Beto O'Rourke Met With Barack Obama Amid 2020 Rumors

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Dec 5, 2018.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/beto-o-apos-rourke-met-022424235.html
    downside, guy could not even beat creepy Cruz, plus side, he is not Hillary , hope they are allowed to run by the DNC.
     
  2. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #2
    "Could not even" isn't exactly the phrase I would use to underscore how close he actually did come in Texas of all places.
     
  3. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #3
    This is the takeaway. In a hugely held Republican district he came extremely close, none of the polls had him winning so it all jived in the end. On a national stage this guy could be huge, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
     
  4. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #4
  5. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #5
    you bet I won't vote for him, as mentioned better him than Hillary.
    the only "democrat" earning my vote so far is Tulsi.
     
  6. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #6
    We’re out of time to pretend that the second biggest recipient of oil money in the midterms is somehow a candidate worth voting for.
     
  7. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #7
    I'm not ok with this, but there's no chance to compete with a Ted Cruz in a state like Texas without big money... after all, he was the biggest recipient.

    What we need is someone to take the money, win, turn on their donors and win re-election.
     
  8. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #8
    Lol I agree, but the notion that any of these people are going to do such a thing is almost nonsensical in my book. In order to even get into the door to grovel for big donor money you have to have a proven record of carrying their water. These people and corporations aren’t dumb.
     
  9. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #9
    Upside, he got SUPER close to beating creepy Cruz in a staunch Red state.
    I am CERTAIN had he not pushed for expended background checks, he would have won hands down.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2018 ---
    Me neither.
    I preferred him over Cruz, but not for POTUS.
     
  10. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #10
    Well, O'Rourke isn't reliant on big gas and oil companies going forward if he runs for president. On the contrary, two years is a long time and if the guy is smart - and meeting with Obama who sort of knows how to rise up from obscurity to presidency is a sign of things... I'm all in. At least for now.
     
  11. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #11
    I guess I just don’t get this absurd new obsession with him. He came out of nowhere, battled and almost beat the most hated by the Senate Senator, and now he’s the darling of the same media machine that considers subjects like the conflicts of interest their corporate owners have (when was the last time MSNBC talked about net neutrality? Right before Comcast bought them) taboo.

    I think Beto is the pick of the liberal minded corporate elite (as opposed to the other end of that class’s nut job conservatives). That’s why he’s being pushed so hard.
     
  12. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #12
    The thing is, he (O'Rourke) did what you mentioned in Texas, and Cruz was pretty much second to Trump in the primaries for president.

    What I've been saying is you can't shoe-horn someone into the candidacy these days. One thing both sides of the aisle don't want are presidents who are status quo. I'm not against it, but the last three elections have shown young or old, left or right, we want different politics. Obama was not a traditional candidate. Trump - for many different reasons, but I digress, despite being the oldest, whitest conservative candidate ever - also was not a traditional candidate.

    We've heard talks of Booker, Harris and others to run. I always said we need someone to just pop out of nowhere, someone organic to get the nod. I think O'Rourke - though who knows what will happen before now and 2020 - fits that bill. The polls were spot-on, and that's why he was news.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #13
    In terms of candidacy I guess you could call Obama non status quo. In governance however, he was exactly that. Not a single trend of American decline was reversed or even chipped away at. Even his signature healthcare initiative was just a reinforcement of the status quo of profit driven healthcare, with some of it's roughest edges sanded down just a bit.

    I see the chorus building behind Beto as doing exactly that, shoe-horning an approved candidate into the spotlight for the candidacy.

    We're out of time for this incrementalism stuff. The Dems either need to actually respond to their base (rather than trying to force another centrist into the position) or Trump WILL win.
     
  14. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #14
    That is simply not true and may be a good reason why Trump won and big oil keeps pumping money into races and winning.
     
  15. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #15
    I hope you don't think I'm posting at you with any malice or anything. My post isn't even a direct criticism of Obama, I'm just pointing out that the societal trends of America have been a one way street for decades.

    I am interested, however, in what got better for people (read: not the stock market) in his tenure. I very well could be overlooking something.

    And let's make one thing crystal clear. Trump won because of the electoral college (with the GOP standard tactic of voter suppression micro targeted specifically towards winning the college, not the popular vote), period. Those are the numbers. We can hem and haw about people's opinions, but in terms of how the country structurally works it was the anti-democratic institution of the electoral college that resulted in his presidency. To claim otherwise is to accept that Democrats have to win by bigger margins than the GOP does for the office of president. I don't accept that as right or just, but I acknowledge that's the reality because we've never taken the time to fix our democratic institutions resulting in TWO stolen presidencies in my lifetime alone.
     
  16. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #16
    Is Obama even still relevant? Just about every person he campaigned for, lost.... LOL

    So if Obama thinks he should run, maybe he should.... Except it's run away from Obama! :D
     
  17. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #17
    No offense taken, at all.

    The truth is, this IS a socialist America. Especially now, even if the most anti-socialist people don't want to admit it (if you've collected a check while not working... you've lost your argumen). It's way more than I care to post at this late (for me) hour. It's a post-WWII... or maybe even Civil War - issue.

    Trump won fair and square. But the reason those "fair and square" rules are in place are so complicated, we may as well wipe out every president prior to Lincoln.

    We agree on the way things are, despite how they got there. But I think when people go on and on about founding fathers, the way things were meant to work... I'm from a different gen, and more cynical. I quote Carlin a lot because, despite being passed and having a decade or so on Clinton... he was smart. Our country was founded on "slave owners who wanted to be free". We have a fundamentally flawed foundation which we've never tried to correct. Quite the opposite. We keep building on it but expect to fix it.

    I'm going into that tangent I didn't want to go on. It's the reality. I just don't happen to agree with it.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 5, 2018 ---

    Ok, now I know you aren't in law.
     
  18. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #18
    I'm not.. I retired about 8-years ago but what does that have to do with my comment? Yet another discredit attempt? It does get rather old ya know....
     
  19. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #19
    Nobody discredited you. You did.
     
  20. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #20

    https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Barack_Obama



    [​IMG]
     
  21. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #21
    Backed and actively campaigned for are 2 different things... Or are you claiming he campaigned for all those on the list? When did he sleep? When did he eat? When did he have to go use the bathroom?

    Meh, whatever.... Most of those he campaigned for -----> LOST
     
  22. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #22

    Ok so where's your list?
     
  23. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #23
    I'm not really interested in a list but I am I could find one somewhere that says what I want it to say and post it....
     
  24. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #24


    It's your claim, back it up
     
  25. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #25
    Well here is one example... Again remember I said actively campaigned for but you decided to use a endorsed list.. LOL

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/obama-loses-again

    *snip*

    Consider, of the three competitive races that Obama re-emerged from (quasi) private life to try and whip, all three lost.

    Andrew Gillum, Sen. Bill Nelson, and Stacey Abrams were all supposed to be in unbelievably tight races. In the end, they all finished behind their Republican opponents (Abrams could still just barely make a runoff, but it doesn't look good) despite Obama taking the time to rally for them.
     

Share This Page

30 December 5, 2018