Beto using the right tactic.

[The Grand Nudger]

He doesn't, there's very little of a voting record to even make such a pronouncement from, and he's kind of wishy washy when asked, is the more accurate version of a similar gripe.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Beto_O%60Rourke.htm

[Belacqua]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018...l-and-main

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, hit pieces exist....?

[Athene]

I'm aware that Beto has a history of cooperation with Repubs. 
What that actually demonstrates, I'm not yet sure of. Was this a matter of him biding his time and ensuring his political survival while holding office in TEXAS? A willingness to work with others? Sneaky shiftiness? Staunch realism?

Perhaps a bit of all of the above? IDK.

I do know that Beto has my interest. I'd like to know more, so I'll be watching and listening as he campaigns.

[Belacqua]

ensuring his political survival while holding office in TEXAS?

I can't say what his personal motives were. 

The district he represented, though, is solidly Democrat. In the last 116 years, it has been represented by a Republican for only 2 years. 

FiveThirtyEight currently gives it a less than 1 in 100 chance of going Republican.

So if he had ambitions of state-wide office, maybe he had to veer to the right -- more to the right than the constituents he was representing. But if his job was to represent the people who voted for him, his votes were surprising. He didn't have to compromise any principles to represent Democrats.

We can hope that with the popularity of Bernie, AOC, and other politicians who have a genuinely left-wing record, Beto might stop voting Republican. But I don't know why we'd choose somebody who isn't proven. Bernie has been on the right side of nearly everything for decades. There is video of him warning about climate change from 1987. 

So gambling on a pretty face with unknown allegiances is risky. One allegiance we have little data on, but is worth watching: his father-in-law, who is vastly wealthy. Bloomberg estimated his portfolio at 20 billion. Forbes says it's probably less than a billion now, poor guy. Either way, this is not somebody who worries about money. 

So it's still early, and maybe he'll prove himself. But comparing him to the obviously better people I don't even see why he's running.

[Athene]

So if he had ambitions of state-wide office, maybe he had to veer to the right -- more to the right than the constituents he was representing. But if his job was to represent the people who voted for him, his votes were surprising. He didn't have to compromise any principles to represent Democrats.

We can hope that with the popularity of Bernie, AOC, and other politicians who have a genuinely left-wing record, Beto might stop voting Republican. But I don't know why we'd choose somebody who isn't proven. Bernie has been on the right side of nearly everything for decades. There is video of him warning about climate change from 1987. 

So gambling on a pretty face with unknown allegiances is risky. One allegiance we have little data on, but is worth watching: his father-in-law, who is vastly wealthy. Bloomberg estimated his portfolio at 20 billion. Forbes says it's probably less than a billion now, poor guy. Either way, this is not somebody who worries about money. 

So it's still early, and maybe he'll prove himself. But comparing him to the obviously better people I don't even see why he's running.

Well, I assume he's running because he and his handlers have reviewed the data and determined that he's got a remarkably fair shot at winning the Presidency, if he can make it through the primaries. 

Believe it or not, much of the Democrat coalition doesn't care for this hard-left Socialist pull. They don't value being unwilling to compromise as much as the Progressive faction seems to. They understand the necessity of cooperation in getting things done and are quite put-off by commands for perfect allegiance.

Sanders isn't even a Democrat, and there are plenty of voters who don't appreciate him and like-minded DSA candidates attempting to force their ideology onto the party. They come off as radical, disconnected from reality....and yes, so far left as to give off strong totalitarian vibes. And that particular stench smells just as bad coming from the Left as it does from the Right.
Last I checked, that is precisely the sort of shit I and many others were hoping to see smacked down in 2020. 

So though a few of Sanders policies may seem good on their face, I am extremely reluctant help put this character into Presidential office. I think I'd just as soon vote third-party and resign myself to living with another four years under the authoritarian regime I'm already familiar with...Lol

Hopefully, it won't come to that. With any luck, I'll be have the opportunity vote for a Dem who's a bit closer to the center and can pull off winning in a general election. 
That may be Beto. I'll watch and see.

[Mister Agenda]

We're told, of late..for example, that we ought to appeal to white supremacy if we want to avoid fascism. That we have to allow them to take some other person hostage if we expect them to free a captive in their possession, lol. Namely, ourselves.

Who tells us that?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sod Beto.  I urge all Americans to vote for Cory Booker, for the sole reason that he's dating Rosario Dawson.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

We're told, of late..for example, that we ought to appeal to white supremacy if we want to avoid fascism.  That we have to allow them to take some other person hostage if we expect them to free a captive in their possession, lol.  Namely, ourselves.

Who tells us that?

Voices all across the spectrum, in their own (often enough batshit crazy) way.  Right wing think tanks churn out WALL pron blaming the rise of antifa and the alt right on "The Border Crisis".  Left wing think tanks are still wringing their hands over "economic anxiety" and the need to reach out to those affected.  The alt right is convinced that opposition to them -is- fascism.  The disaffected left parrots much the same.  

We recently had an article by David Frum, in the atlantic, linked on the boards...asking the question "how much immigration is too much", aptly titled No Vacancy: If liberals won't enforce the border, fascists will.

Then, there are our politicians. The president straight up tried to pull some dictator shit because he couldn't get money for his hate monument. If only our government would have cooperated, then he wouldn't have had to. Republicans seem concerned, mostly, with building the hate monument "the right way". Dems want to appeal to WALL values voters.

The notion that we need to toss white supremacy a bone if we want to avoid the bad thing™ is truly bipartisan (and always has been). We just don't like to think of it that way. We rationalize it as something else. You know who doesn't, though? White supremacists. They see it for what it is and they're very happy about it. Ultimately, the notion may actually be true on it's own merits even if it's a terrible idea. It may be the case that a dem will have to validate white supremacist rhetoric in order to secure political victory. It may be the case that we have to let president babyshits have his toys to keep him from pressing the button out of boredom. It may be the case that WALL fetishists will only become more extreme if they don't get what they want.

---

Consider the effect, if you will, of a democratic candidate finding a way to thread the needle between their own built in constituency and flyover voters if they took the stage to confirm the suspicion that so many people seem to have.  That they have been victimized, discriminated against, that they have been unfairly stigmatized and denied pride.  That they should recapture their lost self esteem and that they will not be replaced by illegals.  That the government will commit itself to helping them raise -their- children, and bring about a new prosperity in which they could afford that next child they've been wanting and putting off. Bonus points if that candidate tosses in some stuff about not wanting to be labeled a progressive, of not liking labels..and..you know, has a "history of cooperation" with republicans. Double bonus if they vow to deal with our border crisis in a kind and fair way.

If we can't already hear the sound of uproarious applause...perhaps we should roll some trump rally tape.

Odd as it may seem at first blush, Beto is the kind of politician that can tap into that.

[Yonadav]

Here's the article that Gae is complaining about. From his reaction, I'm guessing that he only read the title and then made up a bunch of bullshit concerning what the article is about. This is an article about reality, and it doesn't contain the memes that Gae threads into all of his posts.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc...ch/583252/

---

Here's another article about the very people that Gae keeps intentionally seeking to offend for some bizarre reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/o...-americans