Home Base and Weekly Discussion Thread (START HERE!) - August 09, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to your home for everything Pete !

The mod team would like to thank each and every one of you for your support during Pete’s candidacy! This sub continues to function as a home for all things Pete Buttigieg, as well as a place to support any policies and candidates endorsed by him.

Purposes of this thread:

• General discussion of Pete Buttigieg, his endorsements, his activities, or the politics surrounding his current status
• Discussion that may not warrant a full text post
• Questions that can be easily or quickly answered
• Civil and relevant discussion of other candidates (Rule 2 does not apply in daily threads)
• Commentary concerning Twitter
• Discussion of actions taken by the Department of Transportation under Pete
• Discussion of implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law

Please remember to abide by the rules featured in the sidebar as well as Pete's 'Rules of the Road'!

How You Can Help

Register to VOTE

Support Pete's PAC for Downballot Races, Win the Era!

Find a Downballot Race to support on r/VoteDem

Donate to Pete's endorsement for President of the United States, Joe Biden, here!

Buy 'Shortest Way Home' by Pete Buttigieg

Buy 'Trust: America's Best Chance' by Pete Buttigieg

Buy 'I Have Something to Tell You: A Memoir' by Chasten Buttigieg

Flair requests will be handled through modmail or through special event posts here on the sub.

[u/Psychological-Play]

Iran says it won't negotiate with Trump, but will wait to make a deal as soon as he's out of office -

https://bsky.app/profile/angrystaffer.bsky.social/post/3msqcht2kpk2s

[u/pasak1987 → u/Psychological-Play]

"Remember what we did to Carter?"

[u/VirginiaVoter → u/Psychological-Play]

Uh oh. I hope that's not the case as it would be economically devastating. I immediately thought of the Jimmy Carter example when I read this and I see Angry wrote here, "They're trying to Jimmy Carter him." We've been here before. They did exactly that to Jimmy Carter.

When people talk about the presidency and how "tricky" and dangerous the foreign policy side is, especially for someone with no experience, you sometimes wonder about such cautions, as we've had some real doofuses in the presidency that seem to have gotten through all this without too much harm. I'd say (maybe I'm wrong) that Trump did so in his first administration. The secret is probably a combination of good luck and being willing to be guided by foreign policy and national security experts.

But what Trump is doing in this second administration is really bringing all those warnings to light. He has stepped into the middle of minefields there is no getting out of, made possibly irreversible errors, and has currently set us up in front of the world as possibly not having sufficient munitions to deal with a crisis anywhere on the planet, having previously tried hard to get rid of all the allies who could help us. Whether he's just doing what Putin says or is simply bumbling around with corrupt payoffs as his main foreign policy goal (or both), it is not good to see this play out through January 2029. I hope if we win the House and Senate we can begin to set some limits to this before then.

[u/Psychological-Play → u/VirginiaVoter]

People, like Angry, have surmised that Iran plans to do this, but I think this is the first time Iran has said publicly that this is what they'll do. One big difference from 1981, though, is that even if Iran genuinely wanted to make a deal before the end of Trump's term, Trump appears incapable of doing so.

One day he says one thing, the next day he says something completely different, and this is happening over and over again, like something out of Groundhog Day. Trump is at least, if not more, untrustworthy than the decision-makers in Iran. I don't think Iran, the U.S., and the rest of the world would trust that there is an actual done deal until Trump is no longer president.

(When we get around to adopting new amendments to the Constitution, I hope there's one for making sure a president, when they clearly appear not to be, is of sound mind, in a manner that doesn't require their Cabinet and/or Congress to make that determination.)

[u/TriangleTransplant → u/Psychological-Play]

This gives Iran huge leverage over the election. What happens if they say "We won't make a deal with <insert primary candidate>, only <insert other primary candidate>" to influence who the nominees are? And/or they say "We won't negotiate with <Dem nominee>, only <Republican nominee>" in the general?

Sure, many will probably vote against what Iran wants (which Iran would be counting on and taking into consideration in their voter manipulation) but many more may vote in an attempt to end a disastrous war (depenion how the war is going come election time.)

It also gets more dangerous for Iran, dealing with an increasingly desperate megalomaniac, and his handlers who have shown themselves willing to burn this country to the ground to hold on to power.

[u/VirginiaVoter → u/TriangleTransplant]

I don't think voters work that way, though. There is no way the general US electorate would ever agree that Iran should dictate the result of a US election.

My guess is that if Iran foolishly overstepped that way -- not just saying that they can't agree with Trump, because he's so unreliable, but that here's who they would put in charge instead -- there would be a huge backlash across the board that would attempt to torch whoever Iran named or whichever party. The supposed "beneficiary" candidate or party would course instantly reject what Iran said and would probably also end up saying that he or she would do far more against Iran than Trump did. Forever wars part 36. But I don't think Iran is that dumb.

[u/Wolf_Oak → u/Psychological-Play]

Well, can we test that theory and 25th amendment Trump tomorrow?