Team Rubio

[Peace]

Knight:

I do not doubt your motive. That statement was not directed to you in particular, although I think that the argument is often made without any real concern for African Americans specifically, other than to the extent that it can be used as an argument against abortion.

I'll respond to the rest of what you wrote when I have time.

[Socrates]

On 2/2/2016, 10:55:59, PhuturePriest said:

That article is a breath of fresh air after all the recent nonsense about him. Since when has the once honored 2010 Tea Party underdog hero been an establishment lapdog?

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

 

On 2/2/2016, 10:55:59, PhuturePriest said:

 If there is a difference between his economic policy and Cruz's, I've yet to see it. Not promising to shut down the border and refraining from erroneously promising to "make the sand glow" does not make Rubio the reincarnation of Romney, and doing so does not make Cruz a "true conservative." Rubio's economic voting record is mostly solid (and I say "mostly" simply because I hold the possibility it isn't perfectly consistent,) and as a bonus, his wife isn't an employee of Goldman Sachs, unlike the "true," "grassroots," "anti-establishment" Cruz, who has received significant backing and financial support in his elections by major corporations, including (you guessed it) Goldman Sachs.

Argue if you'd like that Cruz would be a better candidate, but this idiotic claim that Cruz is somehow "purer" than Rubio is ridiculous. Having different ideas on how to tackle immigration and war do not contaminate a candidate's political purity. This is a political party, not a cult. Candidates are allowed to express different solutions to problems. Besides, if we're going by "purity," I'd figure literally being in bed with a Goldman Sachs investment manager would be considered a major contaminant to one's pureblood status.

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Socrates

[PhuturePriest]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

 

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Can you give specific examples of the highlighted words? I ask out of curiosity. Clearly, I don't align much with conservatives on guns, but "most" implies more than that.

[Peace]

12 hours ago, Socrates said:

Probably ever since he broke his campaign promises to voters to strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens after he was elected to the Senate and became a major author of the "Gang of 8" bill.  (I realize that you, unlike myself and most conservatives, think that bill was a good thing.  But that whole argument's not the point here.  He promised his Tea Party constituents one thing, then did the opposite once he got to Washington.  So it's understandable many conservatives are teed at him, and don't consider him trustworthy.  We're sick of "conservative" GOP politicians pulling these tricks and playing the voters for fools.)

Your point is fair. He did flip on that issue and you did play yourself.

I am wondering - did you really think that he was going to advocate rounding up all of the people here illegally and shipping them out of the country on a boat?

I bet that you were angry about "Read my lips. No new taxes" too.

Quote

The reality is that Rubio's record is less conservative than Cruz's on a number of different issues.  You can compare Cruz's record to Rubio's from a conservative standpoint here.  (Click on each of the categories for a listing of each particular vote and position.)  You may not agree with CR's position on everything, but you can at least see the specific reasons why conservatives consider Cruz to have a more conservative record than Rubio.  (Your own position on most issues does not seem particularly conservative, and obviously if you're not that conservative, such things will not be important to you.  But fortunately, both Cruz and Rubio both seem pretty solid on the second amendment. ;-))

Yeah. You are right. Cruz is more conservative.

Quote

And the reality is that most of the GOP "establishment" politicians do in fact back Rubio over Cruz, whom they despise and oppose.  

And they despise and oppose him because he undermines the whole party for his own personal political gain.

Quote

And the remarks about Cruz's wife and Goldman Sachs are ad hominems and a red herring.  It's a lot more important to look at the candidates' actual votes and positions on the issues - something many seem to be doing anything to avoid.

Hmm. I don't know about all of that. Did Cruz campaign against the undue infuence of Wall St. firms and big banks on the political process? At the same time, his wife is a managing director at Goldman Sachs. And what do you know, Goldman Sachs loaned his campaign a huge amount of money. And the money was not reported to the FEC, which he was required to do. Some would call that more than a red herring.

I bet that his campaign putting out a memo that Carson dropped out before the election is something that should be igored as well?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Peace

[Peace]

Rubio is stinking it up pretty good in the debate tonight. I might have to switch my support to the next Catholic in line after this fiasco ends . . .

[Nihil Obstat]

32 minutes ago, Peace said:

Rubio is stinking it up pretty good in the debate tonight. I might have to switch my support to the next Catholic in line after this fiasco ends . . .

Jeb?

[veritasluxmea]

Ted Cruz is just not very likable. I have a hard time seeing him win the presidency against, say, Sanders. 

[Peace]

Unless Bobby Jindall makes one heck of a miraculous comeback. I actually think that all of the governors would be a better president than Rubio, Cruz and Trump (goes without saying), but I don't think that any of them can win against Hillary. Maybe the Kasich-Rubio ticket gives them the best chance, because they really need to carry FL and OH this time around. You need somebody  who can give a snazzy sounding 30 second answer because people are not the brightest . . .

Edited February 7, 2016 by Peace

[veritasluxmea]

I think Rubio would have the best chance, which is partly why I support him. I honestly don't know how Hilary got this far because literally no one seems to actually support her. I think even Cruz could have a chance against her. 

[Not A Real Name]

Most of the libs I know are on the Bernwagon and constantly rank on Hilary, so I also do not know how Hilary is still a thing. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Not A Real Name

[PhuturePriest]

I don't see how one mistake in a debate makes Rubio a terrible candidate. 

[Peace]

8 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I don't see how one mistake in a debate makes Rubio a terrible candidate. 

I don't think it does, but he does have a lack of experience compared to the governors. Perhaps his saving grace may be that voters appear to prefer form over substance (e.g. Obama).

He is still in the game. It will be interesting to see if he can rebound.

[Basilisa Marie]

9 hours ago, veritasluxmea said:

I think Rubio would have the best chance, which is partly why I support him. I honestly don't know how Hilary got this far because literally no one seems to actually support her. I think even Cruz could have a chance against her. 

It's the liberal establishment that supports her. NPR can't stop gushing about her (seriously it's embarrassing) and they're just now noticing that Bernie is a possible thing. Whereas with young people on the internet it's been nothing but Bernie because his campaign is more grassroots and heavily uses New media (like Reddit) to get out the vote. It might feel a bit like Hilary supporters are more like a silent majority but for liberals. Also the wealthy liberals. 

[Amppax]

11 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I don't see how one mistake in a debate makes Rubio a terrible candidate. 

I completely missed the beginning of the debate, and of what I saw of the debate, I actually thought that either Rubio or Jeb? had the best showing. Carson came off as really whiny in his closing statement, Cruz was practically invisible, Trump was okay, not in the sense that I agree with him, just rhetorically (apart from that parting shot that got him booed), Kasich was just painful to watch, and imo Christie an arrogant blowhard who said little of substance. 

I missed his opening spat with Christie, and obviously I might have a different view of things if I seen it, but in my mind he recovered well, or at least decently. We'll see. I was particularly pleased with what he had to say about his opposition to abortion last night, though was a little disappointed by what he had to say about torture.  

[Peace]

7 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I completely missed the beginning of the debate, and of what I saw of the debate, I actually thought that either Rubio or Jeb? had the best showing. Carson came off as really whiny in his closing statement, Cruz was practically invisible, Trump was okay, not in the sense that I agree with him, just rhetorically (apart from that parting shot that got him booed), Kasich was just painful to watch, and imo Christie an arrogant blowhard who said little of substance. 

I missed his opening spat with Christie, and obviously I might have a different view of things if I seen it, but in my mind he recovered well, or at least decently. We'll see. I was particularly pleased with what he had to say about his opposition to abortion last night, though was a little disappointed by what he had to say about torture.  

Yeah he made a comeback. The big winner of that was Bush I think. Christie makes Rubio look bad and makes himself look like a jerk in the process . . .

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

 Perhaps his saving grace may be that voters appear to prefer form over substance (e.g. Obama).

I just don't see this with Rubio. his statements regarding ISIS last night were detailed, and it seemed he knew more about them than anyone else on the stage. There have been other moments besides that where it seems there's more to him. I don't know, I'm only now starting to pay a lot of attention to this.

 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Amppax

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I just don't see this with Rubio. his statements regarding ISIS last night were detailed, and it seemed he knew more about them than anyone else on the stage. There have been other moments besides that where it seems there's more to him. I don't know, I'm only now starting to pay a lot of attention to this.

 

I think that he definitely knows his stuff. The knock against him I think is that he is a first term senator and has never really been in any kind of an executive position where he has had to exercise real authority and obtain real results. At least compared to the governors he seems to have a lot less practical experience as an executive. He really has not achieved all that much in that respect.

Does that matter in terms of him being a good president or not? I don't know. President Bush was a governor of a large state and was not exactly a glorious success. Obama was a first term senator and did a good job, notwithstanding his incorrect stance on various moral issues (and if anybody wants to debate that please create a new thread!).

But the "empty suit" argument against Rubio does have some merit I think. He really does not have that much experience. Neither does Cruz, Trump or Carson for that matter. At first I didn't want to believe it because Rubio is likable, but if you look at his actual experience it is a weakness I think . . .

The problem is that all of the other folks also have major problems that might make it tough for them to win in a general election. Christie is overweight and comes off as a jerk. Cruz and Trump come off as jerks. Carson seems cool but sounds like he is spaced out on drugs half the time. Kasich is goofy. Jeb Bush suffers from the last name "Bush".

The way I look at it is, if any of them are going to try to compete with Hillary Clinton based on experience, they are probably going to lose. You need somebody in there who will beat her on personality, because he/she seems more likable or "presidential" if you will. Hillary Clinton comes off as a jerk, but if we nominate a jerk too, then that factor becomes neutral and Clinton wins out on her experience. The hope with Rubio is that he is a young guy, a good looking guy, knows the issues pretty well, can give a good speech, can maybe cut into a good portion of the Latino vote, and can paint Clinton as an out of touch, unlikable, establishment "old fogey" for a lack of a better word.

That is just my opinion of course. I don't think the world should work this way, but I think it does. People vote more so based on whether they like the person than whether or not he/she has experience or other indicators of qualification for the job . . .

[Guest]

I like Jeb.

[Socrates]

On 2/6/2016, 2:35:26, PhuturePriest said:

Can you give specific examples of the highlighted words? I ask out of curiosity. Clearly, I don't align much with conservatives on guns, but "most" implies more than that.

I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, as I don't have time to dig through your posts, but a few other issues that come to mind are immigration (conservatives generally don't support amnesty for those who willfully broke the law to come here), and so-called environmental issues (I recall you arguing in favor of increased federal government regulation of business and property in the name of "fighting climate change."  You said this was an issue where "the Democrats have it right.")  And it seems there were plenty others, though I can't recall all the specifics.  In general, based on your posts, you don't seem overall like a strong supporter of limited constitutional government, nor of America's founding principles.

Regarding guns and the second amendment, support of this, tied to the right of the people to defend themselves against aggressors, is pretty central to American conservative principles.  And to support government blatantly disregarding the constitution (whether regarding the right to bear arms or anything else) is likewise antithetical to American conservatism.

 

It seems my links somehow disappeared from my original post you responded to.  (Political censorship?)

Anyways:  Cruz on the issues:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/ted-cruz

Rubio:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/marco-rubio

Edited February 10, 2016 by Socrates

[Peace]

24 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I'm sure this isn't an exhaustive list, as I don't have time to dig through your posts, but a few other issues that come to mind are immigration (conservatives generally don't support amnesty for those who willfully broke the law to come here), and so-called environmental issues (I recall you arguing in favor of increased federal government regulation of business and property in the name of "fighting climate change."  You said this was an issue where "the Democrats have it right.")  And it seems there were plenty others, though I can't recall all the specifics.  In general, based on your posts, you don't seem overall like a strong supporter of limited constitutional government, nor of America's founding principles.

Regarding guns and the second amendment, support of this, tied to the right of the people to defend themselves against aggressors, is pretty central to American conservative principles.  And to support government blatantly disregarding the constitution (whether regarding the right to bear arms or anything else) is likewise antithetical to American conservatism.

 

It seems my links somehow disappeared from my original post you responded to.  (Political censorship?)

Anyways:  Cruz on the issues:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/ted-cruz

Rubio:  https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/marco-rubio

I wouldn't get too nostalgic about Americas founding principles though. That principle was "all white men are created equal." If you were a person of African descent you were likely enslaved and treated like an animal. If you were a woman you could not vote. It has taken us many years and much effort to evolve past what the founding fathers envisioned.