Team Rubio

[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.