-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Washington Post: Obama met with Beto about running in 2020
- Thread starter Deleted member 5666
- Start date
I dont know a single candidate saying we should do that.
There is more to ideology of being left, than universal healthcare. Also universal healthcare is a vague term that means many things to many people. That is why it's so appealing especially for center Democrats, because it isnt backing Medicare for All for example, but many will assume it does.
Republicans believe everyone should have healthcare, they just think the private sector is where we should get it, ignoring all the inefficiencies in such a system that makes it unaffordable and kicks millions off of it.
We saw and see how bad it works.
So no, saying "I am for universal healthcare" in the context to give oneself squeezing room isnt all one needs to say to be considered left.
Beto is center-left, but he is still too much to the right for people like me to consider him as being part of the left.
The thing about ideology, is that anyone slightly out of scope could be considered a tough pill to swallow. I am for compromise, but not from a position where we are further to the right.
Last edited:
Even assuming that a vote for Beto is a vote to move a little more to the right (which I don't think is true in the most general sense), if you have to choose between Beto and Trump, you wouldn't have much of a choice but to pick Beto. That's just the reality that we live in right now.
I think he meant in comparison to Sanders. Any Democrat is far to the left of Trump.
I know, but unless we're just talking about the primaries, it doesn't really matter if he's to the right of other Democrats or not if he can win in the general.
While it doing that did cause Democrats to move to the right in some regards, I am not saying a pick for Beto would move us right.
You dont negotiate selling your house by giving away ownership of part of it before you even start negotiating. Beto is to Bernie's right (and mines), is what I mean.
No, we still have choices outside of that. Not saying I wouldn't vote for Beto in that scenario, however, I dont ascribe to the belief of having to choose between shit and douche.
I think any of the contenders would win vs Trump, so I dont get why put all of our stones with someone who is center-left.
Yes, this is what I mean.
I barely know anything about Bernie Sanders lmao gosh you're good at making false blanket assumptions. Here you go though after 15 seconds on Google:
https://news4sanantonio.com/news/trouble-shooters/russian-hackers-target-beto-cruz-and-manu-ginobili
"SAN ANTONIO - Russian trolls have attempted to influence the Senate race between incumbent Senator Ted Cruz and his opponent, U.S. Representative Robert "Beto" O'Rourke, using fake Twitter accounts.
Dr. Aaron Delwiche, a Trinity University social communications professor, says the messages are designed to look like they came from real people, but were instead part of a larger campaign from a foreign country injecting its voice in American affairs and politics.
"They're based in St. Petersburg, headed by someone with close ties to Putin, and they have been engaging in acts of information warfare since 2014," said Delwiche.
Cruz was blasted with what appeared to be tweets from left-leaning activists, but were instead Russian trolls, going by names like "KANIJJACKSON," "HOUSTONTOPNEWS" and "LBGTUNITEDCOM." The Russian Twitter accounts were discovered and shut down just as the Cruz vs. O'Rourke race was amping up.
The most recent tweets mentioning Cruz and O'Rourke were sent to nearly 140,000 followers, but the bulk of the tweets mentioning Cruz date back to his presidential bid.
"Beto O'Rourke is a native Texan. His first name is Robert but he's been called Beto all of his life. Ted Cruz is a Cuban-Canadian. He changed his name to sound American because he's ashamed of his heritage," says one tweet from KANIJJACKSON."
It's not rocket science. If I had to rank who will get the most bullshit headlines (both sides, how will s/he pay for that, had lunch with questionable person 24 years ago) from highest to lowest I would say it's:
1. Bernie/Warren
2. Harris
3. Gillebrand
4. Klobucher
Distant 5. Beto
If I had to rank who will get the most free puffery from the media it's
1. Beto
.
.
.
Everyone else
That's why I'd put my money on him winning the primary and actually beating Trump. Doesn't mean I have to like him best. It's why Obama's folks are backing him too. We need a win here.
1. Bernie/Warren
2. Harris
3. Gillebrand
4. Klobucher
Distant 5. Beto
If I had to rank who will get the most free puffery from the media it's
1. Beto
.
.
.
Everyone else
That's why I'd put my money on him winning the primary and actually beating Trump. Doesn't mean I have to like him best. It's why Obama's folks are backing him too. We need a win here.
OP
OP
Yep, exactly. Obama folks aren't pushing him because "NEFARIOUS CENTRIST OBAMA AGENDA" but because they think he has the easiest path to beat Trump.
And it all comes full circle back to the talk of electability. We feel that Beto is the most electable out of all the candidates. The media loves him and I think we got an excellent case study of what happens when the media loves you and hates you from 2016.
OP
OP
Yep. Media would drop their wall to wall Trump coverage and showing all his rallies in prime time to giving Beto wall to wall coverage and airing all his big rallies he does like they did Obama in 08/12 and Trump in 16.
Beto doesn't exactly excite me (I don't really connect with him on the level that I do with Obama) but you bet your fucking ass I'll vote for him, as long a Kamala is his VP (or vice versa, but she needs to be included).
yeah remember when trump lost the debates. like nobody gave a shit
I find the argument "But he lost against Cruz!" hilarious.
Spin it further and get "But Cruz lost against Trump!"..
Spin it further and get "But Cruz lost against Trump!"..
Does the media love Beto because he says controversial things people want to witness and so broadcasting these controversial things means more money for the media? Or do they love him because he doesn't challenge the power structures of the ruling class?
OP
OP
You are way overthinking things. This reads like a rant from r/conspiracy.
The media doesn't care about "ruling class" or "power structures". They like a good story. The media pushed Trump hard and Trump absolutely didn't fit the norms of maintaining anything!
Media likes a good story, something exciting. Beto is young, charismatic, and draws in bigger crowds than any Democrat since Obama). That is why they like them.
That is it. It is that simple. This "Media wants to maintain the ruling class!" is complete nonsense.
There is no such thing as some grand mainstream media agenda. Beto is charismatic and his huge rallies make for good tv. That is all there is to it. It is the same reason the media loved Obama. Young charismatic politician and exciting rallies full of young people = good tv.
Last edited:
Trump made them money by being such a good story. People want to see the next inane thing he has said.
Perhaps you're too naive to believe that the media is on the up and up and unbiased. These organizations are corporations and will have a vested interest in maintaining themselves. That's why they boosted trump during the election. It's why they're more dismissive of politicians like AOC or policies like Medicare For All. Jake Tapper had this huge flap about Bernie's true claim that $2T would be saved with M4A. Tapper and several other outlets basically repeated propaganda from the Mercatus peeps about how Bernie was wrong. We see examples of how news organizations can oppose a war without actually opposing the power structures behind them. They'll bring on people who will oppose a war on technical grounds such as not going to congress for permission or talking about how they would handle the war. Meanwhile, they basically run adds for the MOAB and salivate over the use of war. Fareed Zakaria said that trump became president after the Syria strikes. Speaking of strikes, when Trump dropped that home, so many of the news orgs basically ran propaganda pieces for the military to talk about how awesome that bulb was.
I'm not saying it's coordinated or a conspiracy, but these news orgs are corporations and corporations won't do much to challenge the things that makes them money. They will seek to maintain their existence which means they won't draw too much attention to the power structure that keeps them going.
Beto spoke with Kingmaker Al Sharpton recently. The presidential run is definitely happening:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/darrensands/beto-orourke-2020-president-election-sharpton
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/darrensands/beto-orourke-2020-president-election-sharpton
He's making some really smart moves here. I really hope Beto talks to Abrams next.
Yep. And having a candidate as far left as many of us would like (though I'm not nearly as far left as many here) could risk four more years of Trump (or Pence if he doesn't/can't run). It just is what it is given which states/demographics are the swing votes in the electoral college currently (along with /voter suppression issues in those places/populations).
If there's one thing I've learned as I've gotten older it's that society hates rapid change and progress is best made at a more slow and steady pace or else you risk backlash like Trump winning as society "regresses to the mean." We may want a far left nominee, but a center left one has a much better chance of winning and getting progress going back the direction we want and bettering the chances for a bit further left candidate to succeed them and so on down the line. Two steps forward, one step back is frustrating. But way better than four steps forward, six steps backwards.
Last edited:
the problem with beto is that at this stage, anyone can impose their views onto him because he is not well known, so if you want to see him as leftist champion, you'll see him as that, and if you want to see him as a "moderate who can get things done", then you will see him as that....but the concerns many lefties have for him based on what he's actually done in his history is irrespective of his campaign against Cruz.
I think there are some pretty valid concerns there before people throw their lot in with him, and the fact that the primaries have not even started yet and there are likely to be a lot of people in the running that have different angles about them just shows that.
I personally just want someone who is authentic and actually makes me as a voter feel like they are legitimately pushing for a progressive agenda and arent simply cynically reading the tea leaves to garner support. And the first thing they can do is renounce the establishment's way of doing things and the usual song and dance inherent with schmoozing with the establishment wing tied to big money interests who throw their lot in with who they feel is going to be more receptive to their courting.
I think there are some pretty valid concerns there before people throw their lot in with him, and the fact that the primaries have not even started yet and there are likely to be a lot of people in the running that have different angles about them just shows that.
I personally just want someone who is authentic and actually makes me as a voter feel like they are legitimately pushing for a progressive agenda and arent simply cynically reading the tea leaves to garner support. And the first thing they can do is renounce the establishment's way of doing things and the usual song and dance inherent with schmoozing with the establishment wing tied to big money interests who throw their lot in with who they feel is going to be more receptive to their courting.
Sanders got 78.6% of the final endorsement vote in 2016, with Hillary at 14.6% and O'Malley (lol) at .9%. This is not going to be 2016 redux.saw this from another thread -
The timing of the "concerns" lining up with Kulinski and co going on a deliberate smear campaign with disingenous attacks is not an accident though. When people are suddenly no-context dropping a two-month old tweet about an AIPAC meeting into PoliERA as though it's representative of Beto's views (they are not) and a meeting constitutes an endorsement, (it does not and you're gonna have to take that meeting even though they suck) and you see Kulinski in the recent replies, what's going on is incredibly transparent.
And "meeting with prominent black politicians" (Obama/Gillum/Sharpton) is not "schmoozing with the establishment wing".
OP
OP
All his donations were from individual doners. No PACs. No corporate funding. He didn't take a penny from the oil industry or oil companies.
Please take this false nonsense to another thread. Fake news catnip works on bernie bros just as well as MAGA.
People putting their industry as oil (which employs a shitton of people in Texas) when they do their own personal individual donations is NOT the same as getting funding from industries to taking money from PACs. No corporate money went to Beto. Not one penny.
I work in healthcare, that is like trying to spin my donations and others who work in that industry like me as him being funded by "big healthcare" companies.
I love how he scares the living bejeesus out of you people.
He accepted no PAC money.
Corporations can't donate directly to candidates.
He received donations from individuals who work in O&G because he ran in fucking Texas.
You are as transparent as plastic wrap.
Actually, I'd rather he'd stay in Texas and do some good here. We really need it
You shouldn't. This claim of Beto being a ~~~shady corporate Democrat~~~ has been debunked several times in recent weeks, even in this very thread, if you search.
But a certain crowd has turned their knives on him because he's a threat to their old, cranky golden calf.
OP
OP
You shouldn't. It's trash nonsense. Catnip for Bernie Bros. Just like the fake shit you see peddled at MAGA fans.
Beto didn't take a penny of corporate money. He had no PACs.
Maybe stop spreading false debunked stories about him for a start then.
Last edited:
He's not going to beat Cornyn or Abbott, so there's not much he can do here.
People DID care when Romney lost though.
And in a crowded field losing a debate moment is a good way to get kicked out of the race - see Rubio.
Having said that conscientiousness and hard work can help improve a debate performance and Beto has those in droves.
He doesn't need to win an electoral campaign in order to do good.
So you want to forgo the possibility of him replacing Trump with being on some board or working for a non-profit? surejan.gif
Or he could push for things like paid sick days and other progressive things in texas.
LMAO is this the line now? "Beto is such a good guy and can help so many people in Texas without running for president."
Please don't challenge Bernard.
Please don't challenge Bernard.
Please don't challenge Bernard.
Please don't challenge Bernard.
Please don't challenge Bernard.
I think that's the point, they want him there to lose and be finished for good. Because he's not winning a Texas senate seat.
He doesn't want Beto to mollywhop Bernard. It's that simple. That's why they've all turned their knives on Beto in unison in the past week - posting random sketchy tweets about his "being a corporate Democrat bought by O&G" (false), being beholden to AIPAC (false; took one meeting out of courtesy but got no endorsement), being iffy on policy (the best candidates run as canvasses onto whom people project their desires).
And if that doesn't work, the line is, "Well, he could do a lot of good in Texas even if he's not in elected office because he's such a good guy!" as sweat cascades down their brows.
He has them shook.
The rationalization of being in a permanent ieological minority with no hope to ever actually achieve what you want warps one's perspective.
The "power is power" scene in GoT is one of the very good show-only additions.
Yes. Without being in an elected office. It is entirely possible. DSA has managed to do things on a local level without DSA politicians.
You already know I'd rather have Bernie over anyone else, but no matter who wins, there has to be people pushing them from the bottom. With the amount of charisma Beto has, he can definitely do that. I feel it's better to push ideas rather than people.
You want someone who just came close to winning in fucking Texas, showed immense skill in campaigning and organizing, demonstrably motivates people to go to the polls, and so impressed people that he started being courted by national figures...
...to switch to some local granola-ass initiative and avoid developing the potential he's shown.
How much can you twist yourself to avoid saying, "I'm afraid he'll beat Bernie"?
Yes, we all know you want Bernard; you've said so. But the extent to which you'll go to avoid saying you don't want Beto to run and beat him is laughable.
I want someone who has came close to winning in my state, who has shown immense skill at organizing and campaigning to help the state of Texas, yes.