Will The Real Beto Please Stand Up?

[Lewkowski]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tex...mpaign-website

"Democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke appears to have once again shifted his position on AR-15s.

O'Rourke, who has sought to use the Uvalde, Texas school shooting to jumpstart his gubernatorial campaign, has repeatedly changed his gun control position during his various bids for office.

Most recently, O'Rourke's campaign quietly edited his website's section on "gun safety," changing a call to "reduce" the number of AR-15s into a declaration that no civilian should own the weapon.

The Internet Archives' Wayback Machine shows that as recently as April 1, the "Gun safety" page included a section that said: "And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I strongly believe that we need to reduce the number of AR-15’s and AK-47’s on our streets."

Sometime since April 1 (the most recent date archived), the campaign edited the section to say: "And while it might not be the easy or politically safe thing to say, I don't believe any civilian should own an AR-15 or AK-47."

O'Rourke had previously dialed back his aggressiveness on gun control after falling behind incumbent Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in the polls.

When running for president in 2019, O'Rourke expressed support banning the sale of AR-15s and seizing the guns from current owners, saying: "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15." O'Rourke stood by that position as recently as November 2021.

But in February, O'Rourke took a more moderate stance. "I’m not interested in taking anything from anyone. What I want to make sure that we do is defend the Second Amendment. I want to make sure that we protect our fellow Texans far better than we’re doing right now," he told reporters.

O'Rourke's 2019 position was a departure from what he said in 2018 while running against Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

"We support the Second Amendment, if you own a gun keep that gun," O'Rourke said in 2018. "No one wants to take it away from you, at least I don’t."

While O'Rourke has ramped up his rhetoric after the Uvalde shooting, saying that no civilian "should" own an AR-15, he hasn't said whether he would try to ban the weapons in Texas if elected governor.

His campaign didn't return an email from Fox News Digital seeking clarity on the candidate's position.
"

Haven't seen this much flip-flopping since John Kerry.

[Aimless]

I understand how this might upset someone who—like you—favours candidates who consistently support the mass murder of small children. However, what we have here is a politician who, over time, has tended to favour greater restrictions on eg. AR-15 type weapons. Which is what a rational person with character and integrity would do. Rational people respond to changing facts. If a rational (by Texan standards) person starts out thinking there may be room for compromise wrt these weapons, that person may—indeed, should—change their view as the mass murders involving attackers armed with AR-15s begin to pile up.

I appreciate how difficult it must have been to keep your filthy murder-loving child-hating ass out of here until you could post something that you imagined would help you save face, but, I gotta tell ya mate—you're just making yourself look even more cretinous than usual, and you should've just kept quiet. Just utterly repulsive.

[Lewkowski]

What do you think Beto's true belief is? And why do you think he lies about it?

[Aimless]

I'm honestly surprised it took him this long to share a hit piece against beto after beto so easily embarrassed his party and those ridiculous looking cowboy LARPers. One would figure if he was going to go with one this poor he would have posted the night of.

It takes some time to recover from the shame. Even an idjit can have some sense of social self-preservation.

What do you think Beto's true belief is? And why do you think he lies about it?

Normal people have nuanced views on complex issues, and are capable of changing priorities as facts and circumstances change. I think that if Beto lived in a normal country that wasn't full of child-hating mass-murderer lovers like you, he wouldn't support nearly-free access to these weapons. Because he lives in your shithole state, he has had to appease you child-haters a little in the hopes of being able to accomplish other important things. After this latest tragedy, it's become clear that stopping you child-hating murderer-lovers is a more urgent priority than was previously believed.

[Steely Glint]

After this latest tragedy, it's become clear that stopping you child-hating murderer-lovers is a more urgent priority than was previously believed.

If and if wasn't clear after Parkland, then fuck him. And if it wasn't clear after Sandy Hook, then fuck him. And if it wasn't clear after Virginia tech, then fuck him. And so on.

On average, there's been one of these things every year for the past decade.

[Unheard Of]

What is it about this aberrant culture that it chooses to value gun ownership so highly, moreso even than the lives of their children?

Or to put it more directly:

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Lewkowski]

What is it about this aberrant culture that it chooses to value gun ownership so highly, moreso even than the lives of their children?

Or to put it more directly:

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Guns are an inalienable right on par with the right to vote and the right to speech etc.

[Loki]

Guns are an inalienable right on par with the right to vote and the right to speech etc.

Your party regularly enacts restrictions on both, so...

[Unheard Of]

Guns are an inalienable right on par with the right to vote and the right to speech etc.

You love that poorly worded amendment more than the lives of innocents. This is simply monstrous.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm honestly surprised it took him this long to share a hit piece against beto after beto so easily embarrassed his party and those ridiculous looking cowboy LARPers. One would figure if he was going to go with one this poor he would have posted the night of.

[Aimless]

Talking 'bout politics in the shithole state of Texas

[Steely Glint]

Talking 'bout yet another centrist coward swinging right in yet another failed attempt to win over people who will never vote for them anyway. A traditional as time-honoured and venerable as mass-killings.

[LittleFuzzy]

Because of course it's more important to virtue-signal than it is to get into a position to actually reduce or stop the harm.

[Lewkowski]

Because of course it's more important to virtue-signal than it is to get into a position to actually reduce or stop the harm.

"It doesn't matter what it takes to win all that matters is winning." -LittleFuzzy

There's a reason people have a strong dislike for politicians, its shit like that.

[Steely Glint]

Because of course it's more important to virtue-signal than it is to get into a position to actually reduce or stop the harm.

He didn't win, and the Democrats don't do anything to stop the harm when they do.

[LittleFuzzy]

"It doesn't matter what it takes to win all that matters is winning." -LittleFuzzy

There's a reason people have a strong dislike for politicians, its shit like that.

All politics is about compromising and building coalitions. No one vision is ever going to work or fit even a plurality of any large group. It is NEVER about what a politician believes deep down, Lewk, and you'd hate what any politician you approve of actually feels deep down, one way or another. It is about what they can actually accomplish working with others.

He didn't win, and the Democrats don't do anything to stop the harm when they do.

Which you think means they should never try in the first place and make sure the Republicans always control the agenda forever. Brilliant approach to politics, Steely. This must be why you and your fellows have been so successful in the UK these last forty years.

There is no silent socialist majority just waiting for a real candidate that represents them so they can start voting and make their voices heard, in your country or mine.

[Steely Glint]

Which you think means they should never try in the first place and make sure the Republicans always control the agenda forever.

They aren't trying, and they are letting the Republicans control the political agenda, that's the problem here.

... unless you're proposing that O'Rourke say he doesn't support gun control to get elected (this won't work, Republicans won't vote for Republican-lite when they can just vote for the real thing) and then implement them when he gets into office anyway - just straight up lie? Is that your big plan?

[LittleFuzzy]

They aren't trying, and they are letting the Republicans control the political agenda, that's the problem here.

... unless you're proposing that O'Rourke say he doesn't support gun control to get elected (this won't work, Republicans won't vote for Republican-lite when they can just vote for the real thing) and then implement them when he gets into office anyway - just straight up lie? Is that your big plan?

Gun control is not a binary. Neither is any political party in existence. You're thrashing Beto because he didn't express support for taking away all the guns before. And you excuse this bashing him for attempting to get enough support to enact some measure of gun control because while he got closer than anyone would have expected, he didn't actually pull off an upset electoral victory.

And it's not just with O'Rourke, you demonstrate this everywhere. You're very comfortable being the Opposition because it means you never have to compromise on anything. In many ways you're worse than Lewk. He's far uglier, but there are plenty of issues he doesn't particularly care about or which he doesn't mind making sacrifices on to get other things, even if he bitches about that behavior when it's coming from the other side. He mirrors his party that way. It's why their anti-spending wing collapsed and why they've been seeing populist success.

The coalition that makes up the Dem. Party is going to have to figure out what they can weaken or drop in their platform and their interest groups to make advances on other core issues they decided are more important, if they want to succeed against this changing GOP. The fact that the fiscally conservative wing of the GOP collapsed points to one obvious pool of voters which can be swayed the Dems way now on some issues if it weakens or drops its stance against their fiscally restrictive preferences, or they can make similar shifts on different sets of issues.

[Unheard Of]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...l-saves-lives/

The science is abundantly clear: More guns do not stop crime. Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. More children die by gunfire in a year than on-duty police officers and active military members. Guns are a public health crisis, just like COVID, and in this, we are failing our children, over and over again.

It doesn't have to be this way. It's a choice. The USA chooses easy access to guns, despite all the dead children.

[Loki]

Because 2/3 of one of the major political party is far more interested in making the other party "cry" than in any kind of policy wins. And certainly not good governance.

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

[Loki]

Manchin and Sinema say hi.

[Steely Glint]

So, I was told by the Politics Understanders that we needed a moderate like Biden because he could reach out and compromise with the Reasonable Republicans on the other side of the aisle in a display of bi-partisan co-operation that would make Aaron Sorkin weep tears joy, and he would therefore be able to Actually Get Something Done, unlike some unreasonable, uncompromising progressive.

But what you're now telling me is that actually Biden can't even reach over to the same side of the aisle and make a deal or compromise with two members of his own party?

[Loki]

Would a president Sanders be able to convince those 2?

[LittleFuzzy]

Would a president Sanders be able to convince those 2?

There wouldn't have been a President Sanders. There would have been four more years of Trump. Warren might have been able to get through but Sanders would have been a turbo-engine for Republican GOTV efforts, and despite Steely's repeated allegations of a huge mass of non-participating progressive voters just waiting for a socialist candidate to get nominated, he would not have equally stirred the Left side, not in most of the states that weren't already in the Dem bag.

In Arizona and Nevada, the independents lean Right. Georgia I'm not sure about but Sanders would never have carried it. In one of either Michigan or Wisconsin the Independents do swing rather progressive, in the other they don't and I can never remember which is which. Sanders would have carried the one, lost the other. Penn and NC are harder to call, but I have a real hard time seeing Sanders doing better than Biden in either state while Trump's absolute total increased over 2016 and would have increased even more against Sanders. Florida would also have swing further toward Trump if he'd have run against Sanders.

[Loki]

There wouldn't have been a President Sanders. There would have been four more years of Trump. Warren might have been able to get through but Sanders would have been a turbo-engine for Republican GOTV efforts, and despite Steely's repeated allegations of a huge mass of non-participating progressive voters just waiting for a socialist candidate to get nominated, he would not have equally stirred the Left side, not in most of the states that weren't already in the Dem bag.

In Arizona and Nevada, the independents lean Right. Georgia I'm not sure about but Sanders would never have carried it. In one of either Michigan or Wisconsin the Independents do swing rather progressive, in the other they don't and I can never remember which is which. Sanders would have carried the one, lost the other. Penn and NC are harder to call, but I have a real hard time seeing Sanders doing better than Biden in either state while Trump's absolute total increased over 2016 and would have increased even more against Sanders. Florida would also have swing further toward Trump if he'd have run against Sanders.

I think you give voters too much credit for ideological coherence. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I could see a decent chunk of independents voting for Sanders just because he's anti-establishment. If I had to bet money on it, I don't think he'd win, but it wouldn't be impossible.

What would happen if he won is that a whole lot more Democratic senators would be in rebellion against him. He wouldn't be able to pass any legislation. Which means ruling through executive actions. Something that's not exactly great for democracy.

[LittleFuzzy]

I think you give voters too much credit for ideological coherence. I don't disagree with anything you say, but I could see a decent chunk of independents voting for Sanders just because he's anti-establishment.

There would be independents and non-participating Dems that would stir themselves to vote if Sanders or someone similarly progressive were nominated, sure. But it goes both ways, there are others who did vote for Biden who would not have voted for someone that progressive (even if they should have reminded themselves that Trump was a worse result). But there are very very few who voted for Trump but would have supported Sanders instead. And there are a lot that didn't vote for Trump but would have if Sanders was the opponent. I look at the states which did or might have swung and I just don't see Sanders doing a lot better than Biden there and I do see Trump doing much better. If the election was about the overall popular vote then ok, a Sanders win would have been a possibility in 2020.

What would happen if he won is that a whole lot more Democratic senators would be in rebellion against him. He wouldn't be able to pass any legislation. Which means ruling through executive actions. Something that's not exactly great for democracy.

He would not be able to implement his own agenda. He'd presumably still be signing the legislation a Democratic Congress does want to push through though? Assuming, of course, that the Senate totals wouldn't have changed as well. There were several close races. And if he'd chosen another senator as a running mate, that would be another -1. A divided Congress wouldn't be passing much of what Biden has signed into law either. And one has to wonder if McConnell would actually sit there and just leave vacancies on SCOTUS for a straight four years. If he did let the one through, you can be sure he'd never let a second go, not after the prospect of Roe being overturned was dangled.

[Loki]

There would be independents and non-participating Dems that would stir themselves to vote if Sanders or someone similarly progressive were nominated, sure. But it goes both ways, there are others who did vote for Biden who would not have voted for someone that progressive (even if they should have reminded themselves that Trump was a worse result). But there are very very few who voted for Trump but would have supported Sanders instead. And there are a lot that didn't vote for Trump but would have if Sanders was the opponent. I look at the states which did or might have swung and I just don't see Sanders doing a lot better than Biden there and I do see Trump doing much better. If the election was about the overall popular vote then ok, a Sanders win would have been a possibility in 2020.

I could see Sanders doing better with the union members who've defected to the GOP in the past decade. A lot of them are in the Midwest. Didn't something like 10% of Sanders supporters vote for Trump? Might the reverse not also happen?

He would not be able to implement his own agenda. He'd presumably still be signing the legislation a Democratic Congress does want to push through though? Assuming, of course, that the Senate totals wouldn't have changed as well. There were several close races. And if he'd chosen another senator as a running mate, that would be another -1. A divided Congress wouldn't be passing much of what Biden has signed into law either. And one has to wonder if McConnell would actually sit there and just leave vacancies on SCOTUS for a straight four years. If he did let the one through, you can be sure he'd never let a second go, not after the prospect of Roe being overturned was dangled.

Sanders isn't known for compromise. He'd opt for maximalist goals and end with nothing. Like his entire career in the Senate. There's no way we'd have an infrastructure bill. There's no way he'd give anything to Sinema or Manchin for their support. So it would really be 48-52, even assuming he didn't cost the Democrats seats in Georgia.

Whatever you think about McConnell, it's always safe to assume he's actually worse.

[Steely Glint]

Do you believe they are available to be convinced?

[Aimless]

Would be interesting to see a breakdown of voter flows by state between 2016 and 2020, including previous non-voters.