Fresh off the Christmastime criticism of his "Jesus was born a refugee" take, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg is back in the news with another demonstrably false historical hot take: The framers of the constitution didn't know slavery was bad.

Even worse, he made the remarks to a group of children, in video posted Monday at the Washington Examiner's Twitter page.

The framers "were wise enough to realize that they didn’t have all the answers and that some things would change. A good example of this is something like slavery – or civil rights," Buttigieg says in the video clip. "It’s an embarrassing thing to admit, but the people who wrote the Constitution did not understand that slavery was a bad thing and did not respect civil rights.”

The Twitter account Resist Programming said that the clip is from Buttigieg's appearance on a children's television program in 2014. But whether made in 2014, 2019, or 2099, the argument being made here is just simply wrong.

Perhaps the blank stares from the children in the video were because the kids actually paid attention in U.S. history class. Then they'd know that the question of slavery was one of the most hotly contested issues at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. By July, James Madison wrote in his notes on the convention, "It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large & small" states but between the North and the South. "The institution of slavery & its consequences formed the line of discrimination."

At one point during the convention, Gouverneur Morris called slavery a "nefarious institution" and "the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed," according to Madison's notes. Also at the convention, Madison pointed out, "We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

As a result of the debate, the final Constitution contained three major compromises on slavery in regard to congressional apportionment, the slave trade, and fugitive slaves. The document also does not mention "slaves" or "slavery" by name; a Heritage Foundation paper from 2002 explains, "This seemingly minor distinction of insisting on the use of the word 'person' rather than 'property' was not a euphemism to hide the hypocrisy of slavery but was of the utmost importance."

In his speech at the New York ratifying convention, delegate and Federalist Papers co-author Alexander Hamilton explained that the three-fifths compromise, in which every slave was considered equal to three-fifths of an American citizen in apportioning congressional representatives, "was one result of the spirit of accommodation, which governed the Convention; and without this indulgence, no union could possibly have been formed" and added, "It will however by no means be admitted, that the slaves are considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery."

George Washington, who was a Virginia delegate at the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1786 that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." He wrote a decade after the framework was put together that "I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see a policy of a gradual abolition of slavery.”

Benjamin Franklin, who was also a delegate, called slavery "an atrocious debasement of human nature."

These do not at all sound like the words of men who were not aware that slavery is a bad thing.

Besides those who attended the 1787 convention, other Founding Fathers had their own strong words for the institution of slavery.

"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished," John Jay — who would become America's first Supreme Court chief justice — wrote in 1786. "The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people." John Adams called slavery a "foul contagion in the human Character" and would later write, "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States."

Thomas Jefferson called slavery "a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other" and famously wrote, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

And yes, some of these quotes come from men who owned slaves themselves, but as scholar Thomas Sowell explains, acknowledging and condemning the moral evil of slavery was a far easier thing than creating a prudent plan for finally doing away with the widespread practice.

"It is clear from the private correspondence of Washington, Jefferson, and many others that their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do now had them baffled," Sowell writes.

"That question was finally answered by a war in which one life was lost [620,000 Civil War casualties] for every six people freed [3.9 million]. Maybe that was the only answer. But don’t pretend today that it was an easy answer – or that those who grappled with the dilemma in the 18th century were some special villains when most leaders and most people around the world saw nothing wrong with slavery."

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for ex-porn star Stormy Daniels, is seriously considering running for president. And Iowa Democrats are seriously taking a look at him, according to an NBC News article published Tuesday.

Avenatti, 47, is testing the 2020 waters in Iowa. He's toured the state fair and delivered political speeches to crowds of all-important Democratic activists in the first-in-the-nation-caucus state. His pitch to voters is simple: To beat President Donald Trump, Democrats shouldn't nominate a presidential candidate; they should nominate a fighter. He's betting that personalities are more important than ideas in politics.

“I think that if the Democratic Party focuses on nominating who will make the best president, that’s going to be a critical mistake,” Avenatti told NBC News. “There’s only one question at the end of the day, and that question is: Can the potential nominee beat Donald Trump?”

It's apparently a message with an audience. Avenatti was invited to give the closing speech at an Iowa Democratic fundraiser known as the "Wing Ding" dinner, where he was well received, according to organizer Randy Black.

Other Iowa Democrats appeared energized — the dinner sold more than 400 tickets in the week after Avenatti’s attendance was confirmed. With other 2020 hopefuls seemingly reluctant to draw attention to themselves at this early stage, there was an opening for a newcomer like Avenatti, and “he did a darn good job,” Black added.

Potential caucus-goers seemed to agree.

“Ordinarily, a Joe Biden type of person would've been my candidate, but what he said tonight was exactly what I thought before I came,” said Mary Pat Cole, who attended the dinner. “We do need a fighter and he could stand up to Trump.”

Do you see what's going on here? To beat Trump in 2020, some Democrats think they need a candidate who is a clone of the president in some ways: a non-politician with a brash, abrasive attitude, who fights. Someone with little political experience, but a loud mouth and crazy far-left positions. Here's a glance at Avenatti's campaign platform, as tweeted Tuesday:

Free health care, radically pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control ... it's a grab bag of Democratic talking points presented by a man with no qualifications to be president. But Avenatti says qualifications don't matter because a reality TV star is president of the United States, and Avenatti is smarter, more compassionate, and braver than Trump — according to Avenatti.

“I certainly think I’m more qualified than the existing commander in chief. I think I am more intelligent. I think I have a bigger heart. I think I have more courage. I think I would certainly command more respect,” he said. But he would “surround myself with the best people,” and actually listen to them.

"The best people." Doesn't that sound familiar? But Avenatti says he's totally not running as Democrat Trump Lite.

“There are some similarities related to our form. No question about it,” he said. “But this guy is a moron. He's an egomaniac. Nobody wants to work with him. I don't want to be compared to that."

Too bad, Avenatti, you're going to be compared to Trump because you're a cheap leftist knockoff of the president. And if Democrats think that's what the American people want, they're sorely mistaken. Running on a platform of "Trump sucks and I'll fight him" is only going to appeal to progressives and NeverTrumpers — people who already lost to Trump. There's not a single Trump Democrat who didn't know what they were getting into by voting for Trump in 2016, and none of them will change their minds or votes about Trump because an ambulance-chasing lawyer with an attitude calls the president names when speaking to the media.

Democrats (and some Republicans) who think that Trump won because he "fights" don't understand this president at all. It wasn't just that Trump fights, that he hits back against every attack from the mainstream media where other Republicans can't or won't, but also that Trump articulated a vision for the country that appealed to mainstream Americans. Most Americans want strong and secure borders, issues Republican consultants told other candidates to downplay or avoid. Most Americans want jobs and a strong economy, which Trump claimed he could deliver thanks to his business acumen. Most Americans want a strong national defense and a president who never apologizes to the world for America, and Trump never apologizes.

Trump's personality aligned with positions on the issues that Americans want championed, and that's why he's president. Democrats who want to replicate Trump's success by picking a "fighter" who will champion open borders, political correctness, raising taxes, socialized medicine, or any other failed idea from the ash heap of history are missing the point. And they're going to lose.