I'm waiting for a couple of bumper stickers for our two Beto for Senator signs we saved just for this reason. They'll fit just right over the "senator" part.
Some women are complaining that Beto us getting preferential treatment by the networks for airing his 1st of campaigning in Iowa. They are saying is a double standard. SMFH... It's not Beto's fault that his star shines a bit brighter than yours. Just because something happened, it doesnt always mean the powers that be are out to get you!
Aside from being charismatic and a good performer what are his qualifications? He doesn't seem to have many strong policy positions that have been held much before his resignation from a pretty lack luster Congressional career? He voted against President Obama more than the average Democrat and did not have even the excuse of being in a swing district as it is 80% Democrat. Hey, against Ted Cruz, I had a bumper sticker and a yard sign for the guy, but who knows what he would do as president.
We'll find out during the primaries, glynch. As for what he will do if elected, that will depend on the makeup of Congress as much as his position on the issues.
I am stunned. I guess you do not feel strongly that America needs a leader to reform things for the average American? You are comfortable with a guy who is hesitant to have virtually any firm stands, who speaks in glowing generalities like a speaker at a college graduation. Presidents who have accomplished much have had strong opinions e.g FDR, Reagan and Johnson and are not wishy washy guys like Beto always trying not to offend anyone by articulating clear priorities, goals and positions.
This is unfortunately true. The MSM is also so freaking impressed with itself when it finds dirt on a do gooder Dem so they can talk about how fair and balanced they are. But yes... Dems are bad at the self defeating nature of eating their own.
Agreed, it is the least, but most Americans do less and have given up on the political system and feel "they are all the same" with respect to improving their lives government does not matter so why take times out from their busy lives. . Fighting tooth and nail to the point to where the lower 60% or whatever Americans actually see and believe that the leader or Party means it for things like Free tuition, Medicare for All, $15/hr are the type of concrete issues that can convince them otherwise-- not flowery speeches or empty charisma.
Left eats its own. The right would cut its arms or fingers off to save itself from being associated with people the left attack. It is a political hate mob apocalypse.
Nope. I can take all of your examples, and interpret them the opposite way. Here we go: all of your examples involve taking away the achievements of people who actually go out and accomplish things, and redistribute their earned monies to those who have not earned those monies. Take the left's fascination with Obamacare/single-payer/medicare for all etc. People who go out and get a job with benefits don't have to worry about the above schemes. Those people who cannot or will not get a job with those benefits, support those schemes. Those schemes involve taking from those who have won their benefits by achievement, to those who have not/cannot/will not. Obamacare imposed a huge tax on upper incomes to help those with lower incomes get health care. That's redistributionist from those who achieve to those who don't achieve. That, in turn, is anti-meritocratic. Same with estate tax. Parents who have achieved and built up a nest egg want to give it to their children so they can have a better life. But the state comes in and redistributes those savings built up over a life time to those who cannot/will not do the same. Education: one could go down a real rabbit hole with this topic, but I'm increasingly convinced that the fact that elementary nd secondary education is "free" (of course it's not really free) is part of the reason education is going down the %$#@ hole. There are a lot of other factors at play too, such as teacher's unions; kids from single parents homes, etc. Basically, all the redistributionist programs you are citing above are, IMO, anti-meritocratic. I could go on and on, but you probably get the essence of my thesis at this point. I will check out your link. But you seem to be arguing two different (and opposing) viewpoints: 1) that redistributionist policies are meritocratic 2) we used to have a meritocracy, before the redistributionist policies were enacted. There would seem to be an inherent conflict between those two points. Of course, it may come down to how one defines "meritocratic." To my mind, anything that is redistributionist is not meritocratic.
Some negative press is generated by paid advocates for the opposition. Some negative press is perpetrated to sell soap ads.
I don't know how many idiots go to Columbia... As far as I know he wasn't a legacy or ridiculously wealthy. I'd guess it is more to do with his personality back then.
