(09-20-2018 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 01:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So somewhere between his early high school and his run to EP City Council Robert had turned into Beto.

So Beto was not always the name he was known by.

Thanks.

In my case, my parents called me by my nickname from day one.

In my case I thought my given name was "Hey you" until I was forced to leave the house and go to college.

(09-20-2018 05:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 01:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So somewhere between his early high school and his run to EP City Council Robert had turned into Beto.

So Beto was not always the name he was known by.

Thanks.

In my case, my parents called me by my nickname from day one.

I’ve already posted a photo of Beto as a young child wearing a sweater with the nickname Beto embroidered on it.

In that case, you can call me "Kemo Sabe".

Quote:U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Democratic opponent Beto O'Rourke are scheduled to participate in their first debate Friday evening at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

The Dallas debate is being presented by SMU, NBC 5/KXAS and The Dallas Morning News. It will be broadcast live on NBC 5/KXAS, its website and the Dallas Morning News’ website as well. The Texas Tribune will feature the livestream of the debate on this page.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/21/...as-senate/

(09-20-2018 06:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 04:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 01:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So somewhere between his early high school and his run to EP City Council Robert had turned into Beto.

So Beto was not always the name he was known by.

Thanks.

In my case, my parents called me by my nickname from day one.

In my case I thought my given name was "Hey you" until I was forced to leave the house and go to college.

Or as Bill Cosby put it: "But Dad, he's Dammit; I'm Jesus Christ!"

Oooof.... two questions into the debate and Cruz brings up Robert's description of police as 'the new Jim Crow'. Robert then tries to sidestep and somewhat deny the context in which that direct quote came from.

Poor showing for both, imo.

Edward is trying too hard to be a hard nosed hitter and just looks like a tough guy wannabe. Robert looks really stilted and uncomfortable. Not nearly as comfortable as he is in his usual 'rock star' type settings he is seemingly used to. Big style difference, as there should be. Cruz seems far more comfortable in the debate setting -- he should be. The Presidential debates and the CNN Bernie debates come to mind. Robert isnt used to the big stage, bright lights, one on one setting. Not a diss, just experience at play here. Big difference between the KVIA El Paso Congressional debate and this.

Edward really made Robert stagger when he brought up Robert sponsoring in EP City Council a resolution calling not just for the legalization of pot, but for a debate on the all narcotics. Robert kind of stammered 'Well, uh, uh, I don't agree that all narcotics should be legalized' -- Edward hammered back saying 'seems odd that you would even bring that up' (paraphrase).

Robert cant stop playing Geography quiz. You could play "Hi Bob" with the tag being everytime Robert mentions a town he was just in --- youd get shitfaced pronto.

Edward just jujitsued Edward's travel and geography tales -- 'Congressman O'Rourke seemingly thinks that representing Texas means a photo op in every county. It actually means fighting elsewhere for Texas and Texan's interests'.

Now they are getting into a 'who got money from where' pissing match -- Bernie Sanders money v PAC money....

On these last questions you can actually hear Edward laughing when Robert is answering.

And with the last question (What positive can you state about your opponent) Cruz answers by praising Robert for the passion for what he believes in -- reminds Edward of Bernie's passion, which Edward doesnt believe in but admires. Does a really humorous tie of a praise of Robert's passion to the praise of Bernie's passion, and ties Robert to Bernie. Robert responds tartly 'true to form'.

Have to say really unimpressed with both. Cruz never can really get me to fully overcome his 'ick' factor. Robert was horrendously uncomfortable and very ill at ease in the venue. Lot of stammering. I've seen Robert when speaking before a large friendly crowd, he can 'do it'. He was *way* short here.

Robert needs to up his ease and personality game in these things -- no way he can trade blow to blow with Cruz on political experience and background. Cruz kept the vigil of referring to 'meeting with the President', and talking pecan policy with the Secretary of Agriculture, and debating Bernie mano a mano. Robert kept up the dribble of 'In Snyder, I met Robert Whatshisname'.... Bad continuous comparison if the issue boils down to experience.

Robert has to win using his best asset -- his cute smile and great personality. He didnt shine in that aspect tonite.

Two comments

I am sure O’rourke S more at ease when addressing a crowd of cheering Democrats.

I get confused with all the names. Why not call them Cruz and O’Rourke?

Sorry about the debate blog -- was really bored on a conference call that I had zero part in, had zero issues to interact with, but was was told that they 'really wanted me to be there' on the snowball's chance in hell that the two above actually were to be.

It was 'bored blogging' the debate, or a scintillating number of games of Spider or Minesweeper....

(09-21-2018 11:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two comments

I am sure O’rourke S more at ease when addressing a crowd of cheering Democrats.

I get confused with all the names. Why not call them Cruz and O’Rourke?

Edward is comfortable addressing both a group of Tea Partiers and a large group of hostiles. I've seen him do both without a hitch.

Debates are not 'friendly events', and you have to be able to both operate in a non-full full of cheering acolytes crowd and ride the unexpected smoothly. I am sure with more polish Robert will. He just didnt.

We must have watched different debates. You keep referencing a debate I didn't watch. Both guys were smooth.

I think there were enough substantive topics he talked about that would have scared any conservative enough to keep them busy on why they don't care for him. But trying to call him out for sounding nervous is an odd approach.

My take on seeing him for the first time? He was Obama-like smooth and he seems incredibly ambitious and ready for the national stage. If he doesn't win in Texas, Democrats will figure out a way to get him in the Senate in another state - or quickly elevate his status in the House. And he'll be one of the Democratic frontrunners in 2024. It's possible he's on the short list of the VP choices in 2020, but so far I don't think any of the main candidates have much of a chance to do anything in 2020 so I'd bet you Beto doesn't really want to be stuck on a losing campaign quite yet of that stature.

I will say I could be way off but unless he gets trounced in November, that's how I see things.

Fort Bend -- how does he 'quickly elevate his position in the House' when he doesnt hold office?

You were crowing about this in another thread how he should be Caucus leader and depose Pelosi, but the simple fact remains that should he lose in November, the sole position Robert will hold on January whatever will be 'half owner of Stanton Street Technologies' or somefink.

Seems rather hard to 'elevate his position in the House' when not even holding office of any sort.

And yes, I have actually made an effort to see Robert. His performance last night was amazingly more stilted than that other 100+ person event. When the three tricks in your repertoire are seemingly: a) everything is tied to racial interaction with the justice system; b) a weird Texas style political cover of the Johnny Cash song "I've Been Everywhere"; and c) a killer smile and silky smooth interaction --- well I dont think that a) and b) are game changers in Texas.

When your answer to "Robert passed a resolution calling for a lively national debate on not just marijuana but for *all* narcotics, which including cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin" is "Well, uh,pause...., let me be clear, uh, pause... I am not, uh, for the legalization of all narcotics", sorry that comes nowhere in any universe as 'smooth' in my book.

There were well more than that episode. By the way, Robert (surprise surprise) used that question to rail on the injustice of the 'african american man who is jailed for pot at a rate eleventy thousand google percent more than whites'. And also (not surprisingly) used that to springboard to Mary Bleeker (or someone) from Wichita Falls.

I mean, it is like he took personal debate lessons from Al Gore on how to use 'lockbox' twenty thousand times in a debate or John McCain on describing the three letters he sees in Putins eyes -- KGB only eight thousand times in a debate.

Beto is a collectivist/redistributionist. Whether to call him a socialist or communist or fascist is a matter of semantics.

Name a democrat who is not.

(09-22-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Beto is a collectivist/redistributionist. Whether to call him a socialist or communist or fascist is a matter of semantics.

Name a democrat who is not.

I am actually not too familiar with Beto’s economic policies. Can you summarize the details for me a bit? Sounds like you’re fairly familiar with them.

(09-22-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Beto is a collectivist/redistributionist. Whether to call him a socialist or communist or fascist is a matter of semantics.
Name a democrat who is not.

I am actually not too familiar with Beto’s economic policies. Can you summarize the details for me a bit? Sounds like you’re fairly familiar with them.

So you've spent a fair amount of time on this thread advancing advocacy points in favor of Beto, and yet you are "actually not too familiar" with his economic policies? You made up your mind without knowing?

(09-22-2018 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Beto is a collectivist/redistributionist. Whether to call him a socialist or communist or fascist is a matter of semantics.
Name a democrat who is not.

I am actually not too familiar with Beto’s economic policies. Can you summarize the details for me a bit? Sounds like you’re fairly familiar with them.

So you've spent a fair amount of time on this thread advancing advocacy points in favor of Beto, and yet you are "actually not too familiar" with his economic policies? You made up your mind without knowing?

I haven’t actually been doing that - I’ve advocated that Beto has specific policy ideas, not just platitudes. And I provided a source for my position that focused on criminal justice reform.

Again, can you summarize his Econ policies? Based on your blanket statement you must be familiar with them, and I honestly don’t know what his positions on things like tax policy are.

(09-22-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 10:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 09:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Beto is a collectivist/redistributionist. Whether to call him a socialist or communist or fascist is a matter of semantics.
Name a democrat who is not.

I am actually not too familiar with Beto’s economic policies. Can you summarize the details for me a bit? Sounds like you’re fairly familiar with them.

So you've spent a fair amount of time on this thread advancing advocacy points in favor of Beto, and yet you are "actually not too familiar" with his economic policies? You made up your mind without knowing?

I haven’t actually been doing that - I’ve advocated that Beto has specific policy ideas, not just platitudes. And I provided a source for my position that focused on criminal justice reform.
Again, can you summarize his Econ policies? Based on your blanket statement you must be familiar with them, and I honestly don’t know what his positions on things like tax policy are.

We can split semantic hairs over how to characterize what you've done, but I don't think it misstates anything to say that you've made your preference for O'Rourke clear. If I'm wrong, then please indicate the percentage likelihood that at this point you would be inclined to vote for Cruz, O'Rourke, and Dikeman. I'll give you mine, Dikeman 95%, Cruz 5%, O'Rourke 0%.

As for economic policies, you'll find precious little in his campaign literature, probably because he thinks those ideas will cost him more votes than they will get him. In Texas, that's probably correct. So look at his voting record. He voted against the 2017 tax act and favors single-payer health insurance. His voting record, according to the National Journal, was 85% liberal and 15% conservative in 2013. I've not seen later evaluations. Representing El Paso, with Fort Bliss, I'm guessing he gets conservative props for his votes on military matters. He tries very hard to paint himself as a centrist, but he is not. A centrist would be between 40% and 60% in such ratings.

I think he has tried to run a campaign almost entirely on personality and perception. He has pretty much avoided heavy lifting on the economy. As proof of that, we have someone posting comments favorable to him in this thread who admits not knowing his economic positions.

I think Cruz has made a mistake by trying to campaign on that same field. Ted, you're an a-hole, you're not going to win a Miss Congeniality contest with Beto. But Cruz has said precious little about issues himself. Unless you count kneeling for the national anthem a burning issue. I'm totally disappointed in both candidates, which is why I am leaning Dikeman.

Would agree. Robert's stated positions on anything in the economic realm is..... sparse.... to say the least.

Robert really has to keep mum about anything tax related -- his mom was popped on tax evasion charges (and really should have been charged with accessory to money laundering, tbh). Anything Robert says about tax issues can be funneled straight back to that.

But based on his voting record, that is the 2nd reason Robert stays mum about those issues in Texas.

By the way, I am surprised that no one in the media is jumping on Robert's answer last night that 'he did not try to leave the scene of the DWI-related accident that he caused'. Flies directly in the face of the witnesses statements.

Relatedly, since we were addressing earlier that 'if Kavanaugh were at the party' and lied about it, would that be a show stopper? I dont think I answered but I will agree with illini -- and agree that it would subject Kavanaugh to removal from his current position.

Let me ask the question of the O'Rourke supporters here: we have Robert unequivocally stating that 'he did not try to leave the scene of that accident' (eerily channeling Clinton 'I did not have sex with that woman', but I digress.) We have witnesses equally unequivocally stating that he did try to leave the scene of the accident that was caused by his DWI. Do you hold O'Rourke to that same level of veracity that you ostensibly hold Kavanaugh to?

I mean, there is *no* common ground between O'Rourke's denial last night and the explicit statements of unassociated third parties.....

Look, I understand if a twenty-something ***** up badly and does what happened; long time under that bridge. And I understand that same scared twenty-something trying to leave the scene. What about the forty-something politician lying about the incident?

(09-22-2018 09:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, I have actually made an effort to see Robert. His performance last night was amazingly more stilted than that other 100+ person event. When the three tricks in your repertoire are seemingly: a) everything is tied to racial interaction with the justice system; b) a weird Texas style political cover of the Johnny Cash song "I've Been Everywhere"; and c) a killer smile and silky smooth interaction --- well I dont think that a) and b) are game changers in Texas.

When your answer to "Robert passed a resolution calling for a lively national debate on not just marijuana but for *all* narcotics, which including cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin" is "Well, uh,pause...., let me be clear, uh, pause... I am not, uh, for the legalization of all narcotics", sorry that comes nowhere in any universe as 'smooth' in my book.

There were well more than that episode. By the way, Robert (surprise surprise) used that question to rail on the injustice of the 'african american man who is jailed for pot at a rate eleventy thousand google percent more than whites'. And also (not surprisingly) used that to springboard to Mary Bleeker (or someone) from Wichita Falls.

I mean, it is like he took personal debate lessons from Al Gore on how to use 'lockbox' twenty thousand times in a debate or John McCain on describing the three letters he sees in Putins eyes -- KGB only eight thousand times in a debate.

Agree with this assessment, with the caveat that the "true to form" exchange probably reminds a few voters why they don't like Cruz. Cruz just can't help himself with the unctuous BS.

Beto needs to remember he's running for Senate in Texas. Knock off the gun control, figure out away to respond to Cruz framing on law enforcement without adding race into the mix, talk about health care, health care, trade wars, Dreamers, health care. If he started a business, he must have made payroll. Talk about that instead of getting into the weeds on high velocity ammunition.

Put out an ad tomorrow with Beto in night vision goggles shooting hogs with an AR15. Fade to a BBQ pit.

After last night, best guess Cruz wins by 6 pts.

(09-22-2018 12:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 09:39 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And yes, I have actually made an effort to see Robert. His performance last night was amazingly more stilted than that other 100+ person event. When the three tricks in your repertoire are seemingly: a) everything is tied to racial interaction with the justice system; b) a weird Texas style political cover of the Johnny Cash song "I've Been Everywhere"; and c) a killer smile and silky smooth interaction --- well I dont think that a) and b) are game changers in Texas.

When your answer to "Robert passed a resolution calling for a lively national debate on not just marijuana but for *all* narcotics, which including cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin" is "Well, uh,pause...., let me be clear, uh, pause... I am not, uh, for the legalization of all narcotics", sorry that comes nowhere in any universe as 'smooth' in my book.

There were well more than that episode. By the way, Robert (surprise surprise) used that question to rail on the injustice of the 'african american man who is jailed for pot at a rate eleventy thousand google percent more than whites'. And also (not surprisingly) used that to springboard to Mary Bleeker (or someone) from Wichita Falls.

I mean, it is like he took personal debate lessons from Al Gore on how to use 'lockbox' twenty thousand times in a debate or John McCain on describing the three letters he sees in Putins eyes -- KGB only eight thousand times in a debate.

Agree with this assessment, with the caveat that the "true to form" exchange probably reminds a few voters why they don't like Cruz. Cruz just can't help himself with the unctuous BS.

Beto needs to remember he's running for Senate in Texas. Knock off the gun control, figure out away to respond to Cruz framing on law enforcement without adding race into the mix, talk about health care, health care, trade wars, Dreamers, health care. If he started a business, he must have made payroll. Talk about that instead of getting into the weeds on high velocity ammunition.

Put out an ad tomorrow with Beto in night vision goggles shooting hogs with an AR15. Fade to a BBQ pit.

After last night, best guess Cruz wins by 6 pts.

Cruz lives for the prickly interaction. I cant say that I hate that, as I will readily assume that many feel that way about me.

Cruz was actually worse last night. Typically Cruz is a snarky creep. Last night Cruz was *trying* too hard to be a snarky creep.

He came across to me as a snarky creep *wannabe*, like having the air of the kind of pudgy kid that got pantsed on a regular basis in elementary school and is trying too smugly to make up for it.

The snarky creep I can live with to a certain extent (hell, I live with me....). Last night I think I realize that what is worse is the snarky creep who isnt hitting on all 12 snarky-creep cylinders.

One thing I forgot from last night: Robert missed a golden opportunity to pin Cruz, and pin him pretty badly. I realized this when Cruz and Robert were talking on the pot/drugs issue.

Cruz started his lash at Robert's 'debate on all narcotics' with this paraphrased quote: "I lean to a slight libertarian bent on the issue. What Colorado decides to do with marijuana may be completely different than what Texas wishes to do."

First, from a Senate debate, a complete non-answer. A US Senator from Texas plays no role in state power issues. But that wasnt the worst.

Had Robert not been obviously gut punched by the 'national debate' issue, the perfect response to Cruz would have been:

"I take it from your answer that Colorado and Texas should be able to have differing views on marijuana, I will take it that you support the decriminalization of marijuana at the Federal level."

There is *no* good out for Cruz from that retort. It forces Cruz to either support Federal criminalization (and make him a bald-faced liar in the space of two sentences) or it forces Cruz to support Federal decriminalization, something I suspect Cruz does not want to do for obvious reasons.

(09-22-2018 12:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Put out an ad tomorrow with Beto in night vision goggles shooting hogs with an AR15. Fade to a BBQ pit.

Cruz response is: play Robert's own clip of him playing with guns, then play the clip where Robert is calling explicitly for an 'assault weapon' ban. Then the tag: 'Which O'Rourke is he today'. No spoken words necessary in the commercial.

Then you have Cruz winning by 12-14 instead of 6.

Or you have a repeat of Dukakis playing tank driver.

Sorry, O'Rourke has self-written the script to preclude that avenue at the present time.