(10-28-2018 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (10-28-2018 07:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (10-28-2018 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Well, given that he’s running as a liberal, it makes sense that he won’t align with your views on many issues.
But reasons to vote for Beto that I’m guessing you can get behind. I could give you more reasons as to why I support his candidacy, but I doubt you’d agree.
- Legalization of cannabis
- Not wasting tax dollars on a wall along the southern border
- increasing funding for veteran benefits
- Per his website: Ensuring the government works more efficiently and costs less by eliminating redundant or outdated federal regulations and improving transparency and oversight of federal agencies.
Beto especially has been running very much on his stances and why people should vote for him, as opposed to focusing on negative attacks against Cruz. If you want to see what attacking the other side looks like, just take a leak at the governor’s race in Florida, where that is all that is happening between the two candidates.
He's not running as a leftist, he IS a leftist. He's running as some sort of bipartisan healer. He is nothing of the sort. He would go to Washington and be Chuck Schumer's lapdog, just as he has been Nancy Pelosi's lapdog. I'm not going to vote for someone who aligns with Pelosi or Schumer 90+% of the time.
If he wanted to run as a liberal, he should say, "I voted with Nancy Pelosi 90+% of the time. If that's what you want in the senate, then vote for me." Of course, he wouldn't get to first base in Texas with that approach, so that's not what he does. If I had his voting record, I would do exactly what he is doing. His lack of honesty and transparency causes me to doubt anything he says.
How do you feel about the stances I outlined?
Fair enough, I should have responded to those.
Cannabis - I agree.
Wall - I am not in agreement that a wall is the way to go, but I do believe in much stronger border enforcement than I believe Robert supports. I actually kind of thought that the wall could be an interesting trade piece if Trump chose to use it that way. Give up a physical wall along the entire border to get a wall in those places where a wall works (are there are several) plus much enhanced electronic or other surveillance along the rest of the border, guest worker status ("red card") without a path to citizenship for those already here illegally (if they want citizenship, go back and do it right, which I'm guessing few if any really want), expanded merit-based legal immigration, and a policy that those who arrive at the border without visas are detained on the other side of the border until vetted and processed, instead of catch-and-release. Basically, adopt the same immigration policies as the rest of the developed world.
Veterans benefits - as a veteran, I obviously support this; I find it sort of curious that Robert does, except that Ft. Bliss is in his district, so it's a parochial thing; sine this does not appear to be a priority of democrats as a whole (they gutted TriCare to make Obamacare work) not sure how strongly he would commit to this if he were representing an entire state instead of El Paso (or San Antonio, but considering that a lot of his support would come from those areas, I suppose e would continue to give it at least lip service)
Efficient government/less regulation - what politician has ever said he/she did not favor more efficient government; I actually don't, in the sense that I see government engaged in a constant battle to steal power from the people, and I don't want them to be very efficient in doing that; as for eliminating regulations, Trump seems to be doing that very effectively and the economy seems to be responding well; one side comment about regulation, the Europeans have a totally different conceptual approach, or at least they did until the EU got too big for its britches, in that they give you a target for, say emissions, and you use your best efforts to it it, whereas we tend to specify in great detail exactly how you must go about achieving it; ours works better to create jobs for bureaucrats, theirs works better to reduce emissions; for example, they've been drilling in deep water in the Northeast Sea for a lot longer that we ave, nearly 50 years, and how many Deepwater Horizon events have they had?
I guess where I really come down are two things. One, cherry-picking a few isolated issues in the context of a voting record that is with Nancy Pelosi 90+% of the time is hardly convincing stuff. Two, in the midst of naming all those post offices, how much legislation has he sponsored or even co-sponsored to address any of those issues? Maybe as a member of the minority he can't get much done. But I'm sure bills to address every one of those issues has been put forth, I'm sure any put forth by republicans would have welcomed a co-sponsor from across the aisle, and how many did he co-sponsor?
Quote:Again, I don’t expect to convince you to vote for him, but those are some stances, and not platitudes, I imagine you could support.
He is talking the talk in his campaign, but he has not walked the walk. And without walking the walk, they are platitudes.
Quote:But getting to issues that Texans in general can support, he has been very vocal in his support of providing better funding for rural infrastructure improvements and support, which does fit snuggly in the Democratic Party line of using government as a tool to support under-served communities.
Again, Trump has been pushing infrastructure. The needs are so massive that it certainly appears that the kind of combined federal/state/local/private financing that Trump is proposing is the only way to raise the funds needed. But democrats have not been onboard with that. Is Robert going to ride to the rescue somehow? If so, then why has he not already done so?
Bottom line: He can say what he wants. Based on his actions, I don't believe him.