Got damn are we still like a month off from this vote? I'm tired of hearing about both of these guys. Since I don't vote I should be able to opt out of hearing/seeing any of their ads.
Who cares, the police work for us taxpayers, they need to clean up their system....bout time a politician had the balls to tell the truth. BETO ! DD
Serious question, isn't that in effect voting for Cruz? If you aren't going to vote for his main competitor, you are helping out Cruz.
I don't support Beto's positions on key issues. I don't support Ted Cruz on key issues either. My view on the environment has radically changed over the last few years, so if any one issue could convince to vote for that guy would be the belief that they could be a deciding vote on environmental issues. But I don't support Democratic proposals on healthcare, immigration or abortion. As to whether I'm helping Cruz, I'd say no. I'm a historically reliable conservative vote in Texas.
Thanks. You are, of course, free to vote for whoever you want to. I completely respect that. But this is a general question I suppose, when people say that they hate one candidate, but then write in their vote, or kind of waste it. I just feel that it ultimately helps the candidate you hate. But in your case, it looks like it's not that you hate Cruz, you just don't support him, and you feel similarly with Beto. All good man, I hope it didn't come off as me calling you out or anything. Thanks again for the clarification.
I think it hurts the candidate of your own party when you don't vote for them if you are a traditional vote for them. So Democratic voters who either stayed home or voted third party hurt Clinton and by extension helped Trump. Republican voters who stayed home or voted third party hurt Trump and helped Clinton. In my case if anything I am helping Beto by whatever small fraction of the total electorate in Texas I will represent this time around as it is one less vote he needs to reach Cruz's total.
Curious...what proposals on abortion? Other than simply protecting the right, I wasn't aware there are any new proposals. If the environment is such a large cause for you and you're concerned about one of these 2 being the deciding vote...isn't that answer obvious? I'm not sure how voting for the 3rd party in this particular race is one that is useful for the issue you list above as being very important to you.
I was speaking in broad strokes there about Democrat principals. I'm very pro-life. Climate change specifically so we can be clear what we are talking about. A vote for a third party of course hurts that cause. There are conflicting issues at play. To clarify that sentence though, I meant it as "if something changes my mind at the ballot box" it will be climate change. Meaning if I ultimately did vote for one of the two it would be for Beto. I'd be against most of what he stood for but Climate Change could justify it for me.
Beto's response to all the attack ads from Cruz? More rainbows and butterflies. Spoiler Sorry, but if you insist on sticking with this "I will only take the high road" strategy in this campaign....you're gonna get your ASS kicked in November.
My perspective is that too many people take this reductionist approach, which is why we have this highly polarized, highly partisan political atmosphere. People are routinely making deals with the devil just to keep the other devil out of office. That gives a politician the space to operate with impunity just so long as he doesn't make you hate him more than the other jackass. Republicans could have saved us a lot of trouble if they stood by their principles instead of trying to stick it to the Dems. I think people should be voting for the people they want, not against the people they don't want. That gives your candidates some accountability to earn your vote.
Out of total curiosity, which third party would you vote for if climate change and pro-life positions are important for you? It seems to me that Libertarians are largely unconcerned with abortion and would be against any regulation to stem climate change, while Greens would be largely pro-choice.
Hello visitor from the year 1988! In our timeline there has been a reversal in normal polarity of...well...things ande the metrics we use. Rather than negative/positive or bad or good, we tend to use the metric of "pwns the libs" Being accused of rape and defiant lying and screaming before Congress to save your seat...on the supreme court = pwns the libs Having a mentally deranged unimaginably corrupt old racist who yells at TV as President = pwns the libs Abandoning the role as leader of the free world and openly kowtowing to Russian tyrants and other various despots = pwns the libs. Democracy and functional government being irrevocably trashed = pwns the libs Also, the band UB40 was briefly nationally relevant again(I know!) So...what you may consider "bad" or an "attack" may actually be considered by others as "pwns the libs" or what you would deem "good" Please. Send. Help.
Cruz won his last senate race by 1.2 million votes. Very unlikely scenario but let's just say Cruz losses 500K votes and Dems gain 500K. You're still are down 200k votes. To make it simple, Dems aren't making up 1.2 million votes in 6 year span especially when the economy is doing well.
Have you ever considered Lindsey Grahm, Ted Cruz, and you in a devil's triangle? I'll even by the beer, pictures though, or it didn't happen.
Our voting system almost force that binary choice and encourage focusing on negative attacks. Easy solution is rank voting. Your first choice FOR, then 2nd, then 3rd... Would also encourage voter turnout - the traditional I don’t fit into either of the 2 main political party see their vote counting to some real degree because we all know that a protest vote of any kind is just that and is effectively worthless in the short term.
I don’t follow this race anymore since I already know exactly how I will vote. But the last debate didn’t touch on climate change for 1 second. The last presidential run barely touch on it. As if it’s not an issue. I’m sure you already know their position but I was curious about their recent response... 2016 (don’t see anything more recent): 2018:
If Beto ever wants to win statewide elected office he'll need to run in another state. The Supreme Court charade and Beto's position assured his defeat in November. Won't be close.
