The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

Q F T. Made my tummy hurt.

That wasn't your tummy.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Kasich on Rand's exit: "I offered to come to Kentucky and campaign for him or against him, whatever would help."


Alright that's funny

 

[BugI02]

I'm still completely baffled where the support of Rubio is coming from?

Every time I see a Rubio supporter they say "He's the only one who can beat hillary." Well.. HOW exactly? Is it because of his looks and polished speech? Because I have yet to see anything to him beyond that. Hillary would eat him up and spit him out before he even got to his first debate.

I'm with you on this, Tombs. I find it amusing that folks who are celebrating Trump's loss in Iowa by denigrating the fact he led in all the polling are insisting that Rubio is the man to beat Hitlery because..... well..... the polls say so

 

[Tombs]

I'm with you on this, Tombs. I find it amusing that folks who are celebrating Trump's loss in Iowa by denigrating the fact he led in all the polling are insisting that Rubio is the man to beat Hitlery because..... well..... the polls say so

Not only that, the man has been a complete disaster politically.

1.) Gang of 8 bill
2.) Obamatrade/TPP
3.) Voted in opposition to slowing down muslim immigrants and refugees
4.) Assisted corporations efforts to replace American workers with foreigners
5.) Blocked food stamp reforms
6.) Supported Obama/Hillary's intervention in Libya
7.) Worst attendance record in the senate

[source]

Why is he running as a republican? At least Trump's views have changed over time, meanwhile this joker is still pushing the democrat's agenda while fronting as a republican.

 

[BugI02]

Well he's still a viable choice over any Democrat and to be honest most Republicans

 

[MisterChester]

I think of Rubio as interchangeable with W on policy. He want's to be a better manager of the leviathan.

Cruz is more Reagan. Maybe even more Reagan than Reagan. He want's to slay the leviathan.

I don't agree that Cruz is like Reagan. Reagan was as establishment as it got and had many positions that conservatives today would call him a RINO. Openly supported gun control, spent TONS of money without a way to balance it, etc. Cruz is the opposite.

 

[Tombs]

I don't agree that Cruz is like Reagan. Reagan was as establishment as it got and had many positions that conservatives today would call him a RINO. Openly supported gun control, spent TONS of money without a way to balance it, etc. Cruz is the opposite.

Reagan didn't go in as an establishment figure, even though he eventually became one.

From the sounds of most things I've read, a few bad figures around him got him into some pretty bad business.

 

[Tombs]

Well he's still a viable choice over any Democrat and to be honest most Republicans

Not to be difficult, but how exactly?

 

[BugI02]

If you rank the remaining candidates with an eye toward more Libertarian values, he finishes ahead of most of them


ETA: IMO

 

[Tombs]

If you rank the remaining candidates with an eye toward more Libertarian values, he finishes ahead of most of them


ETA: IMO

You can't just cover yourself by saying your opinion overrides facts.

Explain to me how anything he's done in the senate promotes and forwards the libertarian agenda? I know most libertarians refused to get behind Paul, but Paul actually has a list long enough to wall paper a mansion worth of things he's done that proved he was working towards those goals. Honestly, he's about the only one in the race who has walked the walk along with talking the talk.

(Yes I realize he suspended his campaign, but he has not actually dropped from the race.)

 

[BugI02]

You can't just cover yourself by saying your opinion overrides facts.

Explain to me how anything he's done in the senate promotes and forwards the libertarian agenda?

In this you would be correct. He's a poor substitute for a real Libertarian (Paul). But I am contrasting him with Clinton, Sanders, Jebrah, the Pussbag etc but now that you mention it claiming he supports Libertarian values is whitewashing. He's for the war on Drugs, he's an international interventionist and in favor of the surveillance state to name a few. I will retract the ill-advised statement and simply say relative to many of the candidates from both sides of the aisle he would finish in third or fourth place for likely to do the least damage to the things I care about. Et aucta

 

[Tombs]

In this you would be correct. He's a poor substitute for a real Libertarian (Paul). But I am contrasting him with Clinton, Sanders, Jebrah, the Pussbag etc but now that you mention it claiming he supports Libertarian values is whitewashing. He's for the war on Drugs, he's an international interventionist and in favor of the surveillance state to name a few. I will retract the ill-advised statement and simply say relative to many of the candidates from both sides of the aisle he would finish in third or fourth place for likely to do the least damage to the things I care about. Et aucta

[Rubio's Voting Record]

I'd encourage anyone to read through this if they get a chance.

I found this to be specifically telling:

Nov. 29, 2012

S Amdt 3018

Prohibits the Indefinite Detention of Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents

Amendment Adopted - Senate (67 - 29)

Nay

• Prohibits an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority from authorizing the indefinite detention, without charge or trial, of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents apprehended in the United States, unless an act of Congress explicitly authorizes such detention.

Now lets contrast that against the 5th amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And really, we should include the 6th amendment.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I don't find it necessary to bring up his disregard for the 4th amendment, he wears that on his sleeve proudly. I'd encourage you to be a bit more concerned about these things than you are. As time moves on, the further we disregard the constitution in other areas, the worse life is going to be for firearms owners. Because we'll all end up ineligible for some reason or another, for something we've said online, or some rally we might have attended.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm still completely baffled where the support of Rubio is coming from?

Every time I see a Rubio supporter they say "He's the only one who can beat hillary." Well.. HOW exactly? Is it because of his looks and polished speech? Because I have yet to see anything to him beyond that. Hillary would eat him up and spit him out before he even got to his first debate.

I think it is how he says what he says and to a certain extent, what he says. He's backing as far away from his Gang of 8 amnesty gambit as he possibly can and trying to throw Cruz under the bus in his place. As to your other point, I believe Hillary is an extremely unlikable person to anybody but her most steadfast fans. If not-so-mad-sounding Rubio shows up, I think he'll mop the floor with Hillary.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Race" notwithstanding, I think people see Cruz and Rubio interchangeable on the issues. I'm not sure that there's much actual room between their positions, just variations of nuance.

The main difference is personality. Rubio just seems nicer. There may also be an age aspect to it. Rubio is younger, so can convey more of a not-your-father's-Republican-party feel, even though he is really more establishment than Cruz.

To borrow Huckabee's old line, Rubio is conservative, but he isn't angry about it.

Funny how I see the comparison at least 90, maybe 120 degrees out of phase from how you see it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think of Rubio as interchangeable with W on policy. He want's to be a better manager of the leviathan.

Cruz is more Reagan. Maybe even more Reagan than Reagan. He want's to slay the leviathan.

^This. There is a reason that the Republican establishment supports Rubio and fears Cruz.

Agreed.

 

[Tombs]

I think it is how he says what he says and to a certain extent, what he says. He's backing as far away from his Gang of 8 amnesty gambit as he possibly can and trying to throw Cruz under the bus in his place. As to your other point, I believe Hillary is an extremely unlikable person to anybody but her most steadfast fans. If not-so-mad-sounding Rubio shows up, I think he'll mop the floor with Hillary.

I suppose I see your point, I just find it disturbing how few people are willing to do their homework.

Reading through his voting record, it's pretty easy to see that he's less in support of the constitution than even Sanders is. He's just Chris Christie, but younger, slimmer, and less annoying.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I suppose I see your point, I just find it disturbing how few people are willing to do their homework.

Reading through his voting record, it's pretty easy to see that he's less in support of the constitution than even Sanders is. He's just Chris Christie, but younger, slimmer, and less annoying.

I don't know if I'd go that far. That'd be saying something, there.

I still contend Cruz is the best constitutional guy there and now that Rand has dropped out, he's the only one still there. The rest are various levels of progressives. Rubio is probably the least and Trump is probably the most.

I haven't had time to find the cite but I heard a radio guy say that Cruz had stated that he would expend any amount of political capital necessary to make sure we didn't get another John Roberts or David Souter on the SCOTUS. I like the sound of that. The democrats have no qualms, absolutely zero reservation about "tilting the balance of the court". I think Cruz will be of the same mindset. And with so many issues being decided by the courts instead of the ballot box, this could be huge.

 

[Tombs]

I don't know if I'd go that far. That'd be saying something, there.

I still contend Cruz is the best constitutional guy there and now that Rand has dropped out, he's the only one still there. The rest are various levels of progressives. Rubio is probably the least and Trump is probably the most.

I haven't had time to find the cite but I heard a radio guy say that Cruz had stated that he would expend any amount of political capital necessary to make sure we didn't get another John Roberts or David Souter on the SCOTUS. I like the sound of that. The democrats have no qualms, absolutely zero reservation about "tilting the balance of the court". I think Cruz will be of the same mindset. And with so many issues being decided by the courts instead of the ballot box, this could be huge.

Did you read through his voting record in the link I provided? [Here]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Did you read through his voting record in the link I provided? [Here]

No. I'm at work and don't have time to analyze all of those votes (I probably shouldn't be taking time to goof off this much). The problem with candidates that come out of the Senate or House and run for president is that all of those or any one of those votes can come back to haunt them. There are times certain votes are placed and it's not always plain from even a reasonable skim/reading. Sometimes they vote against a good bill, (if they authored it) because they knew it wasn't going to pass and wanted to reserve the option of reintroducing it later. Sometimes so many addendums are added that a reasonably good bill that cause it to become unsupportable. While I do not argue Rubio's progressive streak is much wider than I'd prefer, in my opinion it does not peg the needle on out right socialism like Bernie's or Hillary's.

 

[Tombs]

No. I'm at work and don't have time to analyze all of those votes (I probably shouldn't be taking time to goof off this much). The problem with candidates that come out of the Senate or House and run for president is that all of those or any one of those votes can come back to haunt them. There are times certain votes are placed and it's not always plain from even a reasonable skim/reading. Sometimes they vote against a good bill, (if they authored it) because they knew it wasn't going to pass and wanted to reserve the option of reintroducing it later. Sometimes so many addendums are added that a reasonably good bill that cause it to become unsupportable. While I do not argue Rubio's progressive streak is much wider than I'd prefer, in my opinion it does not peg the needle on out right socialism like Bernie's or Hillary's.

Voting to eliminate the privacy of all American citizens along with voting to indefinitely detain them, without trail... I doubt that's just "playing ball."

Those are pretty harsh authoritarian things. They will inevitably lead to the loss of our 2A rights without having to touch any firearms laws.

It's hard to call that progressive, in fact I'm pretty sure the progressives are actively fighting against such things.