Beto Disqualifies Himself

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
52
Portland, Oregon
✟278,062.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Campaigning to "tear down the wall' will virtually guarantee a Republican victory in the general election.
That is my opinion. Others think that "open borders" for all is a winning political idea. Others think that accepting a million asylum seeker into the US is a fine political idea. Personally, I don't think so.
Ok. So you did’t mean it would literally disqualify him.

Considering most Americans are opposed to the wall, I don’t see how his statement guarantees a Republican victory. It’s not like he needs to conceived any republicans, the dems just need to make sure that ppl vote.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Beto gave a fine speech in El Paso. However, his idea of tearing down the wall will likely disqualifying him from winning the nomination or the election, should he win the nomination.

"Tear down this wall" just won't work as a political slogan in 2020.

What, did he forget to pretend that Mexico would pay for tearing it down?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How does this disqualify Beto?
There's been lots of advice to Democratic candidates coming from people who seemingly would never vote for a Democrat even if their life depended on it. Take it for what it is worth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
How is this a winning issue for the Democrats?

Support for the wall very closely track with support for Trump himself. See e.g. The Wall Is Not Popular. (And Neither Is Trump.)

It isn't like strong Trump supporters are going to change their mind, so there's no point in pandering to them with empty promises of Mexico paying for walls or coal jobs coming back or whatever. So among the voters who are left to be convinced, if you want to rally voters who are against Trump, opposing his vanity wall waste of money's a pretty good bet. And given the majority of potential voters don't approve of Trump, that's a pretty big target demographic.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,815.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
When Trump was closing down the government, the major opposed Trump's wall, which at the time was viewed to be a concrete wall from the Gulf to the shining sea. The Democrats wanted any fence to be called a wall. Trump has taken the same position.

I don't think that the majority of voters oppose building additional border fence. after all Congress approved $1.4B for that purpose for 55 of fencing, at their choice of location and construction. Trump wants 180 more miles.

I don't see a nationwide groundswell to tear the wall down. Politically, this would certainly look like "open borders", not what the Democrats want to stand for, even though this is exactly what may be reasonable in El Paso and San Diego. What the border mayors seem to want is lots more security (in person and electronic) at the legal border, and perhaps an additional legal border crossing or two (which wold cost a lot of money).

The REAL ISSUE, and there is one, is that there are millions suffering in Central America and parts of Mexico. These folks want asylum in the US. Should we accept asylum seekers without limit? Should we spend billions to help Mexico and Central American governments deal with the underlying issues of poverty and gangs? The caravans of people will come, if Mexico doesn't stop them. There are indeed millions who want to come.

Another REAL ISSUE is what to do with regard to immigration as a whole. What do want done for the DACA folk and those here on temporary emergency stays (some her for 10 years from Haiti, which is still an emergency situation)? What do we want done with the 10 or 20 million illegals in the country, mostly working at low shilled Jobs? What do we want about the system of legal immigration (there are many options?

There is a national consensus. The Democrats COULD have positions consistent with them in 2020, or not.

Ok. So you did’t mean it would literally disqualify him.

Considering most Americans are opposed to the wall, I don’t see how his statement guarantees a Republican victory. It’s not like he needs to conceived any republicans, the dems just need to make sure that ppl vote.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
When Trump was closing down the government, the major opposed Trump's wall, which at the time was viewed to be a concrete wall from the Gulf to the shining sea. The Democrats wanted any fence to be called a wall. Trump has taken the same position.
I don't think that is correct. The Democrats, by and large, understand the difference between the Great Wall of Trump and other kinds of fences and barriers.

I don't think that the majority of voters oppose building additional border fence. after all Congress approved $1.4B for that purpose for 55 of fencing, at their choice of location and construction. Trump wants 180 more miles.
No, they don't oppose additional border fence. They are not fooled by the cynical "bait-and-switch" tactics of the Trump administration.

I don't see a nationwide groundswell to tear the wall down.
There isn't a wall (yet) only various fences and barriers. Wait until The Wall is constructed to see if there is a national groundswell to tear it down. Personally, I don't think we will have to wait that long. The heavy-handed disruption of peoples' lives and livelihoods along the border as the work is begun ought to be enough.

The REAL ISSUE, and there is one, is that there are millions suffering in Central America and parts of Mexico. These folks want asylum in the US. Should we accept asylum seekers without limit? Should we spend billions to help Mexico and Central American governments deal with the underlying issues of poverty and gangs? The caravans of people will come, if Mexico doesn't stop them. There are indeed millions who want to come.
That would make a difference from our usual program of spending billions to prop up unsavory dictators in support of US corporate interests in the region.

Another REAL ISSUE is what to do with regard to immigration as a whole. What do want done for the DACA folk and those here on temporary emergency stays (some her for 10 years from Haiti, which is still an emergency situation)? What do we want done with the 10 or 20 million illegals in the country, mostly working at low shilled Jobs? What do we want about the system of legal immigration (there are many options?
Some cognitive dissonance to resolve. Trump's corporate supporters want cheap illegal labor. His populist base is afraid of brown non-English speaking Roman Catholics. Oh, what to do?

There is a national consensus. The Democrats COULD have positions consistent with them in 2020, or not.
The way you paint the national consensus, I hope not.
 
Upvote 0