Team Rubio

[Peace]

I am leaning towards jumping on Team Rubio. I like him. To me it seems that the major knock against him is that he is young and is only a 1st term Senator in terms of experience. But otherwise from what I have seen so far I like his character and his ideas. Some folks on here have called him an "empty suit" but I really don't get that. Whenever I hear him speak in the debates or in an interview he seems very intelligent and informed on the issues, and his faith comes across as genuine to me. Plus he is a Catholic which gives him a few brownie points in my book.

Plus he can carry Florida, which should give him a few brownie points for anyone who is being realistic about the prospects of defeating Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps the big reason why he has not gotten more traction than he has is because he is softer on immigration? Other than that, he seems to be one of the more conservative candidates.

Here are a couple videos of his that I liked:

 

 

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

I like Rubio. My favorite candidate by far is Rand Paul, but Rubio is my second. 

I just hope he's able to gain traction and overcome Trump. I will lose all faith in America if Trump is the nominee. There is a lot of reason to believe the polls are incredibly flawed and don't truly portray how voters are feeling, so that's cause for hope.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, I think Rubio is an excellent choice for American Catholics.

[BG45]

Not  a big fan, he changes religions like some people renew their driver's licenses.  When he was a child in Miami, he and his family were Catholic (and he was baptised as a baby).  When he moved to Las Vegas, he became Mormon (and was baptised again).  When he moved back to Florida he became Catholic again.  Then in 2000 he began attending Christ Fellowship (which he has donated over $50,000 to), a Southern Baptist megachurch in Miami that denies the Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood.  He attended it for four years exclusively, before returning to Catholicism to partake in the Eucharist, and now attends both a Catholic Church and Christ Fellowship.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I prefer Rand over Rubio, but wouldn't mind Rubio if he got the win. He won't be getting that win from me though since I'm going to give my vote to Rand even if his name isn't listed on the ballot. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Peace]

15 minutes ago, BG45 said:

Not  a big fan, he changes religions like some people renew their driver's licenses.  When he was a child in Miami, he and his family were Catholic (and he was baptised as a baby).  When he moved to Las Vegas, he became Mormon (and was baptised again).  When he moved back to Florida he became Catholic again.  Then in 2000 he began attending Christ Fellowship (which he has donated over $50,000 to), a Southern Baptist megachurch in Miami that denies the Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood.  He attended it for four years exclusively, before returning to Catholicism to partake in the Eucharist, and now attends both a Catholic Church and Christ Fellowship.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Peace

[Maggyie]

With the religion thing, the switch to Mornonism was when he was a child, the whole family flipped, I don't hold that against him. I'm glad he reverted to RC of course. I get the feeling the mega church is for the wife. 

[Peace]

30 minutes ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

I prefer Rand over Rubio, but wouldn't mind Rubio if he got the win. He won't be getting that win from me though since I'm going to give my vote to Rand even if his name isn't listed on the ballot. 

I dunno know if Rand has any more chance of winning than Rod did. . . He doesn't have charisma. Sure. Maybe that should not matter. But it does. Why waste your vote?

Edited January 24, 2016 by Peace

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

30 minutes ago, Peace said:

I dunno know if Rand has any more chance of winning than Rod did. . . He doesn't have charisma. Sure. Maybe that should not matter. But it does. Why waste your vote?

I guess I don't look at it as wasting my vote. 

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

I dunno know if Rand has any more chance of winning than Rod did. . . He doesn't have charisma. Sure. Maybe that should not matter. But it does. Why waste your vote?

It's not wasting your vote. The election is which candidate you think is most capable of the presidency. There are more than two candidates, and it's not a waste to vote with your conscience. If everyone stopped listening to this ridiculous "You must vote one party or the other or it's a wasted vote!" jargon then there would be more than two major parties. 

That being said, I will vote for Rubio if he's the nominee. But if (as unfortunately seems quite possible) Trump gets the nomination, I cannot vote for him, as my conscience simply wouldn't allow it. Each person must vote for the person they think will legitimately be a good president, not the least incompetent one. 

I disagree that Rand doesn't have charisma. I think he is an excellent speaker, and he argues through logic and facts rather than emotions and slogans ("We have to make America great again! How? Just trust me, I'll make it happen!"). He has actually laid out a comprehensive plan to fix the budget, he has a comprehensive foreign policy laid out, and he has laid out all he will do if elected, including the revocation of all illegitimate executive orders. He is the only candidate I've ever seen who actually gives a detailed plan, and I find that more compelling than the rest of the candidates who are little more than dolls with strings who only spout campaign slogans when pulled.

[Makarioi]

Rand has a snarky aire about him, Rubio is young and never returns phone calls. I like Trump. He's a businessman, he'll surround himself with the best and he tells it like it is and that's what people are afraid of... He's not PC. He'll make America great again!! 

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

It's not wasting your vote. The election is which candidate you think is most capable of the presidency. There are more than two candidates, and it's not a waste to vote with your conscience. If everyone stopped listening to this ridiculous "You must vote one party or the other or it's a wasted vote!" jargon then there would be more than two major parties. 

That being said, I will vote for Rubio if he's the nominee. But if (as unfortunately seems quite possible) Trump gets the nomination, I cannot vote for him, as my conscience simply wouldn't allow it. Each person must vote for the person they think will legitimately be a good president, not the least incompetent one. 

I disagree that Rand doesn't have charisma. I think he is an excellent speaker, and he argues through logic and facts rather than emotions and slogans ("We have to make America great again! How? Just trust me, I'll make it happen!"). He has actually laid out a comprehensive plan to fix the budget, he has a comprehensive foreign policy laid out, and he has laid out all he will do if elected, including the revocation of all illegitimate executive orders. He is the only candidate I've ever seen who actually gives a detailed plan, and I find that more compelling than the rest of the candidates who are little more than dolls with strings who only spout campaign slogans when pulled.

Well. If you voted for Santa Claus would it be a waste of your vote? Rand Paul has about the same chance of winning. If you were voting for a third party candidate like Ross Perot who had at least a plausible shot at it I don't think your vote would be a waste.

The Electoral College system basically lends itself to a two-party system. If you want to move away from a two-party system then I think you have to move away from the Electoral College first, which might be a good thing.

Slogans, nice rhetoric, being tall and handsome, etc. are what get people elected though. I am not saying that is the way it should be but that is the way it is. You think if Obama wasn't such a smooth talker he would be in office? Rubio seems to have those same qualities, but his stances on most the issues are a lot closer to what Catholics can follow. Plus Rand is just goofy. He looks goofy and he sounds goofy, even if he has ideas. Should that matter? Nope. But it does. And that is why he isn't winning. Life just isn't fair in that respect.

Isn't Paul a libertarian though? I don't think you can really reconcile Libertarianism and Catholicism because at a fundamental level they don't believe that the government should have power to act in the moral realm. Doesn't he support things like gay marriage? I think he said that he wants the government to stop issuing marriage licenses, and to allow gay couples to contract for unions that essentially give the same rights and restrictions as marriage . . .

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Makarioi said:

Rand has a snarky aire about him, Rubio is young and never returns phone calls. I like Trump. He's a businessman, he'll surround himself with the best and he tells it like it is and that's what people are afraid of... He's not PC. He'll make America great again!! 

Personally I am all for being PC if that means not making fun of disabled people . . .

 

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Well. If you voted for Santa Claus would it be a waste of your vote? Rand Paul has about the same chance of winning. If you were voting for a third party candidate like Ross Perot who had at least a plausible shot at it I don't think your vote would be a waste.

The Electoral College system basically lends itself to a two-party system. If you want to move away from a two-party system then I think you have to move away from the Electoral College first, which might be a good thing.

Slogans, nice rhetoric, being tall and handsome, etc. are what get people elected though. I am not saying that is the way it should be but that is the way it is. You think if Obama wasn't such a smooth talker he would be in office? Rubio seems to have those same qualities, but his stances on most the issues are a lot closer to what Catholics can follow. Plus Rand is just goofy. He looks goofy and he sounds goofy, even if he has ideas. Should that matter? Nope. But it does. And that is why he isn't winning. Life just isn't fair in that respect.

Isn't Paul a libertarian though? I don't think you can really reconcile Libertarianism and Catholicism because at a fundamental level they don't believe that the government should have power to act in the moral realm. Doesn't he support things like gay marriage? I think he said that he wants the government to stop issuing marriage licenses, and to allow gay couples to contract for unions that essentially give the same rights and restrictions as marriage . . .

Really? Your argument against Rand is that he "looks goofy" and he has an accent? Just because being tall and handsome make you more "electable," that doesn't mean we should just throw our intellects away and give into this. If I have to vote for a "goofy" looking person who has great ideas in favor of Mr. Charming and his nice eyelashes, I'm going to vote for the former. 

I'm not a libertarian, but you can most certainly reconcile it with Catholicism. Rand isn't really a libertarian so much as a constitutionalist and a strict interpreter of what the constitution says the government is allowed to do. 

He does not support gay marriage, either. In fact, he wants to fix this problem by leaving it to the States. At this point, Pandora's box has been opened and we can't close it. If the United States were to make laws banning gay marriage there would be open revolt. The best thing we can do is contain it by allowing States to make these decisions on their own. 

[Peace]

40 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

Really? Your argument against Rand is that he "looks goofy" and he has an accent? Just because being tall and handsome make you more "electable," that doesn't mean we should just throw our intellects away and give into this. If I have to vote for a "goofy" looking person who has great ideas in favor of Mr. Charming and his nice eyelashes, I'm going to vote for the former. 

My argument against Rand Paul (among other things) is that he is unelectable, just like his father was. Why do you think Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole? Because he had better ideas or because Bill Clinton is cool and plays a saxophone? Why do you think Obama beat John McCain? People are fickle. Being cool is part of getting elected president, just like it was in High School. In that category Rand Paul fails. It doesn't matter how great your ideas are if you can't cut your hair properly.

Again. I am not saying that is the way it should be. But that is the way it is. So if I have an electable person I like and a completely unelectable person I also like, I am going to use my vote for the person who actually has a chance.

I really don't mean to defecate on your hopes and dreams or anything though. If you honestly think he has a chance to win please continue to support him. I just don't see him going anywhere. At leas not until he gets a decent haircut.

40 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I'm not a libertarian, but you can most certainly reconcile it with Catholicism.

I don't think so. Libertarians would seemingly allow for gay marriages, as long as they are private agreements instead of something that is formally recognized by the state. The state is not really allowed to prohibit private action on the grounds of morality. That would be an impingement on personal freedom, which seems to trump almost everything else. I don't think you can have that as a Catholic.

40 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

He does not support gay marriage, either. In fact, he wants to fix this problem by leaving it to the States. At this point, Pandora's box has been opened and we can't close it. If the United States were to make laws banning gay marriage there would be open revolt. The best thing we can do is contain it by allowing States to make these decisions on their own. 

Are you sure about that?

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

He pretty much seems to say that states should get out of the marriage business, but privately both straight and gay couples should be able to contract arrangements that would otherwise be considered marital arrangements. So two men make a marriage contract, one of them violates it, and then the other goes to the courts to have it enforce, the courts would have to enforce the contract.

Now, I would call that supporting gay marriage. If you don't support gay marriage, you would say "gay couples do not have a right to have their marriages recognized by the state, nor do they have a right to privately contract marriages."

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

My argument against Rand Paul (among other things) is that he is unelectable, just like his father was. Why do you think Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole? Because he had better ideas or because Bill Clinton is cool and plays a saxophone? Why do you think Obama beat John McCain? People are fickle. Being cool is part of getting elected president, just like it was in High School. In that category Rand Paul fails. It doesn't matter how great your ideas are if you can't cut your hair properly.

Again. I am not saying that is the way it should be. But that is the way it is. So if I have an electable person I like and a completely unelectable person I also like, I am going to use my vote for the person who actually has a chance.

I really don't mean to defecate on your hopes and dreams or anything though. If you honestly think he has a chance to win please continue to support him. I just don't see him going anywhere. At leas not until he gets a decent haircut.

I don't think so. Libertarians would seemingly allow for gay marriages, as long as they are private agreements instead of something that is formally recognized by the state. The state is not really allowed to prohibit private action on the grounds of morality. That would be an impingement on personal freedom, which seems to trump almost everything else. I don't think you can have that as a Catholic.

Are you sure about that?

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

He pretty much seems to say that states should get out of the marriage business, but privately both straight and gay couples should be able to contract arrangements that would otherwise be considered marital arrangements. So two men make a marriage contract, one of them violates it, and then the other goes to the courts to have it enforce, the courts would have to enforce the contract.

Now, I would call that supporting gay marriage. If you don't support gay marriage, you would say "gay couples do not have a right to have their marriages recognized by the state, nor do they have a right to privately contract marriages."

Not only is your constant mocking of Rand's hair uncharitable, but your claim that his hair stopping him from being elected is also untrue. What about Trump? Everyone makes fun of his hair and he's still by far the front runner.

I am absolutely certain of it. He says that, firstly, the state doesn't have the right to legislate marriage. Therefore, marriages should be private. That means the government cannot state gay marriage is a right and that it doesn't legislate it. What else do you want the government to do? Make it illegal and prosecute gay people? In our pluralistic society, the best we can do is make the government step out of the process entirely, otherwise we have to establish marriage for all types of couples under the government. Not everyone agrees with us anymore. It is no longer 12th century England where everyone was Catholic, unfortunately.

And again, at least Rand has a plan to address this issue. Has Rubio ever said what he's going to do about the marriage issue?

Edited January 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Nihil Obstat]

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

Certainly. But as I said before, he's a strict constitutionalist, and the constitution does not give the government the right to rule on such matters. I disagree with it ultimately, but I still think his tactic of taking the government out of it completely rather than endorsing sacrilege or causing huge social strife is legitimate and we should consider it as a possible means of making the best out of a bad situation. After all, laws don't evangelize. If most of the population supports sacrilege, it's because we haven't been doing our job, and we shouldn't look towards laws to do our job for us.

I'm open to ideas, but I honestly don't know of anything else remotely positive we can do at this point in a legal sense. It's either we keep it as a right (which is bad) or we leave it up to the States and do the rest of the work ourselves (which is less bad.) There's always the possibility I haven't thought of or heard a more preferable course of action, but these are my thoughts for now.

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

He is wrong, the the way, that the State has no right to make legislation concerning marriage. At least if Catholic social teaching is our blueprint here.

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Peace]

12 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Not only is your constant mocking of Rand's hair uncharitable, but your claim that his hair stopping him from being elected is also untrue. What about Trump? Everyone makes fun of his hair and he's still by far the front runner.

Trump has charisma, and his own TV show I might add. It makes up for his hair and lack of good ideas. And a person's appearance and mannerisms do matter. Again - I am not saying that they should matter. But they do. It is very much a popularity contest. It is what it is. But if you think that Paul's style is not holding him back that is cool with me. I disagree, but I don't think it is something that we need to debate further.

Quote

I am absolutely certain of it. He says that, firstly, the state doesn't have the right to legislate marriage. Therefore, marriages should be private. That means the government cannot state gay marriage is a right and that it doesn't legislate it. What else do you want the government to do? Make it illegal and prosecute gay people?

Well. Here is what he wrote: "While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract. The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C. I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington."

Although he is being somewhat evasive in the way that he writes, he says that all Americans (both gay and straight) have a right to enter into marriage contracts. So he supports the right of gay people to enter marriage contracts as long as the marriage license is not administered by the state. That is called supporting gay marriage in my book.

As for as what I would have the government do: I would have them continue to define marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman, and if gay couples decided to enter into private marriage contracts outside of that, I would have all governmental agencies and courts refuse to recognize the validity of those contracts. I don't think you need to throw people in jail.

Quote

In our pluralistic society, the best we can do is make the government step out of the process entirely, otherwise we have to establish marriage for all types of couples under the government. Not everyone agrees with us anymore. It is no longer 12th century England where everyone was Catholic, unfortunately.

I would not concede defeat so easily. Have you not seen Rocky 3 my friend? As for public opinion we obviously need to make a comeback, but with God all things are possible.

Quote

And again, at least Rand has a plan to address this issue. Has Rubio ever said what he's going to do about the marriage issue?

I am not sure what his plan is, but I do not think he supports legalization or throwing the whole thing out the window.

9 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Certainly. But as I said before, he's a strict constitutionalist, and the constitution does not give the government the right to rule on such matters.

Hmm. I think the proper question is not whether the constitution gives State governments a right to regulate marriage, but rather, does the constitution prohibit states from placing regulations on marriage? Generally speaking if the constitution does not prohibit it, then the states are free to do it. And I don't think that anybody would really argue that the constitution prohibits the states from issuing marriage licenses, notwithstanding how goofy our Supreme Court decisions have been lately.

Quote

I disagree with it ultimately, but I still think his tactic of taking the government out of it completely rather than endorsing sacrilege or causing huge social strife is legitimate and we should consider it as a possible means of making the best out of a bad situation. After all, laws don't evangelize. If most of the population supports sacrilege, it's because we haven't been doing our job, and we shouldn't look towards laws to do our job for us.

I agree that we should at least consider the merits of the argument. I think I may have argued for it on this board before. But I would not allow gay couples to then privately enter into marriage contracts that the courts would then be required to recognize as any other form of contract, as Rand would.

Quote

I'm open to ideas, but I honestly don't know of anything else remotely positive we can do at this point in a legal sense. It's either we keep it as a right (which is bad) or we leave it up to the States and do the rest of the work ourselves (which is less bad.) There's always the possibility I haven't thought of or heard a more preferable course of action, but these are my thoughts for now.

I am not so sure if the situation is so bleak. "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Let me offer you the Peace 2 point plan:

1) Win the public debate on the issue.

2) Get different judges on the court who will reverse the recent decision on gay marriage.

Similar things have been done before (e.g. Brown v. Board overturning Plessy v. Ferguson).

Edited January 25, 2016 by Peace

[dominicansoul]

I'd vote for him.  He's cute.