Beto O’Rourke 2020 campaign megathread

[GoTfan]

Yes, because a former three term Congressman who lost a Senate race to one of the most unpopular politicians in the country screams President.

[GoTfan]

If this actually happens the board will be flooded with negative threads about O'Rourke.

It’ll just be vetting.

So all of a sudden, we're not allowed to criticise someone who had a 47% rating from the Chamber of Commerce? That's higher than a Democrat should be.

[GoTfan]

If this actually happens the board will be flooded with negative threads about O'Rourke.

It’ll just be vetting.

So all of a sudden, we're not allowed to criticise someone who had a 47% rating from the Chamber of Commerce? That's higher than a Democrat should be.

I don't care what you post about his record. If it's there, it's there. But don't cry foul when someone dare criticize God King Bernard Sanders.

Interestingly, the only defence I've heard when someone criticises Harris or O'Rourke is "shut up and get back in line, you idiot."

[GoTfan]

To be honest, I think Beto has one of the weaker paths to the nomination than most of the rather serious candidates, both possible and declared. He can win TX by a good margin, but outside of that state, Im rather stumped for where he can make large delegate gains.

He has a reasonable shot in California [yeah, Harris should get first easily, but a respectable 2nd or 3rd shouldn't be underestimated], and then there's New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Florida to consider too.

And of course Iowa is a bit of a wildcard, and also the place where...save some rando Iowa Senator or Governor, usually ends up picking the nominee.

I think he needs to try and rack up wins in the south, but that'll be difficult, considering harris and Booker are in the race. He needs to win Iowa to have a chance, and I don't see that as likely right now.

[GoTfan]

He needs to stand-down and stop taking votes from Bernie. The nerve of him being the John Edwards to Wall Street Kamala's 2008 Obama.

wut?

Unless Beto has a sex scandal (which I doubt) then this criticism makes little sense.

[GoTfan]

He needs to stand-down and stop taking votes from Bernie. The nerve of him being the John Edwards to Wall Street Kamala's 2008 Obama.

wut?

He has the corner on a lot of Bernie's support, which will destroy both in favour of Wall Street Kamala.

I think a lot of Democratic candidates will be forced to tack leftwards.

[GoTfan]

I like how Beto already gets under Berniebros' skin. He must be doing something right.

Must be his vote to deregulate Wall Street. Or his 47% rating from the Chamber of Commerce. Those are not progressive positions. It's depressing to have to explain that.

[GoTfan]

According to Atlas, the man who ran on universal health care, $15 minimum wage, impeaching Trump, continued gun reform, preserving DACA, and getting corporate money out of politics in Texas is a Republican.

I wonder, would he have run on those things if they weren't brought up in 2016? Considering his 47% Chamber of Commerce rating, I doubt it.

[GoTfan]

No one is calling him a Republican. The criticism I'm seeing is "not principled enough", "empty suit" etc.

Doesn't matter mate. Like Harris, no leftie is allowed to criticise Beto O'Rourke. 

[GoTfan]

Beto supported marijuana legalization in his first Congress campaign in 2012. Before any state legalized it.

In fact he actually primaried an incumbent over the issue. The incumbent tried to discourage the El Paso City Council from passing a resolution supporting legalization and threatened that federal funding to the city could be cut if it was passes.

Beto was the primary sponsor of the resolution. And in response to that he challenged the incumbent and won.

Total Republican.

It's almost as if marijuana legalisation isn't the only thing progressives want.

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Or you could just criticize candidates you think deserve it and ignore the idiots who respond like that instead of stooping to their level.

But you see, if I criticise them, I'm helping Trump do his job you see, so I'm forbidden from criticising them.

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

Well that makes it a first, considering I'd usually be told to shut up and get back in line.

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

Well that makes it a first, considering I'd usually be told to shut up and get back in line.

A counterargument does not equal "shut up and get back in line" which was the point of my post.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

538 also expected him to side with Trump 18% of the time. He has sided with him 30% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/beto-orourke/

There's also the fact that he ended up getting less votes than the least popular statewide Republican.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/despite-tight-race-ted-cruz-beto-orourke-got-less-votes-least-popular-statewide-republican/

[GoTfan]

Attacks on Democratic candidates are totally unfair and help Trump!!! ... Unless they're attacks on a Democrat (or someone I get to technically say isn't a "real Democrat") that I don't like, in which case, great! Why are they so special? I thought you all wanted scrutiny!

I don't expect people to understand something as elitist as "nuance", but it is possible to scrutinize candidates without believing that they're worse than the devil.

The only posters I can see incapable of grasping this are GoTfan, PittsburghSteel and Invisible Obama.

I could say the same for the Harris and O'Rourke fanatics,  but I'm not allowed to criticise them because that means I'm a closet Trumpist.

Jesus Christ, have you ever participated in a debate in your life?

Your response to every single actual counterargument you face is "wah I'm not allowed to criticise other candidates". Maybe if you had something substantial to say instead of complaining that your initial salvos weren't accepted at face value, you would convince other people. Sitting on your hands and crying in every single post about how you're being silenced is pathetic and suggests you don't even know how to debate even if you wanted to.

For the record, nobody has said that you aren't allowed to complain about other candidates. You just happen to not be any good at it when you do it.

Harris refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was foreclosing on elderly people. She also has an extremely sketchy record on criminal justice. O'Rourke meanwhile has a Chamber of Commerce rating of 47%. A Democrat with that high a CoC rating should not be worshipped as the Democratic saviour. The fact that both of them are shows just how lost the Democratic Party is as an institution.

Look at that, you posted something and weren't immediately struck by a lightning bolt. Looks like your fear of being silenced by some invisible force the second you made an (admittedly skeletal) argument was completely unjustified.

Well that makes it a first, considering I'd usually be told to shut up and get back in line.

A counterargument does not equal "shut up and get back in line" which was the point of my post.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/12/21/18150359/beto-orourke-voting-record

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/20/beto-orourke-congressional-votes-analysis-capital-and-main

538 also expected him to side with Trump 18% of the time. He has sided with him 30% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/beto-orourke/

There's also the fact that he ended up getting less votes than the least popular statewide Republican.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/despite-tight-race-ted-cruz-beto-orourke-got-less-votes-least-popular-statewide-republican/

Lmao what is the point of this post? Do you have any critical thinking skills? I'm not arguing anything about Beto's voting record and those links don't say anything about how Beto dissenters should "shut up and get back in line".

And you completely miss the point. Colour me shocked.

[GoTfan]

I referenced this in another thread...But so many people are sort of acting as if Beto isn't capable of Policy details- just because he doesn't have camplete policy manual ready 3 days after his launch... Beto graduated from the same Ivy League University that Obama did- And Obama also started his campaign with more platitudes/ and filled in details as the campaign progressed.  So I think by the end of the campaign, similar to Obama/ Beto will be seen as very competent when it comes to policy manusha.

An empty suit like Beto is going to get thrashed.

[GoTfan]

I referenced this in another thread...But so many people are sort of acting as if Beto isn't capable of Policy details- just because he doesn't have camplete policy manual ready 3 days after his launch... Beto graduated from the same Ivy League University that Obama did- And Obama also started his campaign with more platitudes/ and filled in details as the campaign progressed.  So I think by the end of the campaign, similar to Obama/ Beto will be seen as very competent when it comes to policy manusha.

This is an advantage that creatures of emotion like Beto, Obama, Macron, Trump, Di Maio, and a whole hoast of others across history, have over creatures of policy. To them, policy is a defensive weapon, used to deflect criticism from rivals, whereas creatures of policy need to use their platform as a offensive and defensive weapon. If the emotional candidate fails to navigate appropriately, they have nothing to stand on and loose all appeal. If they do route well, and it is rather easy to do, the emotional candidate can take a position popular with the voters late and convince you, through their emotion, that they always supported that position.

The thing is, we've seen the flaws with a platitudes-based candidate in this current environment. Hillary lost, Macron's administration is a complete clusterf***, and Trump has accomplished nothing other than giving tax cuts to the rich.

[GoTfan]

I referenced this in another thread...But so many people are sort of acting as if Beto isn't capable of Policy details- just because he doesn't have camplete policy manual ready 3 days after his launch... Beto graduated from the same Ivy League University that Obama did- And Obama also started his campaign with more platitudes/ and filled in details as the campaign progressed.  So I think by the end of the campaign, similar to Obama/ Beto will be seen as very competent when it comes to policy manusha.

This is an advantage that creatures of emotion like Beto, Obama, Macron, Trump, Di Maio, and a whole hoast of others across history, have over creatures of policy. To them, policy is a defensive weapon, used to deflect criticism from rivals, whereas creatures of policy need to use their platform as a offensive and defensive weapon. If the emotional candidate fails to navigate appropriately, they have nothing to stand on and loose all appeal. If they do route well, and it is rather easy to do, the emotional candidate can take a position popular with the voters late and convince you, through their emotion, that they always supported that position.

The thing is, we've seen the flaws with a platitudes-based candidate in this current environment. Hillary lost, Macron's administration is a complete clusterf***, and Trump has accomplished nothing other than giving tax cuts to the rich.

LOL at lumping together Macron with a racist ignoramus like Trump.
You Bernie bros don't even try to hide anymore how politically illiterate you are.

*sigh* Yet again, you completely miss the point.

[GoTfan]

I referenced this in another thread...But so many people are sort of acting as if Beto isn't capable of Policy details- just because he doesn't have camplete policy manual ready 3 days after his launch... Beto graduated from the same Ivy League University that Obama did- And Obama also started his campaign with more platitudes/ and filled in details as the campaign progressed.  So I think by the end of the campaign, similar to Obama/ Beto will be seen as very competent when it comes to policy manusha.

This is an advantage that creatures of emotion like Beto, Obama, Macron, Trump, Di Maio, and a whole hoast of others across history, have over creatures of policy. To them, policy is a defensive weapon, used to deflect criticism from rivals, whereas creatures of policy need to use their platform as a offensive and defensive weapon. If the emotional candidate fails to navigate appropriately, they have nothing to stand on and loose all appeal. If they do route well, and it is rather easy to do, the emotional candidate can take a position popular with the voters late and convince you, through their emotion, that they always supported that position.

The thing is, we've seen the flaws with a platitudes-based candidate in this current environment. Hillary lost, Macron's administration is a complete clusterf***, and Trump has accomplished nothing other than giving tax cuts to the rich.

LOL at lumping together Macron with a racist ignoramus like Trump.
You Bernie bros don't even try to hide anymore how politically illiterate you are.

*sigh* Yet again, you completely miss the point.

Your point is that anyone who is to the right of Saint Bernie is a sellout and a fascist.

That's . . . not the point. You've missed it twice.

[GoTfan]

That's . . . not the point. You've missed it twice.

This is always the point with you people.

[GoTfan]

Well, the people saying he's an empty suit are obviously being disingenuous and are just butthurt that someone would dare pose a threat to Saint Bernard.

I like this poster ^^ #Preach

An empty suit like Beto Booker is going to get thrashed.

FTFY. Need some Preparation H for that butthurt?

Beto Trump might be is the most repulsive person running, though it's hard to beat Booker at that game.

Focus, alleged "progressive." Beto is not the enemy: Putin's puppet in the White House is.

Triggered BernieBros are just about as deplorable as the MAGAtards.

Yet again, left-wingers are immediately forbidden from criticising a candidate. Seems to be a pattern.

[GoTfan]

There seems to be an interesting disconnect about Beto between the media and Democratic voters.  It seems like he’s being pretty well-received in Iowa and yet the media keeps using story headlines like “Beto O’Rourke’s Apology Tour” to describe his campaign thus far.  Not sure if this will last, but it’s something I’ve observed so far.

Apology Tour? Apology for what?

Oh probably some stupid morons saying it's some sort of apology for losing to Ted Cruz. They're probably the same people who think he's using this as a profile to rune for the Seante or governorship down the line.

Like I said, only stupid morons think this.

[GoTfan]

Real question, when are we actually going to see Beto’s policies? Because right now the only indication are his blue dog endorsements (plus half of his support on here is from #bothsides moderate heroes, Republicans, and libertarians). I want to like Beto, but I really need to know what he’s running as first.

So when Beto initially said he wasn’t supporting Medicare for All as a presidential candidate I was miffed and briefly stopped supporting him because I thought he had nothing in place and would try to negotiate something with obstructionist Republicans. I walked it back when he came out in favor of Medicare for America which was written by Reps. DeLauro and Schakowsky. Medicare for America would move everyone from the ACA Exchange to Medicare, folks (like myself) who are about to age out of their parent’s insurance can join as well as others not insured, and all children born after its enaction would be born into the program. The main difference between this and Bernie’s plan is that people can retain their employer insurance if they so choose. This is much more realistic and puts us on a path to single payer.

The purists will hate it but it is ambitious and will get us to universal coverage. Eliminating all private insurance is unrealistic.

https://slate.com/business/2019/03/beto-orourke-health-plan-medicare-for-all-america.html

I need to find the link but while 81% of Dems would support Medicare for All, 91% support Medicare for America. Bernie supporters who think he can snap his fingers and make all his dreams the law of the land will resist this but Beto’s plan is progressive and attainable.

The only problem is that it shows once again that Democrats are going to the table with a compromise. It's a poor negotiating tactic when the other side isn't on the same page. If you start from a more extreme negotiating position (IE, Medicare for All), then you're more likely to get the things you want in the final bill.

Call me stupid for suggesting this if you want.

[GoTfan]

Real question, when are we actually going to see Beto’s policies? Because right now the only indication are his blue dog endorsements (plus half of his support on here is from #bothsides moderate heroes, Republicans, and libertarians). I want to like Beto, but I really need to know what he’s running as first.

So when Beto initially said he wasn’t supporting Medicare for All as a presidential candidate I was miffed and briefly stopped supporting him because I thought he had nothing in place and would try to negotiate something with obstructionist Republicans. I walked it back when he came out in favor of Medicare for America which was written by Reps. DeLauro and Schakowsky. Medicare for America would move everyone from the ACA Exchange to Medicare, folks (like myself) who are about to age out of their parent’s insurance can join as well as others not insured, and all children born after its enaction would be born into the program. The main difference between this and Bernie’s plan is that people can retain their employer insurance if they so choose. This is much more realistic and puts us on a path to single payer.

The purists will hate it but it is ambitious and will get us to universal coverage. Eliminating all private insurance is unrealistic.

https://slate.com/business/2019/03/beto-orourke-health-plan-medicare-for-all-america.html

I need to find the link but while 81% of Dems would support Medicare for All, 91% support Medicare for America. Bernie supporters who think he can snap his fingers and make all his dreams the law of the land will resist this but Beto’s plan is progressive and attainable.

The only problem is that it shows once again that Democrats are going to the table with a compromise. It's a poor negotiating tactic when the other side isn't on the same page. If you start from a more extreme negotiating position (IE, Medicare for All), then you're more likely to get the things you want in the final bill.

Call me stupid for suggesting this if you want.

You're not. I actually would prefer O'Rourke to make this argument. Maybe someone else will on the debate stage.

Exactly. I half expect one of the left-wingers, such as Sanders or Warren, to make this argument themselves.

When the other side is so intent on not compromising, you don't try to go and be on the same stage as them. If it has little chance of getting through Congress, go out and sell the idea to voters. Most Americans support Medicare for All anyway, so go out and sell it.