Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:33 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016

Is O'Rourke deliberately sabotaging the Dems?


Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
  #2  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:50 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,552
When did O'Rourke change his name to Mary Marg Olohan?
  #3  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:53 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
He's certainly entitled to hold that opinion. Since he's very unlikely to get the nomination, I doubt it will get much play in the general election.

One feature of the two-party system is that members of one party will advocate for things that members of the other party may disagree with. It doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.
  #4  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:56 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,917
I'm not worried. I figure Trump's doing a far better job sabotaging the Republicans than O'Rourke is doing sabotaging the Democrats.
  #5  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:58 PM
skdo23 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
I wouldnít say that he is trying to sabotage his party, my guess is that he has accepted by now that he canít retain a lot of support, let alone win, by sticking to the same platform as the more mainstream Dem candidates who are destroying him in the polls so he is now more focused on simply carving out his own niche within the Democratic Party, which he is betting might benefit his political future. Although I can hardly blame you for wondering that.
  #6  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:58 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
When did O'Rourke change his name to Mary Marg Olohan?
It's only the latest in a series of his "made-up nicknames." Real nicknames are inherited through genes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm not worried.
But are you concerned?
  #7  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:10 PM
GoodOmens is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,154
I don't agree with his viewpoint here. Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status, assuming they wouldn't have that status if they aren't religiously oriented, regardless of their opinion about same-sex marriage.
  #8  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:14 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,907
^ This ^
  #9  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:24 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
I think it's more likely that he's saying fairly outrageous things in order to stand out from the masses. I mean, if he's not the candidate, then that statement gives the Republicans no ammunition for the general election, right? I mean, it would be tough for them to go with, "failed Senate and presidential candidate said that churches should lose their tax status if they don't agree with him -- this obviously represents the entire Democratic party and you should vote against them."
  #10  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:43 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
What a great and thoughtful thing to wonder!
  #11  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:50 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,700
1. He has nothing to lose; it's all but certain that he won't be the 2020 nominee.

2. Having nothing to lose, he is much freer to speak his mind than Biden or Warren.

3. He needs to find a way to stand out from the pack.
  #12  
Old 10-11-2019, 01:52 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,193
I don't think he's hurting a sane Dem candidate. He's pretty much signed his political death warrant with that asinine "I'm coming for your guns" remark, but he'll be largely forgotten after Iowa, if he even makes it that far.
  #13  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:10 PM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOmens View Post
I don't agree with his viewpoint here. Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status, assuming they wouldn't have that status if they aren't religiously oriented, regardless of their opinion about same-sex marriage.
I and many others agree with you. My guess is Beto is just stupid.

Advocating a political litmus test for church tax status illustrates a lack of knowledge about the subject, and a lack of common sense for answering the question in the first place. Those who approve of tax exempt status for churches may want someone else's church to pay taxes, but usually they figure out the same laws would remove the status from their own church.

The question is political fodder, there is virtually no call for this at the grass roots level, it's the actual 'gotcha' type question*, because only a fool would get involved. As long as so many people are or pretend to be religious in this will not lead to removal of tax exempt status for all churches, it actually reinforces the notion they should not pay taxes as people consider what would happen to their own church.

*"What do you read?" is not a "gotcha" question.
  #14  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:25 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOmens View Post
I don't agree with his viewpoint here. Religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status, assuming they wouldn't have that status if they aren't religiously oriented, regardless of their opinion about same-sex marriage.
Agree. It would have generated less controversy if it were all or none.

Sure, many Christians oppose churches being taxed no matter what. But what Beto said here is akin to a pro-lifer saying, "Abortions for white women, but none for women of color!"
  #15  
Old 10-11-2019, 02:57 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Agree. It would have generated less controversy if it were all or none.
I doubt it. Saying "we should tax churches based on a litmus test" is not significantly more or less controversial than "we should tax churches". Both show a breath-taking combination of ignorance of the First Amendment, and political suicidal tendencies.

Every so often, a politician, especially one with nothing to lose, says what he means. I think that's what Beto did here. Which is why he is not referred to as Senator O'Rourke, and will never be referred to as President O'Rourke.

Reminiscent of the New York Post cover, when the various Dem candidates were asked if they wanted to provide illegal aliens with free health care - Who Wants To Lose The Election?

There's such a thing as shooting yourself in the foot. There is also such a thing as taking a chainsaw to the said appendage.

Regards,
Shodan
  #16  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:00 PM
Northeast Refugee is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post

Reminiscent of the New York Post cover, when the various Dem candidates were asked if they wanted to provide illegal aliens with free health care - Who Wants To Lose The Election?

Jesus fucking Christ and his apostles! What a bunch of unhinged morons...
This is serious, folks. While chances are small, one of these traitors might become our next President. God help us all.
  #17  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:10 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I doubt it. Saying "we should tax churches based on a litmus test" is not significantly more or less controversial than "we should tax churches". Both show a breath-taking combination of ignorance of the First Amendment, and political suicidal tendencies.
While tax exemptions for religious institutions has been upheld, I don't think anything in the 1st amendment compels tax exempt status. The Congress could pass laws to tax churches like any other organization and not run afoul of the 1st amendment. It's not been the practice since the country's founding, but given that tax exempt status can be revoked based on criteria, it stands to reason that this is an available option.

I'd prefer the entire structure of not for profit entities be eliminated.
  #18  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:12 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,285
O'Rourke is polling at around 3% both nationally and in Iowa. He's not exactly gathering a big following among Democrats. Maybe he just needs to rebrand with more distinctive headwear.
  #19  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:52 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northeast Refugee View Post
Jesus fucking Christ and his apostles! What a bunch of unhinged morons...
This is serious, folks. While chances are small, one of these traitors might become our next President. God help us all.
Really!?! Calling on religion to demand the inhumane treatment of others? It is treason to think ethically about giving health care to other human beings?

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org...mented/2008-04
Quote:
Why We Should Care for the Undocumented
Ron J. Anderson, MD

Health care for undocumented workers and their families has become an emotionally charged subject in my community. As the leader of a tax-supported public health system in Texas, I often find myself defending the provision of hospital care for the undocumented—a position that is not only rooted in the health system's legislative mandate but is consistent with its founding vision and mission statement and with federal and state law. Moreover, I believe our approach is economically prudent because it applies public health interventions to a vulnerable population, thereby diminishing the burden of illness and preventing higher costs to the community.

It is my position that our health system should in no way allow the care of someone who is seriously ill or injured to be compromised because of citizenship status. We have a clear mandate to provide medical care to all who enter our health system.
Quote:
Providing health care to undocumented workers and their families also makes good business sense. Consider that every dollar we spend on prenatal care allows us to avoid spending at least four dollars in neonatal intensive care services for low-birth-weight or premature babies. Regardless of parentage, the babies that we deliver in our hospital are American citizens, and it is important that they be healthy children who have the best chance of becoming productive and contributing members of our community.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-11-2019 at 03:53 PM.
  #20  
Old 10-11-2019, 03:53 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northeast Refugee View Post
Jesus fucking Christ and his apostles! What a bunch of unhinged morons...
This is serious, folks. While chances are small, one of these traitors might become our next President. God help us all.
While the word "traitor" has been on everyone's mind lately given Trump's actions, it's good to remember it is not synonymous with "person with policies I don't support."
  #21  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:40 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
While tax exemptions for religious institutions has been upheld, I don't think anything in the 1st amendment compels tax exempt status. The Congress could pass laws to tax churches like any other organization and not run afoul of the 1st amendment. It's not been the practice since the country's founding, but given that tax exempt status can be revoked based on criteria, it stands to reason that this is an available option.
The First doesn't specifically require tax exemption for churches, true, but it does forbid discriminating against religion. So this -
Quote:
I'd prefer the entire structure of not for profit entities be eliminated.
is theoretically possible. You could not eliminate tax-exemption from churches but not other non-profits.

But Beto suggesting removing tax exemption from all charities would piss off everybody, not just religious people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster
Really!?! Calling on religion to demand the inhumane treatment of others? It is treason to think ethically about giving health care to other human beings?
No, it's un-Constitutional to interfere with the free practice of religion and free speech by imposing a litmus test on churches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northeast Refugee
While chances are small, one of these traitors might become our next President.
Given Mr. O'Rourke's current position in the polls, and his unfortunate habit of warning us of his anti-Constitutional views, I think his chances are not so much "small" as "not a snowball's chance in hell".

Maybe somebody will pick him as VP. But I doubt that. He almost didn't lose in Texas. He almost didn't embarrass himself in the Democratic race for the nom. I suspect he has reached the pinnacle. At 3%. Among Democrats.

Regards,
Shodan
  #22  
Old 10-11-2019, 04:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, it's un-Constitutional to interfere with the free practice of religion and free speech by imposing a litmus test on churches.
We will have to disregard this reply of yours because that is not why I replied to the inhumane point that Northeast Refugee made.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-11-2019 at 04:48 PM.
  #23  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:07 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,531
Who gives a fuck what republicans think? THey are going to say this no matter what.

Also they aren't going to vote for O'Rourke anyway. It isn't like a bunch of angry white people from small towns in love with their guns were ever going to vote democrat anyway.

Also right wingers are not the average voter. The average voter believes in reasonable gun control.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:15 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Who gives a fuck what republicans think? THey are going to say this no matter what.

Also they aren't going to vote for O'Rourke anyway. It isn't like a bunch of angry white people from small towns in love with their guns were ever going to vote democrat anyway.

Also right wingers are not the average voter. The average voter believes in reasonable gun control.
It's not about core Republican voters. O'Rourke's stance will alienate moderates and independents, and you should care about what they think.
  #25  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:22 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not about core Republican voters. O'Rourke's stance will alienate moderates and independents, and you should care about what they think.
When republicans raised taxes on churches you didn't hear conservatives saying these things.

Which again brings up the point, why is it always the democrats who have to be moderate and reach across the aisle? And why do people always assume independents and moderates will recoil from anything remotely controversial if the democrats do it, but they're fine if republicans do the same thing?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ployees-670362

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...-the-rich.html
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #26  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
. So this -is theoretically possible. You could not eliminate tax-exemption from churches but not other non-profits.
No, I'm sure you could. You just make the litmus test be the percentage of your activities/spending that are actually charitable work, like every organization that isn't a church. If 80% of your business is giving speeches on the weekend, not tax exempt.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-11-2019 at 06:22 PM.
  #27  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
O'Rourke's stance will alienate moderates and independents
No it won't. Nobody cares about O'Rourke.

Fox News and Breitbart might engage in some recreational outrage and gin up some apoplexy among their fans, no doubt. But moderates and independents don't give any more shits about Fox News and Breitbart than they do about O'Rourke.

Nice try, though.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 10-11-2019 at 07:19 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:26 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'd prefer the entire structure of not for profit entities be eliminated.
What do you have against my credit union?
  #29  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:29 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,814
People who vote solely on having their supposed right to own guns aren't going to vote Democratic in a million years. Neither are evangelicals. It doesn't matter what Beto says or does.
  #30  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:30 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
Due to the current occupant of the White House, the scandal du jour just gets way less traction now than it used to. Few will remember this three weeks from now. Hell, most people won't hear about it in the first place.
  #31  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:32 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
While the word "traitor" has been on everyone's mind lately given Trump's actions, it's good to remember it is not synonymous with "person with policies I don't support."
Don't worry. I'm sure there will be a number of conservatives who will post in this thread to explain the legal definition of treason and how Northeast Refugee used the word incorrectly. That's been a major cause with conservatives lately. So any second now...
  #32  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:14 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,646
Well, that’s it. Some 3rd string Democratic presidential candidate said something kinda dumb and ill-thought. I’m voting for Trump!
  #33  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:15 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Few will remember this three weeks from now. Hell, most people won't hear about it in the first place.
That's true for everything connected with the Beto 2020 campaign, including Beto.
  #34  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
That's true for everything connected with the Beto 2020 campaign, including Beto.
I am not even lying, when I saw the thread title, I was wondering what PJ was up to, and then I thought, maybe there's some other O'Rourke in politics I don't know about? I had to click through the link before I remembered Beto was in the race.
  #35  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:23 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,915
I figured he meant Beto, but I still haven't heard about this 'sabotage' anywhere besides this thread.
  #36  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:24 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,865
In all the discussion about "free" health care it does need to be restated that Medicare (and, presumably, Medicare for all) does have a premium. As any recipient of it can attest.
  #37  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:40 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,516
Beto is a piker. If you really want to sabotage your own party, try committing multiple felonies like the guy temporarily occupying the White House.
  #38  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:44 PM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not about core Republican voters. O'Rourke's stance will alienate moderates and independents, and you should care about what they think.
Your concern is duly noted.
  #39  
Old 10-12-2019, 12:19 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Your concern is duly noted.
Me? I'm not feeling "concern", and nothing I've written in this thread was intended to suggest that I do. Frankly, I'm delighted that asshat is running.
  #40  
Old 10-12-2019, 12:57 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,015

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post

But are you concerned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by China Guy View Post
Your concern is duly noted.
This is neither cute nor clever. Do not accuse other posters of trolling or being a troll in this forum.

[/moderating]
  #41  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:22 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I am not even lying, when I saw the thread title, I was wondering what PJ was up to, and then I thought, maybe there's some other O'Rourke in politics I don't know about? I had to click through the link before I remembered Beto was in the race.
Ha! I thought it was PJ, too! He's definitely more in my consciousness than Beto is -- I've heard him on Wait Wait and I even have a book he wrote way back that I thought was pretty funny at the time, A Parliament of Whores.
  #42  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:38 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,680
I just introduced my 13-year old niece to the original "Poltergeist." I thought at first we were talking about Heather O'Rourke.

God, I need to quit mixing Ambien and Jim Beam.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #43  
Old 10-12-2019, 08:44 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Here he is, giving the Republicans more ammunition for the general election. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this is intentional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Me? I'm not feeling "concern", and nothing I've written in this thread was intended to suggest that I do. Frankly, I'm delighted that asshat is running.
Let's suppose you're right. What do you think his motives might be in wanting to sabotage his own party?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #44  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:02 AM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 431
I don’t know what the hell hes thinking but it’s fantastic for the right, so keep it up, Francis.
  #45  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:08 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Let's suppose you're right. What do you think his motives might be in wanting to sabotage his own party?
I don't know, maybe: Make sure they don't win in 2020, so he can try again in 2024, as the darling of the Left.
  #46  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:13 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't know, maybe: Make sure they don't win in 2020, so he can try again in 2024, as the darling of the Left.
I hope you remember this moment next time you're tempted to mock liberals for their political fantasies.
  #47  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:24 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,760
I don’t think he’s engaging in deliberate sabotage, but he’s desperate. He doesn’t have his house seat any longer and doesn’t really have a path forward in TX. Buttigieg has picked up a lot of the moderate but not Biden vote that I’m sure Beto was hoping for. He kinda reminds me of this campaign’s Marco Rubio, not able to handle the national spotlight after being a state wide media darling.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #48  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:25 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I donít think heís engaging in deliberate sabotage, but heís desperate. He doesnít have his house seat any longer and doesnít really have a path forward in TX. Buttigieg has picked up a lot of the moderate but not Biden vote that Iím sure Beto was hoping for. He kinda reminds me of this campaignís Marco Rubio, not able to handle the national spotlight after being a state wide media darling.
I could see maybe a cabinet seat, but Iím not sure heíll get one prestigious enough to help him further his political ambitions.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #49  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:33 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I hope you remember this moment next time you're tempted to mock liberals for their political fantasies.
Oh, I don't know. This seems a good bit more plausible to me than "President Pelosi". YMMV.
  #50  
Old 10-12-2019, 10:34 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,865
He's young enough that just about any posting in a Dem administration will add a line to his resume and won't really hurt going forward.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017