Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign megathread

[YE]

After much deliberation, I deleted a few posts that crossed what admittedly is a gray line and am hiding the rest of the exchange due to it being content based but also off topic.

[2016]

Pete Buttigieg will lose his long IOWA Win tonight!

[Illini Moderate]

Having your opinions silenced by the mods is such a pleasant experience. "LGBT discrimination", give me a break.

You literally referred to being gay as a "decision", insinuated that its a mental health problem, said that gay people "just want more gay kids", and stated that "you don't care what its like" for gay people to struggle with coming out.

Yet you want to whine about how unpleasant it is to be censored on an Internet forum yet dismiss the struggle that many gay people go through in order to work up the strength to come out? How hypocritical. You're homophobic and should be banned. People like YOU are the reason that gay children take their own life rather than come out. You're pathetic, and I'm done here

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Will Buttigieg break 15% in SC?

[John Dule]

Having your opinions silenced by the mods is such a pleasant experience. "LGBT discrimination", give me a break.

You literally referred to being gay as a "decision", insinuated that its a mental health problem, said that gay people "just want more gay kids", and stated that "you don't care what its like" for gay people to struggle with coming out.

Yet you want to whine about how unpleasant it is to be censored on an Internet forum yet dismiss the struggle that many gay people go through in order to work up the strength to come out? How hypocritical. You're homophobic and should be banned. People like YOU are the reason that gay children take their own life rather than come out. You're pathetic, and I'm done here

Being homophobic is not a sufficient justification to ban someone.

[7,052,770]

What's the deal with all the "This post is currently hidden because it contains potentially inappropriate or sensitive content" posts? A mod gone mad or a faulty algorithm?

How in the world was what I posted inappropriate or sensitive, along with all the other?

[BP🌹]

Having your opinions silenced by the mods is such a pleasant experience. "LGBT discrimination", give me a break.

Boohoo. I had a post deleted for saying I wanted a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine.

[It’s so Joever]

What’s wrong with censorship?

[AtorBoltox]

Having your opinions silenced by the mods is such a pleasant experience. "LGBT discrimination", give me a break.

Boohoo. I had a post deleted for saying I wanted a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine.

As you should have, given this would lead to the genocide of the Israeli population

[John Dule]

What’s wrong with censorship?

It's inevitably based on the beliefs of the mainstream, so if your beliefs someday find themselves outside of the mainstream for whatever reason, you'll find yourself getting censored using the same logic you used to censor others.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

What’s wrong with censorship?

It's inevitably based on the beliefs of the mainstream, so if your beliefs someday find themselves outside of the mainstream for whatever reason, you'll find yourself getting censored using the same logic you used to censor others.

I agree with all this, and disagree with censorship. I also don’t believe controversial opinions should mean you’ll be banned.

Doesn’t make Grassr00ts opinions any less belligerently homophobic or bigoted, and I’m glad he’s been roundly condemned and thoroughly outargued for them on this thread.

[Beet]

https://twitter.com/IAStartingLine/status/1233188780493987841

[Illini Moderate]

Having your opinions silenced by the mods is such a pleasant experience. "LGBT discrimination", give me a break.

You literally referred to being gay as a "decision", insinuated that its a mental health problem, said that gay people "just want more gay kids", and stated that "you don't care what its like" for gay people to struggle with coming out.

Yet you want to whine about how unpleasant it is to be censored on an Internet forum yet dismiss the struggle that many gay people go through in order to work up the strength to come out? How hypocritical. You're homophobic and should be banned. People like YOU are the reason that gay children take their own life rather than come out. You're pathetic, and I'm done here

I said that coming out as gay was a decision, and I said that your agenda is deviating from being empathetic to encouraging kids to come out before they are fully matured.

You are right that I asserted that it was a mental health problem, and you are right that I don't care about gay peoples personal coming out struggles. For the most part those positions are not out of the mainstream, and I shouldn't get my posts moderated off of those statements. About 5-10 years ago I wouldn't get moderated for my positions. Now, due to the extremely liberal bias of this forum, my views are suddenly fringe and radical. Yeah, they are pretty radical on this forum, but not in real life.

I'm not homophobic, but I think you forgot that you can't be banned for being homophobic. It appears no right winger here can speak without being called pathetic and other insults. That's typical leftist behavior, and if you want to be respected as a member here, perhaps you should attempt to increase the caliber of your rhetoric.

In other words, try harder.

You’re definitely homophobic, referring to being gay as a mental problem proves that. It’s not a partisan issue, it’s an issue of decency, which you do clearly lack. You’re really about to complain about being called pathetic and accuse me of using harmful rhetoric when the type of rhetoric you’ve been using has literally led people to take their own lives? I’m not saying you are required to go around becoming and LGBT activist, but saying things like you have is incredibly bigoted and harmful and I will call it out when I see it. It’s not about where you fall on the political compass, it’s about being a good person.

[Grassroots]

What’s wrong with censorship?

It's inevitably based on the beliefs of the mainstream, so if your beliefs someday find themselves outside of the mainstream for whatever reason, you'll find yourself getting censored using the same logic you used to censor others.

I agree with all this, and disagree with censorship. I also don’t believe controversial opinions should mean you’ll be banned.

Doesn’t make Grassr00ts opinions any less belligerently homophobic or bigoted, and I’m glad he’s been roundly condemned and thoroughly outargued for them on this thread.

I'm very outspoken (because this forum is overwhelmingly leftist) but i'm not out argued.

I'm not even going to bother replying to Illini's post because that just legitimizes insult-driven arguments.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Pete has now won Iowa four times.

I don't know why everyone keeps saying Sanders is the front runner when Pete has twice as many state victories.

[John Dule]

Pete has now won Iowa four times.

I don't know why everyone keeps saying Sanders is the front runner when Pete has twice as many state victories.

Ok, credit where credit is due. I laughed.

[Illini Moderate]

Imagine misconstruing someone calling you out for being homophobic as an insult driven argument. Yes I tend to argue/debate on here. But I always will provide specific reasons and explanations for why I feel the way I do without simply engaging in name calling.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Why do I know who this man is?

[YE]

After much deliberation, I deleted a few posts that crossed what admittedly is a gray line and am hiding the rest of the exchange.

What's the deal with all the "This post is currently hidden because it contains potentially inappropriate or sensitive content" posts? A mod gone mad or a faulty algorithm?

How in the world was what I posted inappropriate or sensitive, along with all the other?

(I'm hiding it because it was off topic)

[Shadows]

New Morning Consult polls have Bernie aha #2 choice for Pete supporters now once again showing the hollowness of this ideological debate.

[Queen Isuelt]

11:02 p.m. ET, February 29, 2020
These candidates are studying their path forward going into Super Tuesday
From CNN's Jeff Zeleny
Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg and Michael Bloomberg are all studying their path forward tonight, advisers to the respective campaigns tell CNN.

Klobuchar and Warren are committed to Super Tuesday, when voters in their home states cast ballots.

All four of the candidates are scheduled to be in Selma, Alabama, for the 55th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the annual reenactment of the bridge crossing.

Joe Biden will also be in Selma on Sunday, allowing an opportunity for conversations – or more – among all of the Democratic rivals.

The most pressing question may be for Buttigieg. He is scheduled to go to Texas, Oklahoma and California – before ending Super Tuesday in Michigan.

For now, that schedule holds. But a top Democrat close to the Buttigieg campaign acknowledged tonight that the former mayor is studying whether he has a path forward. He hasn’t reached a conclusion tonight — or if so, he hasn’t talked about it openly, even among his small circle of advisers. Buttigieg's team knows that how he leaves the race — if it comes to that — is important to his future.

as always with Pete it’s solely about him and his career not the country. John Edwards 2.0

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't understand why he or Klobuchar are still in the race (or Warren). None of them have a path to the nomination whatsoever, and they are not going to be a compromise candidate in the event of a brokered convention.

[UWS]

I don't understand why he or Klobuchar are still in the race (or Warren). None of them have a path to the nomination whatsoever, and they are not going to be a compromise candidate in the event of a brokered convention.

The moreover that Warren is even trailing in her own home state of Massachusetts ahead of Super Tuesday.

[Queen Isuelt]

I don't understand why he or Klobuchar are still in the race (or Warren). None of them have a path to the nomination whatsoever, and they are not going to be a compromise candidate in the event of a brokered convention.

Biden wants them to stay in as long as possible because they do well where Biden is weak in white areas.

Klobuchar beats sanders in white suburban rural districts and Warren debts sanders in liberal areas. Biden would lose to sanders head to head.

You can’t just brush Iowa and New Hampshire off. There are 20 states like this still to go. Biden wouldn’t do anything Minnesota or massachusetss

[BlueSwan]

I think Pete should drop out and endorse Biden. He made his play, he did very very well in Iowa and New Hampshire and he has positioned himself to be a future leader of the party. But he has no path to the nomination and should not play spoiler.

I understand Klobuchar wanting to win Minnesota before dropping out, but really, what is the point?

Warren has a very good reason to stay in, which is the health of Bernie Sanders. It's amazing to me that this isn't a bigger issue, but the guy is almost 80 and had heart issues just a few months back. Another incident and he may cut the campaign, in which case things would suddenly look very good for Warren. However if nothing happens over the next couple of weeks, she too should drop out.

Bloomberg is basically just c*c-blocking Biden at this point. He should realize that right now he is only helping the candidate he least wants to win to the nomination (Sanders), so he obviously should drop out, but I just don't see it happening until after ST given that he has spent half a billion.