Team Rubio

[Socrates]

On 2/6/2016, 11:39:13, Peace said:

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?

Well, I would help he would stick to his promises to at least uphold existing law on immigration, rather than join with liberals and RINOs to write a bill that would reward citizenship for those who knowingly and willfully broke the law (either by border-jumping, or perjuring themselves to immigration officers).

But, I know, awfully stupid and naive to expect politicians to keep their word.  It's all the voters' fault.  Lying pols are merely doin' their job.

Though, I personally wasn't played by Rubio, not being a Florida voter and all.

 

On 2/6/2016, 11:39:13, Peace said:

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

I was a bit young to care that much about politics then, but, yes, Bush Sr. was also wrong to break his campaign promises.  Not sure what your point is.

 

On 2/6/2016, 11:39:13, Peace said:

Yeah. You are right. Cruz is more conservative.

Thanks for conceding my point.  Though I was responding to FuturePriest, who denied this.

 

On 2/6/2016, 11:39:13, Peace said:

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

Yeah, Mitch McConnell & co. - those selfless, saintly souls who care for nothing but the greater good of the rest of us.

No, couldn't possibly be because they see Cruz as a threat to their own positions of power and comfort.  Nor because he publicly exposed them as the gang of crooks and frauds that they are (not that it really needed much exposing).

But, yeah, shame on that naughty, naughty Cruz for not putting The Party first, Comrade.  Screw the people who actually elected him to represent them.

(There's a reason voters are disgusted with the GOP establishment, and many more support Cruz and Trump than your beloved "establishment" GOP candidates.)

 

On 2/6/2016, 11:39:13, Peace said:

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.

If you have real, actual evidence of Cruz making crooked deals with Goldman-Sachs or such, feel free to present it.  But until then, I'll dismiss it as bogus and irrelevant.  Last I checked, being married to an employee of Goldman-Sachs wasn't a crime.  There was a reporting error, which Cruz admitted but it was reported on the other documents - not something one trying to keep the loan hidden would do.

And plenty of big corporations also gave big bucks to Rubio's campaign (and all the others.)   Chief among Rubio donors . . .Goldman Sachs.  It's how the game's played.  Pot calling the kettle black.

Anything to distract from the actual important issues this country faces.

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

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. 

No one's defending slavery here, and you know it.  But, yeah, keep gratuitously playing the race card.  Good night.

[PhuturePriest]

I have disagreements with the Founding Fathers, including the war itself, but there's a misconception stated by Peace I'd like to clarify. 

Many of them wanted to abolish slavery. However, keeping it legal was integral to getting several southern colonies (the Carolinas, if I'm not mistaken) to join the revolution. I'm not saying that excuses it, but I don't like accusing people of supporting slavery who didn't. The minority did. That minority would not budge on the issue and would not sign the Declaration if they did not get their way. It was an uneasy decision ultimately justified by saying it was necessary if the Colonials were to win. 

Was it wrong for them to give into these demands? I'd say so. But it's easy to look back in history and declare wrong from right. We have a lot of information on what would happen later that they did not know then. If they had known what we know, I'd like to think they would not have made the concession. That's why I'm not particularly harsh on them for starting the war in the first place, which I view to have been an unjust and unnecessary war. I have a perspective from a later time and have information they didn't. 

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

Edited February 10, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Well, I would help he would stick to his promises to at least uphold existing law on immigration, rather than join with liberals and RINOs to write a bill that would reward citizenship for those who knowingly and willfully broke the law (either by border-jumping, or perjuring themselves to immigration officers).

But, I know, awfully stupid and naive to expect politicians to keep their word.  It's all the voters' fault.  Lying pols are merely doin' their job.

Though, I personally wasn't played by Rubio, not being a Florida voter and all.

What do you want to do with the 10+ million illegal immigrants who live in this country? Do you advocate rounding them all up and shipping them home? Do you advocate putting them all in jail? Tearing their families apart? Taking away their ability to provide a better life for themselves and their families?

If you do not, then you are left with an option whereby they are given a means to qualify for citizenship after a certain period of time or live here indefinitely.

That is the bottom line. And I have no problem that Rubio facing up to the bottom line and making the right decision. If his consitutents do not like it then they should consult the Catechism and change their opinions.

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I was a bit young to care that much about politics then, but, yes, Bush Sr. was also wrong to break his campaign promises.  Not sure what your point is.

 My point is that it is naive to think that politicians will not break their campaign promises. Nor is it always a bad thing that they do so. Situations and circumstances change. So do opinions.

If Obama decided today that he was to become pro-life would you fault him for changing is mind? Right and wrong takes precdence over consistency or loyalty. Error has no rights as Nihil says. And in this case Rubio is right to advocate that certain people be given a path to citizenship. The Catholic Church indicates that wealthier nations should accomodate people who want to move to their countries to better their lives, to the extent that they can accomodate them. We certainly can do that.

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

(There's a reason voters are disgusted with the GOP establishment, and many more support Cruz and Trump than your beloved "establishment" GOP candidates.)

We'll just have to wait and see who wins the nomination. Both you and I know that it will not be Cruz come June.

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

If you have real, actual evidence of Cruz making crooked deals with Goldman-Sachs or such, feel free to present it.  But until then, I'll dismiss it as bogus and irrelevant.  Last I checked, being married to an employee of Goldman-Sachs wasn't a crime.  There was a reporting error, which Cruz admitted but it was reported on the other documents - not something one trying to keep the loan hidden would do.

And plenty of big corporations also gave big bucks to Rubio's campaign (and all the others.)   Chief among Rubio donors . . .Goldman Sachs.  It's how the game's played.  Pot calling the kettle black.

Anything to distract from the actual important issues this country faces.

Rubio is not the one campaigning about the undue influnce of big banks, and then taking their money. I know you aren't so naive to think that money does not buy access. Your criticism of Rubio is that he has broken one of his campaign promises. So if Cruz is so against the influence of big banks in politics, why is he so blithe to accept their money?

13 minutes ago, Socrates said:

No one's defending slavery here, and you know it.  But, yeah, keep gratuitously playing the race card.  Good night.

The so-called "race card" is often used by people as a means of deflecting attention away from legitimate issues, instead of addressing the issue itself. It is a red-herring and a cop-out.

You criticized another poster here for not sufficiently advocating for the "principles of the founding fathers." I pointed out the founding fathers had no principles. They were hypocrites. Some of them owned other men just like you or I might own a dog. So there is nothing about these men or the principles that they adhered to that we need be enamored of. They nation that they founded was nowhere close to being perfect, and the nation that we have today is much better. That is a legitimate point and your attemts to ignore the flaw in your position by characterizing it as an attempt to play the race card is nothing more than a red herring.

But good night to you as well - and I mean that sincerely.

15 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I have disagreements with the Founding Fathers, including the war itself, but there's a misconception stated by Peace I'd like to clarify. 

Many of them wanted to abolish slavery. However, keeping it legal was integral to getting several southern colonies (the Carolinas, if I'm not mistaken) to join the revolution. I'm not saying that excuses it, but I don't like accusing people of supporting slavery who didn't. The minority did. That minority would not budge on the issue and would not sign the Declaration if they did not get their way. It was an uneasy decision ultimately justified by saying it was necessary if the Colonials were to win. 

Was it wrong for them to give into these demands? I'd say so. But it's easy to look back in history and declare wrong from right. We have a lot of information on what would happen later that they did not know then. If they had known what we know, I'd like to think they would not have made the concession. That's why I'm not particularly harsh on them for starting the war in the first place, which I view to have been an unjust and unnecessary war. I have a perspective from a later time and have information they didn't. 

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

But that compromise speaks to the fact that they valued their own well being or the well being of a particular group over the right of the individual. It cuts against the notion that the nation was founded on the principle of "all men are created equal" and so forth.

[Ark]

Rubio is too duplicitous in my opinion. He campaigned for his spot in the Senate telling his supporters he would be against amnesty. He gets the position and then leads the "Gang of Eight" bill to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. The man literally did a 180 when he got into office, and then when the heat got bad, he ditched the legislation he himself proposed. Personally I am against any "establishment" candidate, whether Democrat or Republican. This country needs a revolution. 

[Ark]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

What do you want to do with the 10+ million illegal immigrants who live in this country? Do you advocate rounding them all up and shipping them home? Do you advocate putting them all in jail? Tearing their families apart? Taking away their ability to provide a better life for themselves and their families?

The United States already has a federal agency responsible for "rounding" up illegals and deporting them, its called the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. President Obama has already deported some 2 million of them. This might surprise us Americans, but most countries have stricter regulations when it comes to citizenship. Mexico, which is the country of origin of many illegals in the United States, itself has used *military* to deport illegals in it's own country. A bit hypocritical, eh? 

Yes, all will have to be deported, starting with the worst of the bunch, the criminals and gangs infesting our cities:

"According to the FBI, criminal gangs – in some regions comprised significantly of illegal aliens – are wreaking havoc in the U.S., with 65 jurisdictions nationwide reporting gang-related offenses committed with firearms account for at least 95 percent of crime in those areas.

"The FBI further documented gangs in Southwestern border regions consisting of up to 80 percent illegal aliens were committing a multitude of crimes in America, “including drug-related crimes, weapons trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, robbery, auto theft, assault, homicide, racketeering, and money laundering"

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/fbi-data-backs-up-trump-claims-on-illegals-and-crime/#pRgvi74vV8Hr56Ad.99

 

Do you see a problem with this graph?

http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Legal-Illegal-Immigrant-Households

Does anyone suppose this sort of thing is sustainable? Most nations require potential citizens to demonstrate they will not be an economic burden on the state. Why doesn't the United States do this?

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

But that compromise speaks to the fact that they valued their own well being or the well being of a particular group over the right of the individual. It cuts against the notion that the nation was founded on the principle of "all men are created equal" and so forth.

I think they were so focused on their vision that they didn't think of the repercussions of their concession, and as is often the case in history, those repercussions were felt by a people whose protection was seen as less important than some other pressing matter. It is a very unfortunate fact that this concession resulted in the cultivation of one of the most horrendous slave systems in history. However, I don't think the Founding Fathers saw that coming. Or at least I hope they didn't, anyway. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[BG45]

On 2/7/2016, 8:20:34, Basilisa Marie said:

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. 

Seriously, this.  My local NPR station only stopped gushing about her when they interviewed a half dozen women millenials who went to hear her in person and had been devoted fans...and all of them decided after hearing her speak, to vote for Sanders.

--

On the positive, I like how he took responsibility for his poor performance in the Debate and how that, not his volunteers work, cost him in New Hampshire.  On the negative, I dislike how the only 3 non-white people in his entire rally were harassed by his staff and forcibly ejected from the venue, only to be let back in when white people vouched for them.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, BG45 said:

Seriously, this.  My local NPR station only stopped gushing about her when they interviewed a half dozen women millenials who went to hear her in person and had been devoted fans...and all of them decided after hearing her speak, to vote for Sanders.

--

On the positive, I like how he took responsibility for his poor performance in the Debate and how that, not his volunteers work, cost him in New Hampshire.  On the negative, I dislike how the only 3 non-white people in his entire rally were harassed by his staff and forcibly ejected from the venue, only to be let back in when white people vouched for them.

A black person living in America has never been racially profiled before? I think she lost all cred with that statement!

[Amppax]

20 hours ago, BG45 said:

Seriously, this.  My local NPR station only stopped gushing about her when they interviewed a half dozen women millenials who went to hear her in person and had been devoted fans...and all of them decided after hearing her speak, to vote for Sanders.

--

On the positive, I like how he took responsibility for his poor performance in the Debate and how that, not his volunteers work, cost him in New Hampshire.  On the negative, I dislike how the only 3 non-white people in his entire rally were harassed by his staff and forcibly ejected from the venue, only to be let back in when white people vouched for them.

Maybe I missed it, but it seemed the problem was more that they didn't have press passes. 

[Peace]

Should Rubio get out? It is starting to look like he should. Not a huge Cruz fan but if he is the only person who can beat Trump I say go for it. The main thing I worry about though is that I don't think Cruz can beat Hillary, which is the main point.

[PhuturePriest]

I would like to congratulate my home State of Kansas for choosing Cruz over Trump. That much cannot be said for Louisiana and Kentucky, but in a paraphrase of a man in the Gospels, "Can anything good come from Louisiana or Kentucky?"

[Peace]

6 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I would like to congratulate my home State of Kansas for choosing Cruz over Trump. That much cannot be said for Louisiana and Kentucky, but in a paraphrase of a man in the Gospels, "Can anything good come from Louisiana or Kentucky?"

Isn't that where Dorothy is from?

It's funny that all of the best candidates (Kasich, Walker, Jindall, Bush, etc.) got almost no support while the only people that remain are the ones with almost no relevant experience. It totally supports my "voters are stupid" theory.

It's kind of a shame that Rubio did not start attacking Trump much earlier. It seems like the votes that Trump lost because of the attacks are flowing to Cruz. They almost never flow directly to the person who makes the attacks, except in a two man race. It would have been nice if that support had flowed to a better candidate like Bush, etc.

I wonder what Cruz v. Trump looks like. Cruz is starting to grow on me a little bit. I would like him to ease up on immigration a bit, but at least he seems to be consistent with his principles. I just do not think he can beat Hillary in the general election, but he gives the GOP a better shot than Trump. So I could eventually get behind Cruz I think if it comes down to him v. Trump. But that is an easy choice.

Marco and Kasich should get out of the race in 2 weeks if neither can win his home state. If they both stay in it seems to benefit Trump . . . Marco can run for governor of FL or something. Or perhaps he can be VP under Cruz if he wins it.

[PhuturePriest]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

Isn't that where Dorothy is from?

It's funny that all of the best candidates (Kasich, Walker, Jindall, Bush, etc.) got almost no support while the only people that remain are the ones with almost no relevant experience. It totally supports my "voters are stupid" theory.

It's kind of a shame that Rubio did not start attacking Trump much earlier. It seems like the votes that Trump lost because of the attacks are flowing to Cruz. They almost never flow directly to the person who makes the attacks, except in a two man race. It would have been nice if that support had flowed to a better candidate like Bush, etc.

I wonder what Cruz v. Trump looks like. Cruz is starting to grow on me a little bit. I would like him to ease up on immigration a bit, but at least he seems to be consistent with his principles. I just do not think he can beat Hillary in the general election, but he gives the GOP a better shot than Trump. So I could eventually get behind Cruz I think if it comes down to him v. Trump. But that is an easy choice.

Marco and Kasich should get out of the race in 2 weeks if neither can win his home state. If they both stay in it seems to benefit Trump . . . Marco can run for governor of FL or something. Or perhaps he can be VP under Cruz if he wins it.

Dorothy is a friend of mine. 

I think it's unfair to say Cruz has no relevant experience. He's been in politics for most of his life and has more experience than Rubio, and certainly a lot more than Trump. Which is why I find it rich when people claim he's a "Washington outsider", but that's neither here nor there.

I was on the Rubio train, but it's time for him to pack up his bags. He's only hurting the election now by splitting the vote and ensuring Trump wins. His influence and interest have peaked, and it's gone down from there. He should quit now before it's too late for Cruz to win. I feel the same way for Kasich.

I'm honestly back and forth on Cruz. He's a lot more conservative than I'd like, and his "make the sand glow" remark is repugnant. But he's the best of the realistic options we have, and I could vote for him if he were the nominee, whereas I couldn't for Trump.

[4588686]

2 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

Dorothy is a friend of mine. 

I think it's unfair to say Cruz has no relevant experience. He's been in politics for most of his life and has more experience than Rubio, and certainly a lot more than Trump. Which is why I find it rich when people claim he's a "Washington outsider", but that's neither here nor there.

I was on the Rubio train, but it's time for him to pack up his bags. He's only hurting the election now by splitting the vote and ensuring Trump wins. His influence and interest have peaked, and it's gone down from there. He should quit now before it's too late for Cruz to win. I feel the same way for Kasich.

I'm honestly back and forth on Cruz. He's a lot more conservative than I'd like, and his "make the sand glow" remark is repugnant. But he's the best of the realistic options we have, and I could vote for him if he were the nominee, whereas I couldn't for Trump.

Rubio is the only shot your party has of winning the general election.

[PhuturePriest]

55 minutes ago, Hasan said:

55 minutes ago, Hasan said:

Rubio is the only shot your party has of winning the general election.

Rubio is the only shot your party has of winning the general election.

Ahem. It is not the party I identify with.

High tories ftw.

Anyway, I like Rubio the most. But at this point he has no shot. The Republican party's whole shtick this year is anti-establishmentism, and Rubio, whether right or wrong, is known as the establishment candidate. This is why he has no chance, and this is why he has only won one primary and is why we can reasonably expect him to lose in the double digits Tuesday in his own State.

I don't know how Cruz will fair in a general election. But I do know I can reservedly vote for him as opposed to not being able to vote at all for Trump.