Rubio on the anger of the Republican base towards Congress
Rubio, on Hannity yesterday. He’s among my three leading candidates at the moment: Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio, in no special order. With Carson not so very far behind. [I can’t seem to rid the video of the initial advertisement, which is brief. The part about the base and Congress begins around 3:18, but the earlier part is well worth watching to hear what Rubio has to say about Putin, Syria, and Obama.]
And no, I don’t care so very much about his flirtation with the Gang of Eight earlier in his Senate tenure, although that action of his certainly figures into the base’s anger. I don’t like what he did back then, but I think his change of heart is actual and not a ploy. He’s smart, he’s young, and he’s unflappable (except for the sweating; but some of my best friends are big sweaters):
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a quote from a speech Rubio made; not sure when he said it, but I found the quote at Ace’s:
Barack Obama’s not a failure because he was a first-term senator, or even for lack of experience. He’s had seven years of presidential experience and, in my mind, he’s still failing. Barack Obama has failed as president because his ideas don’t work. And they wouldn’t have worked if he’d been in the senate for 40 years. And they wouldn’t have worked if he was the CEO of a major company. And they wouldn’t have worked if he was a governor. His ideas do not work. They don’t work in America, they’ve never worked anywhere in the world. Here’s what works: free enterprise, a limited government, a strong national security. That’s what we need from our next president.
Good points. Also, of course, self-serving, because Rubio is himself a first-term senator, although he’s already served considerably longer than Obama had when Obama began his presidency run.]
Anything that will advance Rubio is copasetic. This is also the way of the Islamists respecting Islam.
Marco can match Boehner, tear for tear.
Marco insists Black Lives Matter.
Marco can talk through both sides of his mouth. As can an Islamist, before a Muslim crowd or a crowd of Dhimmes. The Gang of 8 Bill is unforgiveable, and is aggravated by Marco’s bill to lift the university green card caps and triple the number of guest workers admitted on H-1B visas to replace American workers at lower costs.
Apparently tall, dark, handsome, and alien will get anybody tall, dark, handsome, and alien, consideration.
What evidence do you have that Rubio has had a change of heart rather than merely a ploy? During the 2015 New Hampshire Republican presidential candidate forum in August he used nearly identical talking points to push the Obama-backed Gang of Eight bill through the Senate. I haven’t seen a change of heart, am I missing something?
Regardless of Rubio’s sincerity (which will be tested over the next few months and I’ll make up my mind when I have to) it does appear that the message has finally been received. Even some of the squishier hosts on Fox (not the DNC talking pointers) seem to be getting it, at long last. WHY did this have to take so long?
If it was a change of heart, why did he run locally in Florida as pro-immigration? Why wasn’t he smart enough not to try to work with McCain and Schumer? It was a heck of a lot more than a flirtation. But at this point, I doubt it makes a difference. The party will get the nominee they want and since Jeb! has spent most of his campaign throwing up on himself – they’ll take Rubio. He’ll probably win! And happy days, a repeat of the compassionate conservative Bush years. Yes, way better than Hillary, but still disappointing. Sky high spending, moderate appointees, and interventionist foreign policy. What’s not to like?
Cabernt:
The only evidence a person can have, for a senator, are two things. The first is what he’s done since then in terms of voting and rhetoric, and the second is a personal gut reaction to whether the individual speaking is sincere or not.
A lot of conservatives now have adopted a zero tolerance policy in terms of candidates (except for Trump, who gets a pass on everything because they like his tough talk and the fact that he’s a gazillionaire and therefore supposedly unbeholden, alhtough he’s spent the last several decades trying to buy influence). By “zero tolerance policy” I mean one false move, one error, one compromise, and the person is on the “no, never would support them” list forever.
My point of view is that you miss a lot of good candidates that way and narrow the field down to almost no one. Even Ted Cruz has made some errors, according to some conservatives, even though he’s been the most stalwart and consistent defender of conservatism I can think of. It all boils down to the old saying, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
The evaluation of a person’s demeanor and therefore sincerity is something juries do all the time. It’s a judgment call.
I also have a slight bias in favor of thinking it is at least possible to sincerely change one’s mind and learn from it. That’s what Rubio has said he’s done, over and over. I also happen to think that deporting at least 12 million people is not the answer (nor is it even Trump’s answer, if you’re actually paying attention to what he’s actually saying). I’d be satisfied with securing the border—for real—tracking those who are illegal and reforming the visa system so that they can be tracked, getting rid of all the criminals, and then considering a legal path to legal residence (not citizenship) for some of the people who’ve been here a long time and have children here.
That’s actually the position of almost all the candidates right now.
Great basis for a Presidential nominee: He is young and he is smart. Great.
Why don’t you tout his Hispanic appeal too? His good looks, which will sway females/
I’ve never gotten why the concept of self-deportation is somehow considered a racist idea. In the business world companies regularly institute hiring freezes in order to reduce by attrition the size of their work force. It is the least painful and most humane way of doing it.
As for sweating, never noticed it and don’t care until pundits started to make an issue of it. Richard Nixon used to sweat and look how well he worked out 🙂
I haven’t yet decided whether his comprehensive immigration dalliance is unforgiveable.
In sum, Rubio is unusually articulate and fluid. This and his relative youth would make an appealing contrast with the Dems for millennial voters.
Trump gets a pass on everything because he’s never tried to pass himself off as a conservative, or a Republican for that matter. The full weight of opprobrium is reserved for those who purport to be something they are either not or have not the cojones to be.
Of Rubio, Cruz and Fiorina, my intuition reluctantly tells me Rubio has the best chance of winning against Hillary.
Maybe Trump has done us all a service in making the immigration issue more difficult to be squishy on.
As always, my number one priority is the Supreme Court nominee. Without a Miguel Estrada, or two, or three, there is no chance of ever reclaiming our liberty.
The left will merely continue to change the rules as needed.
Cruz is the only person I trust on that issue.
“Cabernt: The only evidence a person can have, for a senator, are two things. The first is what he’s done since then in terms of voting and rhetoric, and the second is a personal gut reaction to whether the individual speaking is sincere or not.” neo
Sincerity is of course key. People can change their minds; “for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.” B. Franklin
That said, given this how sincere can Rubio be?
After reading that long, detailed, well argued piece, Rubio’s actual sincerity has to be judged, at the least, problematic, regardless of how practiced his demeanor.
Frog, It’s not just women who get swayed by looks. It’s a certain type of personality that responds to good looks as a leadership qualification. It’s a big part of the reason that we have been stranded on Glistening Moobs Island with King Cheesecake Starf*cker Posehard for the past 7 years. The fainting idiots and NY Times Opinion Obama fantasists (remember that one?) were women but there were crowds of dazed dude-bros who thought he was the second coming as well. Personally, I find such people offensively stupid but we need every vote we can get in this election so I guess Rubio’s looks are a plus. Ever since Clinton and Edwards touting a candidate’s good looking-ness has been an automatic EW, GROSS for me.
George Pal:
Let me get this straight.
Trump gets a pass from so-called conservative supporters because, despite having espoused many liberal causes in the past, and still espousing some liberal causes, he didn’t used to say he was a conservative or a Republican, and still doesn’t. So he’s a straight-shooting liberal-conservative. So hey, let’s elect him! And never mind the many things he has misrepresented (see this, for example, and this), and his equivocations, as well as his support of the Clintons.
Whereas an actual conservative, one who has worked for most conservative causes and made one big error for which he has repented, is not given a pass for that.
That makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro-Trump arguments.
I refuse to go through the cycle of enthusiasms that GOP Voter is subjected to every four years. Build a guy or gal up only to have The Deciders (morons with bylines) knock him or her down. I will decide at the last minute between whoever’s left standing. Sorry, all worthy candidates, if that’s rough on your funding, but that’s the way it has to be. I will note that it says a LOT about the power of the Washington DC influence that it has taken THIS LONG for the GOP base’s message of sanity to be heard and acknowledged. Every worthy candidate* will get a fair hearing. I’ll decide when I decide.
*Not Huckabee. I’ve already decided on that one.
AMartel:
I haven’t decided, either. But I definitely have front-runners.
Frog:
I’m talking about votes. “Young” is good for that, but “smart” is good in general. Very good. What’s more (as I think I’ve made clear in this and other posts and comments) I believe he’s basically a conservative. All those things are important, in different ways.
They don’t need to make the “argument”, because they are incompetent at it.
They just need to stop SWATting and defunding anti Leftist orgs that Are Making the Argument, successfully and effectively in the public sphere.
Then again, it helps if you aren’t being leveraged by the Democrats when the GOP talks about democracy, voting, and fighting.
That makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro-Trump arguments.
A religious crusade or jihad has no time for arguments. That is a strong point about crusades and also its weakness.
Rounding up all 10 million plus illegal aliens and expired visa abusers is impractical from the get go. I am all for a massive border fence patrolled by a beefed ICE presence and drones. And numerous other tough measures, including denial of social services to anyone who can not prove they are here legally.
OTOH, I also want to bring into the light of day those who are here illegally. Those who do not have a criminal history and are otherwise productive members of society should be allowed to apply for a green card, but never have a pathway to citizenship. Plus, I favor a 5 year moratorium on issuing visas to citizens of selected nations. This would include all of Latin America, large portions of Asia, and any nation that is prominently muslim. But I am not holding my breath.
You know, Neo, if you converted to a youtube video format, you could make a lot of money with those advertisements.
But that’s generally one of the younger generation comforts. I don’t see the older generation, brought up in a print and reading words mode, being very well enamored of that kind of format presentation.
Rubio reminds me of a Boy Scout, always prepared to please any and all. Donors, neocon advisers at The Weekly Standard, Hispanic constituents, you name it and he’ll be there water bottle at the ready. He’s a nice enough guy, personable, semi-bright, but not Presidential material. He also lacks integrity and his Gang-of-8 fling confirms it. Jeb would be better than this lightweight.
The Other Chuck:
Jeb would be worse for many many reasons, but I’ll just choose one: he has no chance of being elected president. He would have the support of neither party.
Neo-neocon,
You say: “That makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro-Trump arguments.”
And there you have it. I doubt not, not for a second, that you are thoughtful, deliberative, measured, and can out-think a great portion of that small contingent — the informed voter. It’s as near a sure thing also, based on all that, you are as well acquainted with common sense as the best in that field. But here it is. The nation is not in the midst of an enlightenment. Reason will not move the greatest part of it. Dialectics, face it, is beyond the ability of even a greater part. Empirical data is to them as the abacus is to a beetle. All evidence is resolutely ignored and, not at all rarely, is followed with imputations of ‘racism’, ‘sexism’ ‘_phobism’, ad infinitum. We live in a rhetorical age — low rhetoric, mean rhetoric, incoherent rhetoric, i.e., internally inconsistent rhetoric. No conservative would think Mr Trump all that much unless they had suffered fifty years of ‘conservative’ maladroitness, rationalizing, meandering… and back-stabbing. And surely it cannot have escaped anyone’s notice that ‘conservatives’ are, most always and routinely, as anxious and insecure in their beliefs as liberals are certain of theirs. And I abhor that more than nature abhors a vacuum.
After fifty years of declining returns and diminished expectations (always rewarded), and in our present predicament, I have no problem with being pro-Trump, even though, as I have previously stated, I don’t endorse or actively support him.
A commenter at Ace of Spades (I don’t remember who) suggested a few months ago that Jeb is a stalking horse for Rubio. I think that is exactly right.
The Republican establishment cannot possibly be so stupid as to think that a third Bush would have a snowball’s chance in hell in the general election. The Bush name is toxic to a solid majority of the voting public, liberal and conservative alike.
But Rubio is exactly what the GOPe wants: A young, handsome Hispanic Historic First, who also happens to support open borders and amnesty, as the White middle class is replaced by Latin American peons.
So they put Bush out there as the putative front-runner, knowing that conservatives will recoil in horror. Then they will push Rubio as a “compromise”, thinking he will placate conservatives.
It won’t work. Too many people can see through these machinations. There is exactly the same chance that I will vote for Rubio as there is that I will vote for Bush: ZERO.
If the Republicans want to be a permanent minority party, then by all means, nominate Rubio.
Which gang of eight, the one that included Georgia politicians and were in on Benghazi?
I refuse to go through the cycle of enthusiasms that GOP Voter is subjected to every four years.
Reminds me of my reaction in 2008 and 2012. Wait until a few years after this current phase, and something new might happen.
With all these illusions and lies floating around, sometimes it is good to go out in nature, without humans, and think about certain things without the corruption of society at large.
KLSmith: “Sky high spending, moderate appointees, and interventionist foreign policy. What’s not to like?”
The 1st 2 items have long been criticisms on conservative principle, but when (and how) did Bush’s decisions in response to 9/11 become an object of conservative criticism?
Eric Says:
September 30th, 2015 at 9:19 pm
My original instinct was correct. Bush should have nuked Mecca, or at least the Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, on 9/12. Preferably both.
I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt for several years. Maybe he was right to try to do it the nice way, by trying to bring Western notions of freedom to the Middle East. I will grant him that.
(But not “democracy”, because that is not a stable form of government, and never can be. It is disgusting that so-called “Republicans” seek to promote “democracy”. Those who do so are ignorant beyond belief.)
An indefinite, open-ended, half-assed war does not work and cannot work in our political system. We should just use overwhelming force, kill our enemies, and go home. Then tell them, “We’ll do it again if you piss us off any more.”
Well, I guess pandering to the young and putting a young Latino into the White House, differs not much from pandering to the young and putting a young black dude into the White House. My takeaway is that it is now all about pandering. Neo will tell me Goldwater didn’t pander so we got Lyndon. But with Dem vote fraud, especially as practiced by LBJ, Goldwater would not have been elected. Period.
Conflating Obama’s foreign policy record with Bush’s foreign policy record as a piece is a staple of Russian, Left propaganda, which seems suspicious when it appears in a supposedly conservative review.
Bush should have nuked Mecca, or at least the Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, on 9/12. Preferably both.
That doesn’t mean anything. If you think Mecca should be nuked, you should have said “If I was in his position, I would have nuked Mecca”.
But that’s not how you phrased it in your mind, ever wonder why?
An indefinite, open-ended, half-assed war does not work and cannot work in our political system.
Like the fact that we’re still occupying Western Europe and South Korea, that kind of open ended war that never ends?
Or are you just talking about Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam.
[i]Ymarsakar Says:
September 30th, 2015 at 9:54 pm
I sure as hell would have. That was my first reaction, and history shows that I was correct.
Ymarsakar Says:
September 30th, 2015 at 9:57 pm
In our political system, wars need to be short and decisive.
The Civil War lasted four years, and there were Democrat Copperheads in the North who wanted to reach a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy.
We only participated in World War I for about a year and a half.
Our participation in World War II was less than four years from Pearl Harbor to Nagasaki. In the last few months of the war, our casualties at Iwo Jima and Okinawa grew increasingly worse. If not for the atomic bombs, we would have had to invade the Japanese home islands. I have no doubt that with the horrific casualties that would have involved, a movement would have sprung up to reach a negotiated settlement and stop the bloodletting.
We occupied Germany and Japan and imposed our political values on them because we defeated them decisively and they knew they were beaten.
Korea was a negotiated political settlement, much like the end of WWI. That could flare up again at any time. Our military presence there helps keep it from flaring up.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were indefinite open-ended wars with murky objectives that were sabotaged by the Left as soon as they were able to do so.
The lesson is that we should not fight wars in that manner, because there is no guarantee of success.
Another thing is that our military protection of Europe after WWII allowed them to build up their welfare states, rather than spending their own money on their own defense.
Then American leftists pointed to the European welfare states as being so much more advanced than the backwards militaristic capitalistic American society.
Then they proceeded to vote for socialists who would fundamentally transform America into Europe.
Ironic, eh?
Frog:
It’s not pandering if you think the person is actually capable. I happen to think Rubio is capable. He’s not my first choice at the moment, but I certainly wouldn’t support someone, no matter what that person’s other characteristics (young, black, whatever), whom I didn’t see as capable.
I assume you know that, so I’m not sure what your point is, really.
However, I stand by the Buckley rule, to support the most conservative candidate who’s viable. I think Rubio is both. Cruz (whom I also support) is more consistently conservative but not as viable.
Eric:
If I remember correctly the Buchananesque paleocon wing of the conservative movement was always isolationist.
Ymarsakar:
This Gang of Eight.
I do still care about the Gang of Eight. It showed either remarkably poor judgment, or a willingness to brazenly lie to the voters.
I keep getting the feeling that Rubio has risen too far, too fast. I’d take him as President, but he’s in third place on my list.
In case I was not sufficiently clear earlier: I will not vote for Rubio under any circumstances.
The Civil War lasted four years, and there were Democrat Copperheads in the North who wanted to reach a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy.
That wasn’t a short and decisive war, though, because Democrat Generals McClellan sabotaged the march to richmond, and stalled for time, Democrat election time.
What put the war to an end was Sherman and Grant, which is why Southerners even today call Lincoln a Tyrant and Sherman the Burner of Atlanta, plus other things.
But Sherman was taking it easy on his fellow countrymen.
Wow, didn’t realize we were still at war w/ western europe and s korea. I’m going down to the USO to volunteer to box up some care packages.
The lesson is that we should not fight wars in that manner, because there is no guarantee of success.
A guarantee of success would be to kill the Left and then fight a war using a united front. Instead of dribbling American blood and treasure on oversea wars that are sabotaged logistically at home.
Who sends out their army and then burns down the city, opening the gates to the barbarians, then thinks the army will pull a Victory out of the hat later on when they return?
KLSmith,
Just what are you aware of, exactly?
I sure as hell would have. That was my first reaction, and history shows that I was correct.
Are you speaking in the abstract or are you referring to the specific Willpower required? Because the actual Willpower required would be similar to or above that needed to reset your own bones after a complicated fracture, without medical support. If that is what you are claiming you have, that’s fine, but if you are claiming the abstract “I’ll push a button, it’s easy”, then no, you wouldn’t have done it, you only think you would have done it in his position. Fantasies about stuff you believe will never happen, isn’t a test of Willpower.
History doesn’t show anything, since you never got to put into motion your idea or plan of action. That simulation track never existed.
Eric: it was staying for the nation building. we should have carpet bombed them and come home. God help the girls, women, and Pashtun dancing boys in that wasteland because we can’t.
Matt_SE:
He’s probably about third on my list, too.
rickl:
Yessir, that makes plenty of sense. Don’t vote for someone you agree with 90% of the time, and by so doing you enable the election of someone you disagree with 100% of the time, who might be the last straw for the republic.
Brilliant, stellar!
Nuking Mecca would have been a big mistake for Bush to do at the time, but …. nuking Tora Bora would have been the sort of magnificent response which would have definitively clarified a lot in subsequent years.
Nuking Mecca will be required, most likely, probably because we did not nuke Tora Bora.
Ymarsakar: a lot, unfortunately. You’re the one who said “open-ended war”. maybe that’s not what you meant to say. to me, that means a war without end. sorry, if i misunderstood you.
Actually, the more I think about it, by not nuking Tora Bora, the US might have given up the chance for a century of world peace.
Who the hell thought I agreed with Rubio 90% of the time? Because I am completely unaware of that.
OK, Neo, I’ve been reluctant to mention this before now, but I saw it clearly in 2012 with your support for Romney, who was a horrible candidate. Now you’re doing it again with Rubio, who is equally horrible.
You have a weakness for handsome male political candidates. You manage to convince yourself that your female hormones somehow translate into an intellectual justification for support of your favored candidate.
In reality, you are inadvertently arguing for repeal of the 19th Amendment.
There, I said it.
GB: thanks for the link to that article. there is a lot of serious stuff there but the talking point that I find hilarious is : they will be made to learn english. and by golly if they don’t we are sending the language police to their houses and then they are really going to be in trouble. in the mean time I can barely read the instructions on anything I buy because they had to make the print small enough to fit two languages. well that and all the gov’t regulations like telling me not to drink my shampoo.
rickl: neo is more than capable of defending herself, but that was kind of mean. wanting the most electable candidate to be the nominee is not a girl thing.
To rickl:
Your remark to Neo, just above, is condescending and dare I use a leftist adjective, sexist. What next, you’ll be saying Neo’s support for Carly is because she likes women? Personal attacks and put downs are a sure sign of a lost argument. Also, this is Neo’s house. Act accordingly.
rickl:
You couldn’t be further off the mark. Anyone who reads this blog with any care at all knows the ridiculousness of your position.
I wonder if you’ve been paying attention to what I write at all. Or perhaps the current campaign season has driven you dotty.
Do you recall that my favored candidate in the 2008 Republican primaries was originally Giuliani? Now, his wife may think he’s handsome, and he’s certainly male, but I think he’s decidedly unhandsome. You might say non-handsome.
One of my favorite candidates at the moment is Fiorina. Not handsome; not male.
Above Rubio in my estimation this year is Cruz. And I liked Walker till he was lackluster in the debates; he was actually my original favorite for the past year or so, and I announced that a long time ago. Both Walker and Cruz are certainly male, and again, I’m sure their wives think they’re hot stuff, but handsome? Not on your life. Not even particularly attractive.
Churchill–likewise. One of my very few heroes in the political world.
I could go on, but you get he idea. To tell you the truth—take note—I didn’t call Rubio handsome, because he’s really not my type. Baby face, way too young. Never would have been my type, even when I was young.
No, you really haven’t figured it out at all, so let me spell it out some more: I supported Romney in 2012 because he was the Republican nominee running against Obama. Get it? And when the primaries started that year, I was upset because Christie (my favored candidate) wouldn’t run. Christie is, in case you haven’t noticed, rather overweight. In fact, very overweight, and he was even more overweight back then.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I liked Romney’s looks as looks, in the abstract. But that was about as far from any reason to support him as I can imagine. Some people even think Obama is handsome. Go figure. He could be Adonis and it wouldn’t matter to me.
And I will probably support the Republican nominee this time, as well, whoever he or she may be. I may really have to hold my nose if it’s certain people (initials JB and/or initials DT, for example, neither of whom is the most unattractive candidate in the field, by the way), however.
Also, note my tremendous support for McCain in 2012. Why? Because he was the nominee. He was neither my original preferred candidate (Giuliani, as I said), nor handsome. But I supported him, because he was running against Obama. Simple.
In case you’ve forgotten the sort of thing I actually wrote about Romney in 2012, let me help you out[emphasis mine]:
I go on to debate the pros and cons of this flawed candidate, and mention that for some women his looks are a draw. But note that I describe him as wooden and say he comes off as a slick “Ken-doll” in the looks department, and that I support him because despite his flaws he is the best of the lot remaining.
Sorry, but I have to call it like I see it. And I’ve been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time.
rickl:
It seems to me that you’re the emotional one.
You want to “get it off your chest”? I just amassed a host of evidence to disprove what you said, and your answer is that you wanted to “get it off your chest”?
Fascinating.
By the way, you might be interested in this 2007 post of mine, where I talk up Giuliani, and compare him to (are you ready for it?) LaGuardia.
Another unhandsome guy. Short, too.
Or how about this one, where I trash Edwards (whom so many people thought was handsome, and who certainly wasn’t bad-looking, even in my estimation)? I write there that Edwards, “simply oozed with lack of appeal.”
So much depends on inference and there are a million inferences.
That is why unity is so hard.
I just read the book about the friendship (which waned after the late 60s) between William F. Buckley and Norman Mailer. The fascinating point re the present discussion is how much the self-defeating purer-than-thou hardcore conservatives of the 1960s resemble the current edition. History replays itself, beyond farce, into… what?
“History replays itself, beyond farce, into… what?”
Our destruction.
Wretched has had a remarkable set of posts this week. See yesterday’s and today’s for material to help think through why this election – and our choice of candidate – both matters so much, and so little.
Foolish spellcheck. “Wretchard”.
It would be helpful if one adds the link when one mentions a blog for those of us that may like to followup.
As best as I can determine here is the link for Wretchard
http://wretchard.blogspot.com/#!
While I enjoy this blog, it seems like some posts generate a bit more “piss and vinegar” in the comments section. Regrettable but much better than those on the other side that worship at the feet of their dear leaders and have to no patience for facts nor intelligent dialog between equals.
Vote for Rubio, get amnesty. Done. It’s the issue of our time. Saying that Rubio is an OK candidate except for his flirtation with the Gang Of eight is like saying in 1860 that Republican candidate should make a good nominee if you can overlook the fact the he favors slavery and secession.
I don’t insist that a candidate be perfect, but I have no tolerance for amnesty or anything that smacks of it. And since the Republican party is a big steaming pile of fail, and has only carried the popular vote once since 1988, then I will at least vote for what I want, since surely the government will never do it.
No, I’m not for Trump. I prefer Fiorina or Cruz
Self-deportation. Cut off Federal and state benefits (SNAP, Welfare, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, WIC, public schooling, drivers’ licenses, etc.) and make every employer check for valid US citizenship/legal residency of all new hires (and check out the previous hires, too) and fine them $1M per illegal they have on the books, not to mention a 50% tax on remittances. Then state they have 6 months to pack up their shit and leave or, if found after six months, they get deported and lose all their shit (to be sold at public auction with proceeds going to the US Treasury). Once you do that, their raison d’etre for being here evaporates. They will leave.
To say that getting rid of illegals is impractical, no matter what we do — even rounding them up, is throwing in the towel and kissing good-bye to my Country. Thanks but no thanks.
The illegals are criminals by virtue of being here illegally. But I bet you knew that. Or are you saying we should no longer be a Nation of Laws and just look away when it comes to our illegal alien problem? How can such ‘immigrants’ ever have respect for our Nation and laws if they begin their US stay by breaking our laws? That puts us in ‘Norman 1 turning into a smoking android’ territory. Illogical.
Correction: I just noticed the link I supplied only had old posts from 2013. So I’m not sure where “OriginalFrank”‘s Wretchard blog is 🙁
As a Florida resident, I voted for Rubio in the primary and in the general. During the campaigns, Rubio claimed he was against amnesty. So, when he joined the gang of 8 and became the face of it, he lied. Since we already have a liar in the White House, I see no need to promote another one. I will not vote for Rubio (or Jeb Bush).
Go Russia
they are in control now
and as i said, a conflict will start just before election period heats up.
and i also said we will only discuss such things i a meaningful way AFTER they start as we try to figure out what we ignored before it started to understand why it started…
which to me is like waiting for the horse to run away so you can start the conversation on the barn door and what it means.
That makes about as much sense as the rest of the pro-Trump arguments.
yeah..
the guy we liked turned out to be really bad and fake sincerity
and the guy we hate, as defined by the left media is bad too..
lets just let putin take over..
sorry. but in this topsy turvey world, the guy thats bad is good… you see him as bad because there is no way for you to see him otherwise if at all influenced by media and advertising and so on. and women are much more influence by that than men… (ask madison avenue, look at a mall, look at what the left has been able to do in terms of them hating themselves, and even self exterminating!!!)
sorry..
but trump is the best candidate if you want things to not keep going to the left (so fast)
your just never going to be able to find out unless you can dig through the crap and have your own feelings that contradict the lefts missives.
after all. we elected a milquetoast for protection and are always told dominant sexist men are evil… we have 50 years of that constantly playing otu the speakers. so its very hard to think that a man that acts like a real man, aggressive, successful, blunt, etc.. would be the best.
we are pavlovian trained to think the best is the worst… and that the worst is the best.
get over it, or doom thyselves…
after all, the war with russia has started..
and it doesnt have the protections of prior conflicts where the stronger hated men knew better than to play these games the way the left taught the ladies and public what is right.
after all. the men dont get to pick any more
between ladies and minorities and other special interests there just isnt enough men to vote in what will work…
all the other actors will be concerned as to their future and will not act right in terms of what is needed as the left will just chew them up and spit them out negating a future from then on.
The lesson is that we should not fight wars in that manner, because there is no guarantee of success.
but we cant fight them in the manne your suggesting as that would make our leader a war criminal… ie. to be decisive if your american is to be a war criminal.
duh…
i laid that out ages ago. but why keep up with the law of the land and the laws made… we are too busy paying attention to bs and even i cant wake anyone up BEFORE somethign happens.
hows that russian invasion of another country and its opposition and potentially killing american service men by accident… but then again, they shot that plane down by “accident”… despite murdering hundreds of people on purpose they always have these convenient accidents.
rickl Says: Then they proceeded to vote for socialists who would fundamentally transform America into Europe. / Ironic, eh?
not really… all you had to do was listen to those male pale stale people who were marginalzed and who were telling you feminism and all that crap would lead to this… in fact they were very very very correct compared to the people who were promoting it…
its hard to read their stuff today, but if you could you would be shocked at how right those male pale stale people were.
once the men were neutered..
that was the end of that..
men can vote for whats best. but women, minorities and special interests will not let whatever they pick for these things be picked
in fact, the others are trained to pick what over time will bring maximum harm to a society and its destruction and then make it normal and ok and the right choice.
below replacement birth necessitates importing more forigners. open borders means out state is flooded with operatives from lots of other states. birth control and those games means women are more infertile. women fighting means that the source of the population gets ground up in a combat situation… passivism gets one destroyed just as surely as its the weak that get picked on and ignored. not the strong.. the idea russia a self sworn enemy who has always cheated is our friends…
we self loath and ahte ourselves as much as women self loath and hate themselves and want to be men…
what did you expect when the ladies decided to make that happen.
the men are the head
the women are the neck
the men only seem to be in control…
just like a general seems to be in control till the president fires them…
ultimately if women want this place to go down the tubes cause the enemies of our state convinceed them that doing what was wrong is right, nothing we can do about it.
it would be like a small army of white men going inot a ghetto to fix it.
only women can fix it. and women wont do that.
they are more afraid of other women than even the beat up marginalzed unprotected male pale stale people are.
KLSmith Says: Wow, didn’t realize we were still at war w/ western europe and s korea. I’m going down to the USO to volunteer to box up some care packages.
we were never at war with western europe…
we were at war with soviet satellites and protected eastern europe. western europe died when the soviets took it over, and it was a soviet state. the soviet states were never european.
of course our generals wanted to keep going and take russia, and think how much war, assasination, gulag murders, and such would not have happened..(including north south korea, afghanistan, conflicts in africa, and more)
and we never fought south korea, but are still at war with north korea. we could not fight that war decisively once stalin gave it his ok, because the chinese would have thrown bodies at us till the world hated us even more than it does now.
right now though, china has an extra 30 million it can use in combat roles as these men will never have wives…
that would be a military larger than most western militaries combined…
KLSmith Says: rickl: neo is more than capable of defending herself, but that was kind of mean. wanting the most electable candidate to be the nominee is not a girl thing.
no, but favoring despotism, strong fascism, social discord, gender hate pretending to be justice, and generally hating your own country IS a modern girl thing… (the ones that dont think like that are mostly dead or now marginalized by age… )
Captain Capitalism [ http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/09/blame-women-disproportionately-for.html ] makes the case convincingly, describing how the feminine tendency to vote for more government reversed our painstaking centuries-long climb toward liberty, and how ensuing government dependence is destroying the family, resulting in superfluous men who don’t try anymore, collapsing birthrates, and the displacement of the population with non-Western foreigners who do not share our values and who have no interest in sustaining our civilization.
Obama’s appalling reelection suggests that our death spiral is irreversible.
The white males who lifted the human race out of the wretched darkness of tyranny are increasingly outvoted by women and nonwhites who tend to support tyranny in the form of the welfare state, which will spend ever more, enslave ever more, render ever more dependent, until before long we have either communism or total societal collapse.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
i wish i could show you the old documents that pointed out that this was the plan… they are long erased and not up, like sangers autobiography and other inconvenient things..
as before, the ladied hating trump are going to decide who is the future. no one else will…
Slightly off topic, in other news, homo marriage has now descended to the Left backing this.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/salon-com-pedophile-calls-me-out-but-now-ive-dug-into-his-past/
They completely skipped polygamy and bestiality, probably because Planned Profit isn’t make too many abortions if there are no rapists preying on children, for the profitable abortions that bypass parental notification.
excerpts from a very long blog post
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/09/blame-women-disproportionately-for.html
Gender gap in voting for president (democrat candidate)
only goes back to the Eisenhower administration
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ljKg4NDwVaQ/VgsU_2PbsdI/AAAAAAAAJIw/QZg6yDolJls/s1600/LIke%2Bthe%2BDemocrats.gif
Do they vote for more government?
Or do they vote for less?
This further simplifies into the direct actions of:
Do they vote left?
Or do they vote right?
Do they vote labor?
Or do they vote conservative?
Do they vote democrat?
Or do they vote republican?
Women prefer a larger state and less freedom than men.
originally women actually preferred the republican candidates over men, especially during the Eisenhower administrations. They even preferred the ugly Richard Nixon over the hot and handsome John F. Kennedy in 1960 (though not by much margins). It wasn’t until 1972, and especially 1976 did women switch to preferring a larger state.
because the socialists took over feminism completely then, and socialists are the ultimate statists.
[edited for length by n-n]
And sure enough 73% of black women, 51% of Latinas and 28% of white women agreed.
that set of numbers are not going to vote for anything but more statism… as will the college and edumacated women who were told by academics what was eveil, and what they should vote for.
the men arent even in college to oppose it, its mostly women, a lot of foreigners, and rich males whose family had alums.
the poor guys, even with great educations, were forbidden from attending, as they had noo one to stand up for them and the weight of society pushing them out… which is why i never became a researcher, my son gave up his phd to go into the military and my wife and i cant have a baby and i have been on fixed in come since i was 40 as male pale and stale cant get raises or promotions for the rest of my life…
that helps society so much more that i had to destroy my company and employees to work for a place that this is the way it is…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<without purpose or agency in life, and their birthright as a man taken from them by a government check, more and more men lost all hope and started checking out of society. They started marrying less, working less, substituted real women with porn, and lived vicariously through video games. They were no longer the strong and intrepid men like their WWII ancestors, but unincentived lifeless men with no direction and purpose. And with the economic nucleus of Western Civilization disheartened to the point of inaction, economic growth started to slow.
With the engine of Western Civilizaiton sidelined from their original roles of fathers and husbands, the next chip to fall was, naturally, the family. Without a father around the American family started to disintegrate. There were of course pre-ruined families called "single parent" home, denying children from birth the right to a stable nuclear family. But even those children "lucky" enough to have been born to a husband AND wife, only stood a 50/50 shot of having a normal childhood as half of all marriages ended in divorce.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2015/09/blame-women-disproportionately-for.html
Enjoy the decline.
Whiny, blamey man is just as annoying as whiny, blamey woman. Unless he’s whining and blaming in the comment section of a conservative blog run, very ably, by a woman. In which case it’s just embarrassing. Stop it. Christ, you sound like such a bunch of libbers.
im sorry AMartel…
but us male pale stale unprotected classes really dont ahve much to do other than complain. i guess thats the point.
but things are sure gonna get interesting soon, with women in the draft and 75% of men unfit to serve for health and or mental reasons…
so its gonna be the women up against isis.
besids, why would us guys fight? to save families we are kicked out of? for women that hate us? for a society that takes our stuff away and calls us horrid names?
this is a huge list…
maybe naked pictures of bela abzug to hang on the planes is politically correct, but it wont motivate people to save a country that has told them they have no place, are unprotected, ow everyone else, and in literal terms been told to go off and die.
at least obama made sure that immigrants can stay home and collect benefits, and only citizens have to fight and die…
that should hasten the democide.
but the facts are the facts whether or not you like them or i like them, and facts dont tell you what the answers are either. below replacement births leads to huge influx of immigrants to make up for the labor that is lost by feminists..
the labor force has to get more h1b visas becasue unlike men, women dont stay in their careers all their lives… (thats a big problem in those countries that started before us).
im sorry, but the marginalized nobodies have nothing to do but complain… what else can we do? show our sexism by grabbing the reigns and changing things? being hated by the women? sorry, aint gonna happen.
maybe if we give all the guys congressional medals of honor like trophies in little league now? wait! that wont work, cause that would jsut mean they get spit on…
Pentagon: 7 in 10 Youths Would Fail to Qualify for Military Service
Recruits’ Ineligibility Tests the Military
More Than Two-Thirds of American Youth Wouldn’t Qualify for Service, Pentagon Says
Military turns down 80 percent of applicants as armed forces shrink
Most Young Americans Would Not Qualify For Military Service
army times
Most U.S. youths unfit to serve, data show
thank the big spagetti monster in the sky that women are now going to fight for us men, and us men will just stay home. after all hillary said that the men dying on the battle field wasnt the worst, the worst was staying home. so women can now avoid that worst part, and go out and kill kill kill
after all.
Putin is now bombing our allies in syria
he seems to be missing isis, the group that they helped create out of the plo, and other organizations they been running for over 50 years.
besides, what would us guys fight for?
the women in our lives that cleaned us out, called us horrid names, took away the images of women we like, made homes broken, tapped us for the welfare state, and on and on?
why fight for that?
if you cant answer the question, your not gonna get these guys to do what needs to be done.
and putin has ramped up his end of obama term war games as i said he would… heck, didnt take more than three days after the UN speech to find out they lie…
ha ha! too funny.
where is that reset button…
According to the latest Pentagon figures, a full 35 percent, or more than one-third, of the roughly 31.2 million Americans aged 17 to 24 are unqualified for military service because of physical and medical issues.
were too sick to do anything but complain
or too old… you want our military to look like hitlers at the end of the war?
only 4.7 million of the 31.2 million 17- to 24-year-olds in a 2007 survey are eligible to enlist,
so its up to the gays, and women to defend the USA From the countries that had tyrants and totalitarians that they admire so much…
sorry, but thats how it is.
want it to change? ya gonna have to talk to the people who can do something… us male pale and stale members are not gonna prove those people right by standing up and imposing a solution.
are we?
Rudy Giuliani: Foreign Dignitaries Told Me They “Like Trump” Want A Stronger Leader
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/rudy-giuliani-foreign-dignitaries-visiting-new-york-like-trump-want-a-stronger-president/
Rudy Giuliani: IT’s a world-wide phenomenon by the way. I was in Mexico two weeks ago. Obviously, there…
Bill O’Reilly: They don’t like him.
Rudy Giuliani: I was in Colombia. Different reaction. In Columbia some people think, maybe this is the tough guy you need that you don’t have. I just met with a number of foreign dignitaries that have been here for the UN. A lot of them. A lot of them kinda like Trump. A lot of them like the idea that maybe this guy be a stronger guy going up against … the Ayatollah.
Neo – In one way I s’pose I should be flattered that you took notice, because (although I haven’t followed every thread closely on the subject, and haven’t contributed regularly to the discussion for some time), you appear to have given just enough notice to my “beholden” argument (which though unabashedly pro”ish”-Trump, does not – yet – indicate a solid commitment) to have responded however cursorily.
…however, “not really valid”, eh?
You’re quite too intelligent and intellectual (not, of course, the same thing: and yes, a compliment to say you’re both, however obvious that is to your regulars), to make such an elementary and – again: obvious – mistake in logic.
An argument conjecturing the importance of someone being “not beholden to anyone” (due to his “gazillions”: and how sad and unfortunate-for-purposes-of persuasion that particular phrasing is) with a counter argument that the same someone “buys” people is rather transparently non-equivalent (pun, however stretched, very much intended).
Maybe as rhetorical excess? – Well, even then it’s rather sloppy and ineffective.
As logic? – It’s not. Period.
If you’re going to use Trump’s public utterance that he’s participated in buying political favor, well and good. Make it, and be done with it.
(I’d counter that particular argument with: whose moral ground is higher here, the Buyer who boasts of such, or the Seller who never, ever admits their political favors were for sale to the highest Donor class bidder in the first place? Point Trump, IMHO. YMMV, but “different strokes” and all that.)
But to use his public statement about his attempting to “buy” (curry, whatever) political favor to further his business interests as counter-argument against an argument on the importance of transparency? – Well, that is rather a non-sequitar, and not all that illuminating don’t you think? – Especially as it’s rather counter-intuitive in the extreme to argue against that person’s “non-transparency” by quoting one of the statements by that person that illustrates just how transparent they, indeed, seem to be.
My basic pro-Trump argument is that due to Trump self-financing his campaign, he appears to be immune to those secret backroom deals that we ALL rather expect the donor class to hold over political aspirants.
My point was that makes him (regardless of his policies) markedly different than every other politican running at the national level.
And I find the possibility …intriguing. And refreshing. And …[remarkably] transparent.
You have disparaged that argument (which is essentially an argument about the uniqueness of an instance of probable transparency in one area of the typical national political campaign), with a very poor substitute for argumentum.
That illogic on this point is disappointing, and beneath your usual excellence.
davisbr, you obviously remember that the founders of the us and its freedoms were also mostly wealthy men with large estates, in some cases slaves, and places in more than one country.
So the common idea put forth by the left and hammred by feminists and marxists is that the wealthy cant be trusted (to make a communist state), so dont trust them.
but one only needs to know the founders worth and even presidents later on…
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1801-1809) Estimated net worth: $212 million.
George Washington’s estate was worth more than half a billion in today’s dollars
James Madison Net worth: $101 million
and after the founders
John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Net worth: $1 billion (never inherited his father’s fortune)
William Jefferson Clinton Net Worth: $55 million (and made more than 100 million after he left)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Net worth: $60 million
Herbert Clark Hoover Net worth: $75 million
so if money was a real issue, none of these should have made it to office… eh? but would the left tell you that the richest were their own people whose poliices made them vastly wealthier and who all had and have joined at the hip relationships with the heads of banking families… (hnot just banks)
davisbr:
That conversation occurred in the comments section some time ago.
I don’t have time to find it now, but the gist of it for me was that Trump’s money has been used to influence people to give him favors; he himself has said so. So he is “beholden” in that sense—government regulations control the rules of business these days, and create a certain business climate.
Also, his politics are influenced by his wealth and what would affect it. For example, Trump is a HUGE supporter of eminent domain laws broadening and broadening; he loves Kelo. If he were conservative in his principles he would never think that way, but his money compromises him.
Also, of course, having money doesn’t mean a person is honest. And it doesn’t mean he doesn’t want to make even more money, or to keep what he has. Nor does it mean there isn’t plenty of secrecy around him, as well as falsehood.
Again, I don’t have time to find it now, but Forbes keeps writing how Trump, although very rich (several billions) is not nearly as rich (or as liquid, I seem to recall) as he says he is. We don’t know what we don’t know, but I’m not inclined to assume he’s transparent in his dealings with people (or with the public) because he’s rich.
artfl – You’re playing their game, us v. them, and losing. It is a loser’s game. An artful dodger would avoid it.
Hi artfldgr!
I actually do recall a bit of relevant history on the odd occasion LOL. Kind of you to notice.
I also think it’s counter-intuitive to think that the monetary motivation of professional politicians might be somehow less relevant than their stated and historical record of policies that are for sell (by and large) to the highest bidder.
Bidders and bidding that is largely invisible to the electorate.
Inasmuch as I can’t – ever – seem to forget that career politicians are probably motivated as much by their self-interest as too many of the rest of us, I admit I find Trump’s transparency rather refreshing (and in such a blatantly self-indulgent and huckster-ish way that I’m surprised to find it charming, especially by contrast to what I’ve come to expect as the norm).
With the election of Obama, politics has been so (forgive me) transparently clownish …that I’m finding discussions based upon adherence to some-or-other political technocratic ideals, umm …tedious. Maybe five decades have finally left me jaded?
Frankly, I don’t believe any of ’em. Politicians, I mean.
I have also and relatively recently developed a deep distrust that the Donor class has any motivation or understanding at all of the importance and uniqueness of the American experiment, and the necessity of their insuring the strength and well-being of a healthy middle class (of which I’m on one of – and sinking fast – the lower rungs of membership thereof).
I also have a fairly good understanding of the importance of insuring the continued ascendancy of Western Civilization …and a distressing and increasing realization that the corollary of a failure of Western Civilization will be a true Dark Ages that may last a water monopoly-ish period of time.
…I’d prefer not to foist that upon our descendants.
I don’t think most of the current actors have any of that in mind.
I conjecture that Trump just might.
And with a better deliverables probability than any of the professional political class candidates.
At any rate, he seems less likely Lucy-ish than the usual suspects, and might resist the temptation to pull the damn football away at the last moment (with apologies to to Chas Schulz).
And at the very least, I like his campaign slogan.
Neo –
I think you are yet missing my point.
If somehow “money” uniquely informs and corrupts Trump (who has much of it, and probably doesn’t need more), wouldn’t that same “money” inform and corrupt to an even greater degree the career political class member (who has comparitive-to-Trump little of it, and – at the very least for purpose of their campaign – a corresponding need to have [much] more of it, let alone their self-interested desire for more)?
Where is the in-equivalency here coming from?
In our culture, aren’t we all influenced by money in a fashion?
It is one thing to disparagingly note that Trump has attempted to influence [in any way permissible] an “artificial” burden placed upon his business endeavors by a political class who have created a politically motivated bureaucracy to enforce those laws …and yet somehow not equally recognize nor acknowledge nor weight that in a capitalist society an attempt to influence those laws is somehow not an expected attribute at the rarified levels of business that Trump operates within.
It seems worse to me to suggest that bald-faced acknowledgement by Trump is somehow less moral (or less enlightened, or whatever) than the politician who wrote those restrictive and/or specifically punitive laws in the first place …a politician whom presumably did so for some misbegotten untenable and unworkable idealistic sophomoric Utopianism or – more likely – to line his own pockets through the machinations of whatever Donor class member was seeking to strengthen his business over Trump’s in the identical way (but which that District’s electorate might not have approved of had they known the actual and true reasons for).
This is the unfortunate reality of the corrupt crony-ism of the political and donor classes that cripples capitalism and individual freedom that the political class will never admit to, but are obviously immersed within (what elected “public servant” hasn’t left their tenure immeasurably and improbably enriched from their years playing this game I ask …they’re all bloody millionaires when they leave Washington).
In business, you play the hand you’re dealt. You may not like it, but it is your responsibility as a businessman to do business as it is, and not as you wish it was.
In Trump’s case, we can see and judge his motivations.
He has money. Good for him.
But the professional politician denies even the possibility that he may be in debt (and under obligation) to the Donor class? And this is “better” somehow?
I thoroughly understand why intelligent people don’t care for Trump (on lots of levels …however “charming” and refreshing I find his transparency to be: and I admit the more I think about it along these lines, the more forgiving I become of his conservative transgressions).
But an anti-Trump argument that includes forgiving the outright bold-faced lies of a politician of some or other past political transgression (re: Rubio and immigration) would seem to at least give a nod to considering it an obligation to forgive the same transgression in the guy out there hustling for his business interests.
MikeII,
If you revisit this old thread, Wretchard can be found here.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/
The article I was referring to this morning was this:
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/10/01/what-do-we-do-now/
Sorry, I can’t do w/o my daily Neo and Wretchard fixes, so I can forget not everyone has the same favorites in their browser. 🙂
Religions die all the time.
Most primitive tribes have a unique religion to go with themselves.
What makes a religion die is an event that occurs that totally impeaches the core of the creed.
For Shintoists (Imperial Japan) defeat was religiously deemed impossible — and occupation doubly impossible.
America pricked the bubble of belief. Shintoism died — while the Japanese endured the best years of their culture: 1946 to present.
Islam is perfectly capable of dying. When is dead, the ex-Muslims can recover their aspirations and get their forehead off the floor.
Nuking Mecca would not violate any core faith essential to Muslims.
Jewish occupation would.
Mohammed hated Jews — violently so. He has laced the Koran and his legacy with this hatred.
Muslims take the sanctity of Mecca — and the Ka’aba literally.
Jewish occupation would be the Muslim equivalent of “Allah is dead.”
It could not be explained around.
It’s a show stopper because of its emotional power.
And as a triumphalist creed, Islam would be flipped onto its back if it suffered such a shaming.
A simultaneous ejection of Muslims from the Second Temple and the Hagi Sophia by Jews and Christians, respectively, would be the hat trick.
Both occupations are triumphalist desecrations.
If Bush had taken this path, the entire jihad would be over — world wide.
As the record shows, when Muslim despots lose huge battles, the fall back is astounding.
When these centers are lost, the Muslims will free fall into reality.
Occupying all of these super shrines to barbarity is a doable thing — and wouldn’t even leave radioactivity.
It no longer matters who can be Hillary best. What matters is who can beat Uncle Joe best. Hillary’s toast.
And RickZ — are you gonna go out and pick vegetables for me? Because I like my vegetables and there ain’t no other Americans who will pick ’em. Not the poorest of the poor, not the unemployed, not those on welfare. It’s been tried. It doesn’t happen. You want to kick all illegals out? Fine. But you’re going to have to let a lot of them back in as braceros.
Richard – perhaps if there were better wages to pick the veggies, Americans would do it. If the price of food goes up because of it, then that’s the price we pay. I won’t support ongoing exploitation of illegals to keep our food cheap.
Neo – “Both Walker and Cruz are certainly male, and again, I’m sure their wives think they’re hot stuff, but handsome? Not on your life. Not even particularly attractive. ”
I happen to think they’re both cute, but we all have different tastes in men. I ADORE Cruz ‘cuz I like the way he thinks – the same way I feel about Sarah. Will I vote for Rubio if he’s the nominee? Of course. I can’t vote for a dem!
I have 2 single issues (yeah – that doesn’t make strict sense, but it works for me), and he meets both criteria. Is illegal immigration important? Yes, but it’s second tier, as is the economy. If everything is important, nothing is important, so one has to make decisions about what to focus on.
“Rubio reaffirms opposition to rape and incest exceptions: He backs abortion ban “irrespective of the circumstances”.”
“Although Rubio now boasts an “A” rating from the NRA, the Florida senator’s record on gun laws is inconsistent at best.”
I like Rubio as well. Cruz is my favorite but Rubio may play better to people for some reason. I mean, have more appeal. Cruz is brilliant and a very apt politician and has guts and consistency and will fight for what he believes. To be honest, he may be a bit socially conservative for the likes of me, since he did talk about an amendment against gay marriage. However, this is a long shot and probably just talk. It would also likely lose him a lot of support about an issue that is pretty much decided. Where I can get behind him is on religious liberty. At any event, I like him otherwise but Rubio is friendlier and not quite as oddly poised. Cruz does come off as a bit too calculating or polished, although he is also very adept and in control in a good way. Rubio is a bit more human, relaxed, approachable perhaps. Though I do like how Cruz is able to take on challengers like Code Pink at rallies and talk to them and basically disarm them.
Not sure about Carson though time will tell.
I also agree, obviously, that people can change their minds. I sure did!