Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[7,052,770]

I like that he's bringing up God and Scripture, and I like his family values.  He and his husband present an image of a red state American gay couple that is very appealing.  I also think its important that he has military experience since very few of the other candidates have it.

Isn't it about time we left religion out of consideration for which candidate to vote and look at the policies they propose because that's what truly matters? Anyway, he's not playing identity politics at all, so his sexuality shouldn't hurt him that much. His apparent moderation and generic platform probably will though.

It's not a big deal if they dont believe that people of other religions will spend eternity burning in Hell, which Buttigieg doesn't.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I like that he's bringing up God and Scripture, and I like his family values.  He and his husband present an image of a red state American gay couple that is very appealing.  I also think its important that he has military experience since very few of the other candidates have it.

Isn't it about time we left religion out of consideration for which candidate to vote and look at the policies they propose because that's what truly matters? Anyway, he's not playing identity politics at all, so his sexuality shouldn't hurt him that much. His apparent moderation and generic platform probably will though.

Religion was my #1 consideration in supporting a candidate. Policies are completely meaningless, especially for the office of President. The Senate will still be Republican so it won't matter. We need a president who has the best values and brings people to God.

By that, do you mean you judge people by their piety, or which religion they ascribe to, regardless of how devout they are? For example, who would you vote for between a Christmas-and-Easter Christian and an extremely devout neopagan or an OT VIII Scientologist?

Both. I have a hierarchy of religions in mind headed by Judaism, Catholicism and Anglicanism while avoiding most Baptists and witches, Lindsey Graham excluded. Donald Trump married a Catholic in an Episcopal church and baptized and raised his most beloved son in Episcopal churches, so he gets some bonus points for promoting the good. But someone even more devout to a truer faith would be the greatest ideal.

Your scenario is intriguing and I would likely be extremely resistant to making that choice at the presidential level. Notice how far down the fake Christians are on my rankings. Not a fan! They better be making an over-the-top exaggerated push for me. But also if the neopagan is an annoying millennial or something, that statement in the voting booth would probably be worse.

[Farmlands]

I like that he's bringing up God and Scripture, and I like his family values.  He and his husband present an image of a red state American gay couple that is very appealing.  I also think its important that he has military experience since very few of the other candidates have it.

Isn't it about time we left religion out of consideration for which candidate to vote and look at the policies they propose because that's what truly matters? Anyway, he's not playing identity politics at all, so his sexuality shouldn't hurt him that much. His apparent moderation and generic platform probably will though.

Religion was my #1 consideration in supporting a candidate. Policies are completely meaningless, especially for the office of President. The Senate will still be Republican so it won't matter. We need a president who has the best values and brings people to God.

But of course, policy doesn't matter when choosing someone to rule over the most powerful country on Earth, only bringing people to God. Oh and Trump must be one of those moral Christians, given his logo beneath your avatar. This anti-intellectualism is probably why the US is being ruled by an unemphatic, racist, incompetent bozo.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I like that he's bringing up God and Scripture, and I like his family values.  He and his husband present an image of a red state American gay couple that is very appealing.  I also think its important that he has military experience since very few of the other candidates have it.

Isn't it about time we left religion out of consideration for which candidate to vote and look at the policies they propose because that's what truly matters? Anyway, he's not playing identity politics at all, so his sexuality shouldn't hurt him that much. His apparent moderation and generic platform probably will though.

Religion was my #1 consideration in supporting a candidate. Policies are completely meaningless, especially for the office of President. The Senate will still be Republican so it won't matter. We need a president who has the best values and brings people to God.

But of course, policy doesn't matter when choosing someone to rule over the most powerful country on Earth, only bringing people to God! Oh and Trump must be one of those moral Christians, given his logo beneath your avatar. This anti-intellectualism is probably why the US is being ruled by an unemphatic, racist, incompetent bozo.

Believe me, I am the most anti-anti-intellectual person there is. Where a person went to school matters just as much as their religion. That's why a Quaker and a Crimson are so neck-and-neck.

[GP270watch]

 I feel like this candidate is all media hype. I don't get it at all.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I feel like this candidate is all media hype. I don't get it at all.

This is not the Kamala Harris thread.

[Rookie Yinzer]

I feel like this candidate is all media hype. I don't get it at all.

I liked him at first but it’s starting to be too much. What is he even running on? All I hear is him talking about Mike Pence.

Guess we’ll see in his launch speech and the debates. I hope he stops pandering to Trump voters and evangelicals.

[Holmes]

I feel like this candidate is all media hype. I don't get it at all.

I liked him at first but it’s starting to be too much. What is he even running on? All I hear is him talking about Mike Pence.

Guess we’ll see in his launch speech and the debates. I hope he stops pandering to Trump voters and evangelicals.

He hasn't announced just yet. These are the same criticisms people were making.of Beto last month.

[henster]

Buttigieg boom is all due to him actively reaching out to media and speaking to everyone who asked and they rewarded him with coverage. Harris & others should take cues and be more proactive with the media they've been kind of laying lay and it has hurt them.

[Fritz]

I would say that Buttigieg has officially entered the top tier of candidates, perhaps having displaced Beto from the top 4. 

Agree/Disagree?

In any event I'm jumping on this bandwagon.  He is brilliant, and he is just what we need.  I will send him money, and I will vote for him, unless he completely tanks in Iowa/NH/Nev/SC.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I feel like this candidate is all media hype. I don't get it at all.

I liked him at first but it’s starting to be too much. What is he even running on? All I hear is him talking about Mike Pence.

Guess we’ll see in his launch speech and the debates. I hope he stops pandering to Trump voters and evangelicals.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Buttigieg boom is all due to him actively reaching out to media and speaking to everyone who asked and they rewarded him with coverage. Harris & others should take cues and be more proactive with the media they've been kind of laying lay and it has hurt them.

I agree partially, but a solid portion of his ride is that when he gets coverage, it’s positive due to how authentic and knowledgeable he comes across on camera. Whereas Beto is just hitting the early states hard and ignoring national media interviews, Buttigieg is turning himself into a media darling. We’ll just have to wait till after the debates and into the fall to see who’s strategy wins out in convincing voters.

[Annatar]

I wouldn't put my money on Buttigeig, I still think its going to be Biden vs Bernie, the issue I see for Pete and for Beto as well is they more or less only appeal to upper middle income or high income college whites, the media is full of such people, hence why the media likes them so much but the Democratic party is far more then white college liberals earning $80,000 a year. Non-college whites, Hispanics, African Americans don't really seem interested in Pete or Beto, they support Bernie and Biden mainly. The media really needs to stop over hyping candidates that appeal to the identity of most journalists which is middle to upper class college white liberals. 

[SCNCmod]

I wouldn't put my money on Buttigeig, I still think its going to be Biden vs Bernie, the issue I see for Pete and for Beto as well is they more or less only appeal to upper middle income or high income college whites, the media is full of such people, hence why the media likes them so much but the Democratic party is far more then white college liberals earning $80,000 a year. Non-college whites, Hispanics, African Americans don't really seem interested in Pete or Beto, they support Bernie and Biden mainly. The media really needs to stop over hyping candidates that appeal to the identity of most journalists which is middle to upper class college white liberals. 

I think once Beto gets his campaign in full swing & begins doing all of the media shows etc... he will have some appeal with both Latinos & AA.  He will naturally appeal to Latinos given that he's from El Paso & represented a district that is overwhelmingly Latino- so there will be a natural comfort level (the same way southerners tend to identify with other southern candidates, etc).  Also- he will have some inherent trust among AA for little things from his past (Pretty publically standing up for NFL players during the Senate election when not many others were & when it served no benefit to his campaign.  And as other little things come out or are talked about -- like Beto's dad being the state chair for both of Jessie Jackson's presidential campaigns.. Jackson campaign some for him during Senate primary- and there is a chance he may in the Presidential Primary as well).

I still think it will end up coming down to:

Bernie, Beto & (Biden or Kamala... whichever wins SC).  Bernie & Beto are putting the most effort into setting up a national grassroots campaign which will pay benefits.  Also- I think after voters in Iowa kick the tires of all the non-Bernie options... Beto will end up being who many end up with (especially when he joins in on the media shows- where ppl can see he talking about specific policies very comfortably... which will help get rid of the "Platitudes narrative" (something that Obama got hit for early on as well).

[henster]

I wouldn't put my money on Buttigeig, I still think its going to be Biden vs Bernie, the issue I see for Pete and for Beto as well is they more or less only appeal to upper middle income or high income college whites, the media is full of such people, hence why the media likes them so much but the Democratic party is far more then white college liberals earning $80,000 a year. Non-college whites, Hispanics, African Americans don't really seem interested in Pete or Beto, they support Bernie and Biden mainly. The media really needs to stop over hyping candidates that appeal to the identity of most journalists which is middle to upper class college white liberals. 

I think once Beto gets his campaign in full swing & begins doing all of the media shows etc... he will have some appeal with both Latinos & AA.  He will naturally appeal to Latinos given that he's from El Paso & represented a district that is overwhelmingly Latino- so there will be a natural comfort level (the same way southerners tend to identify with other southern candidates, etc).  Also- he will have some inherent trust among AA for little things from his past (Pretty publically standing up for NFL players during the Senate election when not many others were & when it served no benefit to his campaign.  And as other little things come out or are talked about -- like Beto's dad being the state chair for both of Jessie Jackson's presidential campaigns.. Jackson campaign some for him during Senate primary- and there is a chance he may in the Presidential Primary as well).

I still think it will end up coming down to:

Bernie, Beto & (Biden or Kamala... whichever wins SC).  Bernie & Beto are putting the most effort into setting up a national grassroots campaign which will pay benefits.  Also- I think after voters in Iowa kick the tires of all the non-Bernie options... Beto will end up being who many end up with (especially when he joins in on the media shows- where ppl can see he talking about specific policies very comfortably... which will help get rid of the "Platitudes narrative" (something that Obama got hit for early on as well).

Beto has been pretty absent from the media apart from the Vanity Fair article he hasn't really done anything like The View or The Breakfast Club. I think the lesser known candidates need to move away from the traditional campaign rallies and events and focus on getting as much media spotlight as possible right now. Klobuchar is making the same mistake, she is completely invisible instead of getting her name out there she's just doing little events here and there.

[Spiffy]

Buttigieg boom is all due to him actively reaching out to media and speaking to everyone who asked and they rewarded him with coverage. Harris & others should take cues and be more proactive with the media they've been kind of laying lay and it has hurt them.

There's something to say about being accessible. Similar to what Trump did, basically appearing everywhere.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

I like that he's bringing up God and Scripture, and I like his family values.  He and his husband present an image of a red state American gay couple that is very appealing.  I also think its important that he has military experience since very few of the other candidates have it.

Isn't it about time we left religion out of consideration for which candidate to vote and look at the policies they propose because that's what truly matters? Anyway, he's not playing identity politics at all, so his sexuality shouldn't hurt him that much. His apparent moderation and generic platform probably will though.

Religion was my #1 consideration in supporting a candidate. Policies are completely meaningless, especially for the office of President. The Senate will still be Republican so it won't matter. We need a president who has the best values and brings people to God.

But of course, policy doesn't matter when choosing someone to rule over the most powerful country on Earth, only bringing people to God. Oh and Trump must be one of those moral Christians, given his logo beneath your avatar. This anti-intellectualism is probably why the US is being ruled by an unemphatic, racist, incompetent bozo.

Trump is not my example of a role model for Christian Living.  Most Christians are not confused about that, and I don't present him to be that.  2016 was a choice between a person who was, quite possibly, not even saved, and a person who sought to present herself as a Christian while (at a minimum) implying all sorts of things (other ways to salvatation besides Christ, abortion and homosexuality are Biblically sanctioned, etc.) that are just not in line with Scripture, and whose followers do little to hide their open hostility to Evangelical Christianity.  In terms of actual policies that are actually important to Evangelical Christians (as well as many Catholics and Mormons), Trump has done more to advance them than other Republican Presidents who used these issues as talking points but did not advance them in public policy. 

Buttigieg had my attention until he made his statement about Mike Pence having a problem with his Creator.  This is a viewpoint I simply don't accept, and under most circumstances, I could not support someone for such a visible office as the Presidency who ascribed to what Buttigieg ascribes to.  If he were the nominee, and I viewed him as the better choice, I would come to that point with extremely mixed emotions, and if I voted for him, I would not be able to endorse him and ask others to do so.

I certainly take a Biblical view of homosexuality.  Now I view most of that issue that's a matter of other people's private lives for the most part.  I view SSM as a fait accompli, and I don't wish to see gays discriminated against in housing, secular employment, etc.  What I am opposed to is the idea that I must AFFIRMATIVELY agree to the idea that homosexuality is OK; that it's OK with God and that I must say it is, and that my church must hire openly gay persons, even though our doctrine is one that states otherwise, and is supported by Scripture.  The idea of our government forcing this agenda on churches is not acceptable; it is a violation of the First Amendment, and it is a violation of the concept of Negative Liberty, of the right to decline to say what is not on one's mind, that I oppose. 

It is the twisting of my arm to affirm the correctness of something I find Biblically incorrect that is unacceptable at any price.  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was actually a wise policy; indeed, it's a good approach to most life situations.  It is when people seek to force others to affirm them that freedom is impinged on.  Whatever injustices were in the past, I am not sure that I will like Buttigieg's approach on these matters going forward.

[7,052,770]

The correct Christian viewpoint is pro-gay, not anti-gay.

You see, I can do it too.

[Comrade Funk]

Long winded explanation in endorsing religious homophobic bigotry.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

The correct Christian viewpoint is pro-gay, not anti-gay.

You see, I can do it too.

But, of course, that begs the question of what "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" mean.

If it means that we are to love our neighbor as Christ loved us, that is one thing.  If it means that we are to affirm our neighbor's choices as correct, even if they fly in the face of Scripture, that is something else.

No one, until the last two (2) decades, has ever seriously suggested that Homosexuality was Biblically sanctioned anywhere.  This only occurs now due to the fact that the Famine of the Word, as prophesied by Amos, has come; Knowlege has increased, but there is more Biblical ignorance today than at any time in the history of America, and those who wish to pervert Scripture for political agendas have gained traction in this.

[John Dule]

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

The correct Christian viewpoint is pro-gay, not anti-gay.

You see, I can do it too.

 This only occurs now due to the fact that the Famine of the Word, as prophesied by Amos, has come; Knowlege has increased, but there is more Biblical ignorance today than at any time in the history of America

And thank goodness we no longer live like barbarians; as far as I’m concerned the quicker truly devout religiosity dies out the faster we can move on with the work of actually improving the human condition. Taking the Bible literally as the inerrant word of God is both dangerous for society and thankfully not something anyone from my generation really does any more — many take it seriously, but very few literally. I’d rather the youth pickup placards or a newspaper than the Bible. So hip-hip hooray for the rise of “biblical ignorance” and the fall of biblically inspired misogyny, racism, homophobia and bigotry.

[7,052,770]

The correct Christian viewpoint is pro-gay, not anti-gay.

You see, I can do it too.

But, of course, that begs the question of what "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" mean.

If it means that we are to love our neighbor as Christ loved us, that is one thing.  If it means that we are to affirm our neighbor's choices as correct, even if they fly in the face of Scripture, that is something else.

No one, until the last two (2) decades, has ever seriously suggested that Homosexuality was Biblically sanctioned anywhere.  This only occurs now due to the fact that the Famine of the Word, as prophesied by Amos, has come; Knowlege has increased, but there is more Biblical ignorance today than at any time in the history of America, and those who wish to pervert Scripture for political agendas have gained traction in this.

People care about "scripture" now more than any other time in human history. Your post is literally the falsest thing you could possibly say about the subject.

[Thatkat04]

I quite like him. If he lasts till the Florida primary next year, I think I'll vote for him. Maybe even put a bumper stick on. Havent done that since Hillary in 2008.

[Thatkat04]

Sorry for the double post:

As a newly minted top-tier candidate, I think Mayor Pete really needs to go back to the drawing board on these Bumper Stickers. If I put this on my car, no one will have any idea what its trying to say.

https://store.peteforamerica.com/collections/gear/products/pete-2020-bumper-stickers