Who is claiming to be his "most ardent" supporter? I've stated I like the guy, and I think he can win.
Rubio
- Thread starter ThorOdinson13
- Start date
I swear we had this discussion not that long ago. I remember calling shenanigans on those claiming "this time will be different." That is the GOP cycle that seems unbreakable. Come voting time, it is the same thing. Every. Time.
I just cannot get behind any of the likely candidates. There is still time, but you can see the pandering hitting full stride.
I will say some of the discussion on this board has warmed me a little more towards Rubio.
I'm still skittish because of his involvement in the Gang of Eight.
I did not know he was rated as one of the most conservative in the Senate.
I'm still skittish because of his involvement in the Gang of Eight.
I did not know he was rated as one of the most conservative in the Senate.
Oh, i am trying. Even the ones i had previously made my mind up about. I really have no say as a registered libertarian, so i simply get to bitch about who everybody else places in the primaries. I am trying to start over now that the field is shrinking down. Not hopeful, but want to give them a chance now that there is less screaming over each other.
I think we're all in the same boat, and if we don't like what's in the boat, our out is a pre-indicted Hillary. Post-indicted is anyones' guess.
As I said above......
To mitigate is to slow or lessen damage. This is all settling for the lesser of two evils does. The end result is the same with the difference being in how you get there. You want a Chip Kelly offense? Vote Democrat. You want a Nick Saban offense? Vote Republican. Either way, you're headed for the same end state. If we are going to go ahead and settle for the final end state why not just rip the Band-Aid off quickly instead of peeling it back in an excruciatingly slow and painful manner?
I understand the view point of not voting being called "inaction." But I'll contend that just simply voting is not enough. First, each of us needs to have a vision of what form of government would best benefit us. Second, we need to understand what we are voting for and quit basing our opinions of candidates and policies on 10 second sound bytes designed to persuade opinion in a particular direction. A direction that usually only benefits those running the show. Third, we need to quit telling ourselves we are just being "pragmatic." By telling ourselves things like this we are just trying to justify what we inherently know is wrong, it's an excuse to make us feel better. And finally, if a third party candidate meets our vision vote for him/her. If not, don't vote. If we continue to settle for the establishments vision of how to rule then we deserve every ounce of oppression and tyranny that is reigned down upon us. Sadly, our nation is powerful enough that peoples of other nations feel the oppression and tyranny that result from our own ignorance at a rate 100x's worse than our own due to the irresponsible foreign policy pushed by those we elect. If we as a people do not demand better we do not deserve better.
Do you believe that the media does not influence its viewers? Are you going to deny being influenced yourself? I'll freely admit that the media influences me when I pay attention and I have often had to reel myself back in. Maybe I'm just easily persuade.
I keep hearing the "Rubio can win" and the "Rubio can work well with others" lines. What got us to the point we are today? Was it an inactive government incapable of working together and accomplishing things due to consistent deadlock? Or was it a government that worked together with back room deals and bi-partisanship being extremely active in passing legislation? Is a government that is deadlocked in debate and rendered inactive necessarily a bad thing? Wasn't the separation of powers partially designed to create deadlock and in turn prevent an extremely active government? Just some food for thought.
Here's a pretty good piece on the shape of the GOP race, by Steve Hayes, in the Weekly Standard. Of course, Steve Hayes is in the neo-con camp himself and pretty clearly favors Rubio, but this a balanced piece and he is knowledgeable on the subject:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-real-shape-of-the-race/article/2000939
This section is insightful:
"To be sure, Cruz and Rubio are running for president in very different ways—though both are familiar. Rubio is campaigning like Barack Obama did in 2008. He has chosen to emphasize optimism, unity, possibility, reform. He defends his decision to run as a young candidate by emphasizing the "urgency" of the problems facing the country, just as Obama cited Martin Luther King Jr.'s "fierce urgency of now" for his audacious first run for the presidency. There's a lot of tough criticism of Obama and Washington in Rubio's stump speech, but there's also a lot of "hope and change."
Cruz is running like Obama, too—Obama in 2012. He is campaigning as an unapologetic ideologue, seeking to motivate and energize conservatives unenthusiastic about recent Republican nominees. Cruz's campaign, like Obama's reelection effort, is based on the assumption that the contest this fall will be won by the candidate who best turns out the base of his or her party.
These distinct approaches in campaign style have doubtless added to the perception that Rubio is an "establishment" candidate and Cruz is "anti-establishment." But the real difference between them isn't whether they would challenge the Republican establishment but how. Rubio's critique of the establishment is a temporal one, argues Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham. In Rubio's view, the ideas of the Republican establishment, stale and anachronistic, are badly in need of replacing. So Rubio champions policy innovation and creativity.
Cruz's critique of the GOP establishment is structural. Republican institutions in Washington have become so badly corrupted that trying to reform them isn't enough. Needham summarizes the Cruz view this way. "Real policy innovation requires not just putting forth fresh ideas; it requires attacking the flawed nature of the GOP establishment so that innovation can even be possible."
They're both right.
There are reasons a conservative voter might prefer Cruz to Rubio. Cruz has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the calcified structures of the establishment and to continue doing so despite scorn heaped on him not only from the New York Times but also from fellow Republicans. It's a necessary quality for a president who would serve as a disrupter of the broken status quo in Washington. Rubio may have it, and in his advocacy of entitlement reform we've seen hints of it. But with Cruz, we know.
There are reasons a conservative voter might prefer Rubio to Cruz. Rubio has a personal appeal—likability—Cruz lacks. When Cruz addresses voters, he's often self-indulgent and always melodramatic. He speaks as if he's there to bestow knowledge on the audience, and he's frequently the hero of his own story. Rubio is nearly the opposite. When he speaks, there's a genuine sense that he's in awe of the country and his place in it. His paeans to American greatness seem heartfelt even the twentieth time you've heard them. All of this would seem to make him more electable in the general election.
Regardless, if either Cruz or Rubio is sworn in on January 20, 2017, the country will have its most conservative president since Ronald Reagan."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-real-shape-of-the-race/article/2000939
This section is insightful:
"To be sure, Cruz and Rubio are running for president in very different ways—though both are familiar. Rubio is campaigning like Barack Obama did in 2008. He has chosen to emphasize optimism, unity, possibility, reform. He defends his decision to run as a young candidate by emphasizing the "urgency" of the problems facing the country, just as Obama cited Martin Luther King Jr.'s "fierce urgency of now" for his audacious first run for the presidency. There's a lot of tough criticism of Obama and Washington in Rubio's stump speech, but there's also a lot of "hope and change."
Cruz is running like Obama, too—Obama in 2012. He is campaigning as an unapologetic ideologue, seeking to motivate and energize conservatives unenthusiastic about recent Republican nominees. Cruz's campaign, like Obama's reelection effort, is based on the assumption that the contest this fall will be won by the candidate who best turns out the base of his or her party.
These distinct approaches in campaign style have doubtless added to the perception that Rubio is an "establishment" candidate and Cruz is "anti-establishment." But the real difference between them isn't whether they would challenge the Republican establishment but how. Rubio's critique of the establishment is a temporal one, argues Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham. In Rubio's view, the ideas of the Republican establishment, stale and anachronistic, are badly in need of replacing. So Rubio champions policy innovation and creativity.
Cruz's critique of the GOP establishment is structural. Republican institutions in Washington have become so badly corrupted that trying to reform them isn't enough. Needham summarizes the Cruz view this way. "Real policy innovation requires not just putting forth fresh ideas; it requires attacking the flawed nature of the GOP establishment so that innovation can even be possible."
They're both right.
There are reasons a conservative voter might prefer Cruz to Rubio. Cruz has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the calcified structures of the establishment and to continue doing so despite scorn heaped on him not only from the New York Times but also from fellow Republicans. It's a necessary quality for a president who would serve as a disrupter of the broken status quo in Washington. Rubio may have it, and in his advocacy of entitlement reform we've seen hints of it. But with Cruz, we know.
There are reasons a conservative voter might prefer Rubio to Cruz. Rubio has a personal appeal—likability—Cruz lacks. When Cruz addresses voters, he's often self-indulgent and always melodramatic. He speaks as if he's there to bestow knowledge on the audience, and he's frequently the hero of his own story. Rubio is nearly the opposite. When he speaks, there's a genuine sense that he's in awe of the country and his place in it. His paeans to American greatness seem heartfelt even the twentieth time you've heard them. All of this would seem to make him more electable in the general election.
Regardless, if either Cruz or Rubio is sworn in on January 20, 2017, the country will have its most conservative president since Ronald Reagan."
Well, I've heard people on this board for years scoff at Obama's achievements before being POTUS. A community organizer. A senator. Did nothing besides hold office.
Man, it sure will be ugly when ya'll figure out what conservatives take a look at what Rubio's done besides hold office. I almost feel sorry for him.
Man, it sure will be ugly when ya'll figure out what conservatives take a look at what Rubio's done besides hold office. I almost feel sorry for him.
More detail about Rubio's immigration stance(s) and why his record on the issue ought to trump any other consideration for him gaining the nomination:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430926/marco-rubio-immigration-wrong-2016
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430926/marco-rubio-immigration-wrong-2016
Sheldon Adelson is one of his big financial backers. Adelson wants these illegals for his casino/hotel workforce. The big financial backers of the other candidates also want these low wage workers too as do Hillary's backers.
Similar threads
