Beto O’Rourke democrats elizabeth warren politics

Baba O’Riley.

And so, Beto is ascendant.

And so, Beto is ascendant.
This content has been archived. Log in or Subscribe for full access to thousands of archived articles.

10 comments on “Baba O’Riley.

  1. He is the front runner but even teflon wears in the end. . .”South Bend Pete” could take it and I’d like that more.

  2. I don’t know enough about any of the Democratic candidates, but Beto is interesting. A Beto-AOC ticket, talk about the potential to catch lightning in a bottle. You wanna beat down trump, you bring a girl from the boogie down Bronx.

    The last 2 presidents were outsiders, and Beto has serious outsider cred.

    • AOC isn’t old enough to be on the ticket. You need to be 35 (to be prez or veep). She’s only 29 and would only be 30, 31 when the election rolls around. She’ll have to wait toll 2024.

  3. Harvey Cotton

    Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate in the history of candidates. She lost to an unknown black guy named Barack Hussein Obama and needed everything in the bag to beat a 80 year old Jewish Socialist that reminds people of Doc Brown. And despite this, she only lost to Donald Trump because of the combination of arcane election laws, voter suppression, and a statistical fluke in three states. Any Democrat would beat Trump if he survives his first term (in both senses of the word) and would drumroll Pence. The important thing is choosing wisely in the primaries…(TulSea and Sanders…this guy gets it)

  4. Slim Charles

    “…has the nerve to call a former Vice President “a low I.Q. individual!”

    This is lazy logic. Trump’s the current Pres and you called him an idiot in the same sentence. Biden’s intelligence isn’t unassailable just because he attached himself to a Pres once. Apply that to Trump with his current office and see where it gets you…

    It’s actually pretty clear that both JB and DT are “low IQ individuals” regardless of their credentials. Only ignorance or hopeless bias could keep somebody from acknowledging that. I love your market insights, Heis, but this kind of hubris WILL get Trump re-elected if doubled down upon.

    • Anyone who suggests that Donald Trump is as intelligent as Joe Biden is about as intelligent as Donald Trump. How’s that logic for you?

      • Point is, these kinds of implicit defenses of Trump in the face of what you claim is “bias” and “hubris” are nonsense and you know it just as well as I know it just as well as everyone in America with any shred of sense knows it. Trump is a disaster, this administration is a train wreck and he will in fact go down in history as the president who tried to turn America into an autocracy.

        further, he wasn’t “elected”. he didn’t win the popular vote and we all know that irrespective of whether there was technical “collusion” (whatever that even means), he was bolstered by an all-out right-wing agitprop campaign, amplified by foreign influence on popular social media outlets. those are facts. Facebook and Twitter have told us as much and they’ve shown us the actual ads and given us the actual numbers.

        finally, these kinds of comments (“I love your market insights Heis but”), miss one critical point: I was formally trained in political science before I was trained in anything to do with business and/or economics and/or finance. I am a university-trained political scientist. Not just some random guy giving you his political opinion.

        all of that – each and every bit of it – is fact. if you want pretend like there is some grey area or ambiguity involved, then by all means, tell yourself what you need to tell yourself to get by. but this just it was it is.

        • Slim Charles

          Appreciate the reply and won’t remark on my own intelligence. I’m not trying to hit you or anyone else with a polemic here so sorry if my comment came off that way. To clarify, I’m saying that I tend to agree more with your takes on markets and less with your political philosophy (or at least what I perceive it to be). That just is what it is and doesn’t stop me from reading any of your writings, nor has it led me to make assumptions about your qualifications in either area.

          As far as Biden goes, irrespective of how he stacks up against Trump, he graduated in the 27th percentile of his UD class and in the 7th percentile from law school. I view academic performance as a decent gauge of intelligence but acknowledge that it’s not definitive. I also will never forget how uninformed and slow he appeared in the VP debate leading up to 2012, but again that’s subjective.

          I’m pretty passionately against being dismissive of Donald Trump. I disagree with him on policy and think he is stupid and unethical, but he was elected. The popular vote has nothing to do with this fact as it plays no role in electing the U.S. President. Whether it should is a different and effectively irrelevant question. Furthermore, the right-wing agitprop campaign is only relevant to the extent that it would not have succeeded without foreign influence. Propaganda right, left, and center is and always has been a licit part of American campaigning and use of it on Trump’s part or the part of any of his supporters does not discredit his election. True, we know that foreign powers interfered. We also know that they sought to tip the election in Trump’s favor. I have not, however, seen evidence that their efforts were necessary for Trump to be elected. If this evidence is yet available, please point it out to me. I’m not inclined to believe it simply because “everyone knows it.”

          • You clearly have no idea how the right-wing propaganda machine works and how effective it’s been in the post-2015 world.

            You’re reading it even when you don’t know you’re reading it. I could give you at least two hilarious examples of that, but in the interest of not stirring the pot, I’ll just leave it there, other than to simply add that my “political philosophy” is largely centered around an absolute disdain for racism, an aversion to making religion a part of public policymaking and a bias towards liberal ideals because, frankly, the conservative party has become a religious personality cult. Not sure what there is to “not agree” with there unless you’re into religious personality cults.

          • Slim Charles

            For the record, I’m not at all religious and am a registered Democrat. I detest personality cults.

Speak On It

Skip to toolbar