Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Those who think his lack of black support can be explained by homophobia: how much support do you think he would have otherwise?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

very good point here re: Buttigieg and blacks

https://twitter.com/TheAgeofShoddy/status/1197242869280456704?s=20

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is good writing.

So white people who were lucky enough to have fortunate circumstances in their upbringings aren't allowed to participate in the conversation on how to make this country better? That's cool. I'll just be over here checking my privilege.

You're purposely ignoring the actual argument being made.  To quote the article:

Mayor Pete’s bullsh**ttery is not just wrong, it is proof.

It proves men like him are more willing to perpetuate the fantastic narrative of negro neighborhoods needing more role models and briefcase-carriers than make the people in power stare into the sun and see the blinding light of racism. Get-along moderates would rather make sh**t up out of whole cloth than wade into the waters of reality. Pete Buttigieg doesn’t want to change anything. He just wants to be something.

This is not just a lie of omission, it is a dangerous precedent. This is why institutional inequality persists. Not because of white hoods and racial slurs. It is because this insidious double-talk erases the problem by camouflaging it. Because it is painted as a problem of black lethargy and not white apathy.

Yes, that's nice, if only Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, and Billary Clinton haven't made similar arguments before.

And on this topic, they're all bullsh**tters.  To be clear, I deeply admire Obama, Harris, and the Clintons, but when they characterize the real, significant challenges facing black communities as mere problems of moral character or a lack of social ethic, and not as the obvious result of deliberate economic policy decisions, they are bullsh**tting in the most counterproductive of ways.  Maybe that's necessary to be electorally viable (debatable!), but we have to acknowledge that this bullsh**t does real damage to real people.

But... that's not what Buttigieg is saying (nor is it what Harris or Obama have said - Bill Clinton I'm not going to defend as I'm sure he said those sorts of things in the 90s; Hillary Clinton probably hasn't, though). Buttigieg is saying that role models and sponsors help young people achieve and are a positive part of children's lives and success. That's not just true, it's blindingly obvious (and for everyone; the mesage applies just as much to Native American children on a reservation in North Dakota or white children in rural eastern Kentucky or Hispanic children in the Rio Grande Valley). What he didn't say is that that's enough, or the solution, or that other actions and investment aren't needed or aren't appropriate.

I mean, hell, this is the same argument about why we need black (or other minority group) superheroes, to use an example that may sound flip but is far from completely ridiculous, or why having Obama in the White House was such a positive message for black children nationwide.

People are just reading bad things into a positive message from someone they've already decided to hate.

If I'm trying real, real hard to be generous to Buttigieg, then I guess I can agree with all you're saying.  But if I'm just listening to the interview like a normal person, I hear two distinct messages that prompt two very different responses:  1.)  "Kids need to see evidence that education is going to work for them"--True!  I think we all agree on this.  2.)  "And there are a lot of kids—especially [in] the lower-income, minority neighborhoods, who literally just haven’t seen it work. There isn’t someone who they know personally who testifies to the value of education."--Bullsh**t!  Not only is this wrong on the merits, this is victim blaming of the basest sort. 

It's the opposite of victim blaming.  He's saying they need help with something because of their disadvantaged backgrounds.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's the opposite of victim blaming.  He's saying they need help with something because of their disadvantaged backgrounds.

Do you think the "help" he's recommending here is the "help" they actually need?

For some, yes, possibly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

good comment here (at 5min.) by Mark Shields on Pete B.'s appeal as the temperamental opposite of Trump

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Evidence from Pete Buttigieg's anti-gay record keeps piling up!

https://twitter.com/ZackFord/status/1202016833899040768?s=20

https://twitter.com/RzstProgramming/status/1203765352934580224?s=20

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Calling a gay politician anti-gay because he donated to a red state Democrat who opposed gay marriage in 2012 #JustAtlasThings

Yep!  Thankfully, Donnelly was defeated by gay rights hero Richard Murdock.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Buttipete starts with TV, radio and online ads in NV:

good ad - presents him as an experienced can-do, competent, take-charge leader. he will need that message to convince voters he's as ready to be president as much older senators.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

cool place.  the root chandelier is a nice touch.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Unintended consequences? Of what, women having easier access to abortion?

Jeez Pete. Sometimes you don't have to find the middle road for everything.

Edit: I've learned a lesson in taking twitter headlines in good faith.

How about some guy buys it and slips it into his pregnant girlfriend's drink so he doesn't have to pay child support???

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Eh, nobody cares.

Besides, he's right:

Most of the 1600s and 1700s people were FULLY supportive of slavery. Almost none back then opposed slavery.

It's good that Pete is pointing this out. The US founding fathers were not saints, but would actually be considered horrible assho*es these days.

His point is not that the founding fathers should be considered a-holes, it's literally the exact opposite. It's that they were ignorant of the idea that owning people as property is bad, which, as has been pointed out, is historically incorrect and also not? the point?

I do find it curious, however, that the right is flocking to say that Pete is wrong about this when his point defends the founding fathers from one of the most common left-wing criticisms of them. The right is literally making the point that a lot of the founders were indeed racist pieces of sh*t lol

No, read those tweets again, that's not what they're arguing.