Among my favorite stories out of the presidential primary elections to-date is out of Iowa where an Iowan woman, a Democrat participating in that party’s caucus, wanted her pledge card back because he had just learned that Pete Buttigieg is a practicing homosexual.
“Are you saying that he has the same-sex partner? Pete?” the woman said, all caught on video.
“Yes,” the precinct chairman for mayor-man-kisser responded.
“Are you kidding?” the Democrat woman said. And then after being told Buttigieg is “married” to another man, she said: “Then I don’t want anybody like that in the White House. So can I have my card back?”
“Well he better read the Bible,” the woman added after being told his homosexuality shouldn’t be important.
As is expected the story has been framed one of bigotry toward homosexuals by an older white woman but that’s not the important lesson. The lesson is just how uninformed or ignorant some of the most active voters, like a caucus goer, are about their candidates and take decisions to support someone for whom they know little about.
Mayor-man-kisser Buttigieg has made his homosexuality a central part of his campaign with much of his early video coverage of being him kissing his man-bride. That a Christian woman objects to such is hardly news; that she had been willing to support him for president without even knowing his most basic defining issue is an indictment of many voters and how lightly they take their use of the franchise.
I can’t keep a straight face whenever I read that candidates name…His last name looks like a foreign way to say b*tt gigger.
Not for public viewing, 2 men 2 women or 1 man 1 woman, that’s why the government thinks they need to be involved in our private life