previously, but most did so in September. In writing, which now makes it enforceable. The legal route would have taken a year at least, if it's even possible, and come to late for the SWA mess. >
  
  These rules existed before. There's a reason a lot of tiktok lawyers got big for pointing out these policies before.
  You're trying to make it sound like pete made these rules exist when he didn't >
  
  Only he didn't, and this sort of headline is exactly the problem with this sort of bullshit in the first place.
  Baier trotted out the traditional Fox News "Scandal" of "A gay person has a job, and that makes me uncomfortable", and Buttigieg clearly explained the policies and precedent related to the trip, and asked Baier to explain his homophobia. Which obviously Baier didn't, and immediately changed the subject.
  There was no "On Blast", there was just a professional dealing with the same sort of bigotry that he deals with all the damn time. >
  
  A better headline would be "Pete buttigeg sternly corrects attempted spin on normal government travel" 
  But that doesn't generate as many clicks I guess >
  
  Pete SLAMS Fox News >
  
  Pete DESTROYS Fox host with FACTS AND LOGIC >
  
  Homophobia won the GOP so many votes in November. Prolly should double down on that and outlawing birth control. Winning!
  .
  .
  .
  .
  /s >
  
  I remember a time when going after a politician’s close family to get them was out of bounds. Husbands, wives, kids, etc. >
  
  Do you remember how the right treated Chelsea Clinton? Even Amy Carter was disputed by them. >
  
  I’m afraid I wasn’t paying attention then. It is difficult to be seen as setting a good example by not doing something. Turning the other cheek has to start with someone. >
  
  I always wonder why he keeps going on Fox but then he leaves every time making the host look stupid.  I should wonder why Fox keeps inviting him.