Iowa Caucuses Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

I have my doubts about Rubio. Last two debates, to me, revealed a person I don't really like. At all.

Not that you're required to defend that stance, at all... but more out of curiosity: What did he say that rubbed you the wrong way?

 

[T.Lex]

Not that you're required to defend that stance, at all... but more out of curiosity: What did he say that rubbed you the wrong way?

Indeed, I am curious, too. Jamil, while we don't always agree, you always seem rational. (No offense intended.)

 

[jamil]

It's an intuition supported by red flags. He strikes me as angry. Not that he IS angry about anything; obvious he's trying to act angry. All the time. Except when he tries to invoke Jesus.

His Jesus shtick seemed staged like he was looking for a place to fit it in and that seemed good as any to him. Not that I care if he's religious or not but pandering that obvious is just another flag. I'll bet he doesn't do the Jesus bit in NH.

His defense of his record on amnesty seemed disingenuous.

His tirade on Snowden was concerning. I don't see Snowden as a hero but I do see him as a whistle blower. Rubio called Snowden a traitor. The government was doing what Snowden said they were. The government was lying about it. And what they were doing wasn't legal.

The use of similar language as the fat-ass pussbag in how he'll [STRIKE]ignore the constitution[/STRIKE] do anything to keep America safe is a big problem for me.

I can go on. Just red flag after red flag went up over the last two debates. He just seemed to reveal himself as the little boy who wants to be king. I'll vote for the little ******* if he gets the nomination, but I'll have to find a stiff clothespin for my nose.

 

[printcraft]

True. Panderers are the first ones to dump you. Stand on your own convictions and merits.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have my doubts about Rubio. Last two debates, to me, revealed a person I don't really like. At all.

Hmmm...yeah, I didn't get that. Now, I do believe, firmly, that if he were to get elected president, there will be several times during his administration for WTF moments. But I believe he is a decent guy.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's an intuition supported by red flags. He strikes me as angry. Not that he IS angry about anything; obvious he's trying to act angry. All the time. Except when he tries to invoke Jesus.

His Jesus shtick seemed staged like he was looking for a place to fit it in and that seemed good as any to him. Not that I care if he's religious or not but pandering that obvious is just another flag. I'll bet he doesn't do the Jesus bit in NH.

His defense of his record on amnesty seemed disingenuous.

His tirade on Snowden was concerning. I don't see Snowden as a hero but I do see him as a whistle blower. Rubio called Snowden a traitor. The government was doing what Snowden said they were. The government was lying about it. And what they were doing wasn't legal.

The use of similar language as the fat-ass pussbag in how he'll [STRIKE]ignore the constitution[/STRIKE] do anything to keep America safe is a big problem for me.

I can go on. Just red flag after red flag went up over the last two debates. He just seemed to reveal himself as the little boy who wants to be king. I'll vote for the little ******* if he gets the nomination, but I'll have to find a stiff clothespin for my nose.

Those are all fair enough critiques, many of them I share. But he can be wrong on policy and still be a decent person -- which is all I was saying. As much as I disagreed with GW Bush, there's little doubt in my mind he is a decent human being. I'll contrast this by pointing to Hillary, Barak Obama, and even Bill Clinton. That bunch I do not think are decent human beings and I would not want to be in business with any of them.

 

[jamil]

Those are all fair enough critiques, many of them I share. But he can be wrong on policy and still be a decent person -- which is all I was saying. As much as I disagreed with GW Bush, there's little doubt in my mind he is a decent human being. I'll contrast this by pointing to Hillary, Barak Obama, and even Bill Clinton. That bunch I do not think are decent human beings and I would not want to be in business with any of them.

I'm not all that impressed with Rubio's character, but I will agree that he's better than what the Democrats are running with.

 

[Alpo]

Hopefully, you'll never be allowed to sit on a jury.

 

[T.Lex]

Hopefully, you'll never be allowed to sit on a jury.

Hey - that's my line.

 

[KLB]

His tirade on Snowden was concerning. I don't see Snowden as a hero but I do see him as a whistle blower. Rubio called Snowden a traitor. The government was doing what Snowden said they were. The government was lying about it. And what they were doing wasn't legal.

The use of similar language as the fat-ass pussbag in how he'll [STRIKE]ignore the constitution[/STRIKE] do anything to keep America safe is a big problem for me.

His stance on the .gov spying on us has me very concerned. He seems to think that the .gov should watch everything all the time.

This sums it up NationalJournal

 

[KG1]

Did you really just ask why political parties would move towards where the available voters are?

Well I guess you feel the republicans need to water down their principles and the dems get to just keep arguing about who doesn't have enough liberal cred like Sanders and Clinton are in this midst of doing right now. The dems idea of "the center" is really left of center. It's not enough just to come toward the middle but they want you to take a left when you get to the intersection.

And I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand the frustration felt by many in the republican party whom are sick and tired of politicians that feel the need to chuck their core party principles to become the JV democrat team while the Varsity dem team does a full court press with the country to the left.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not all that impressed with Rubio's character, but I will agree that he's better than what the Democrats are running with.

His character or his position on the issues? I'm trying to understand if I'm missing something that I should be considering. While a person can be dead wrong on any given issue, in my mind, that does not necessarily mean they're of poor character. Having said that, his misrepresenting his position on immigration and him trying to misrepresent Cruz's is concerning. But other than that, I guess I haven't been perceptive enough.

 

[Tombs]

His stance on the .gov spying on us has me very concerned. He seems to think that the .gov should watch everything all the time.

This sums it up NationalJournal

Ben Garrison got things right on the first debate...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Remember That Time The Cruz Campaign Said Carson Was Done And He Went Ballistic? Well, He's Done. | Daily Wire

It's all but over for Ben. Unless lightening strikes and he happens to be there with a bottle to catch it, all of this hullabaloo was just a foreshadowing of a campaign that just doesn't want to admit it's about dead.

 

[jamil]

Hopefully, you'll never be allowed to sit on a jury.

Actually I have sat on a jury. When I was on the jury, I mostly had to decide if the prosecution met the burden of proof, which was a fairly matter-of-fact kinda process.

That's a completely different process from assessing the character of someone who wants to be president, which is almost purely subjective. If you want to tell me that you disagree with my conclusions, or that my point of view is uncommon, okay, fine. You can even talk about why you disagree. We might both learn something from that discussion. But no. Instead you sit there using the criteria that because I view someone significantly differently from you that it somehow impugns my character.

I'm an individualist. It seems you view the world more from a collectivist point of view. Don't be surprised that we view the world and judge people using different criteria. I'm not going to question your character for disagreeing with me about a subjective matter, but I will question your character when you say stupid **** like that.

Hey - that's my line.

Well, not here it's not.

 

[jamil]

His character or his position on the issues? I'm trying to understand if I'm missing something that I should be considering. While a person can be dead wrong on any given issue, in my mind, that does not necessarily mean they're of poor character. Having said that, his misrepresenting his position on immigration and him trying to misrepresent Cruz's is concerning. But other than that, I guess I haven't been perceptive enough.

It's not that Rubio's character is all that much worse than some others. I am buying the clothespin, after all. I think he hasn't shown himself to be all that honest or straightforward. Don't get me wrong, he's a really smart guy, and scary politically aware. If he's not president this go 'round, he will be someday. I during the last couple of debates and I see things in him that I've seen in other people that just seems to betray him as not genuine.

Saying that stuff about Rubio seems to **** off some moderates, but I don't consider having the same viewpoints as everyone else as a thing to be sought.

 

[Lowe0]

Well I guess you feel the republicans need to water down their principles and the dems get to just keep arguing about who doesn't have enough liberal cred like Sanders and Clinton are in this midst of doing right now. The dems idea of "the center" is really left of center. It's not enough just to come toward the middle but they want you to take a left when you get to the intersection.

And I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand the frustration felt by many in the republican party whom are sick and tired of politicians that feel the need to chuck their core party principles to become the JV democrat team while the Varsity dem team does a full court press with the country to the left.

What I want is a conservative party that stops wasting resources on a war it's demographically guaranteed to lose, and takes up the mantle of responsibility as a watchdog, casting a skeptical eye on every dollar spent, every warrant granted, and every boot on foreign soil. Instead, all they have to offer are looters, claiming the government as a spoil of war for their religion, to be wielded against whoever their clergy deems a little bit icky.

 

[Tombs]

What I want is a conservative party that stops wasting resources on a war it's demographically guaranteed to lose, and takes up the mantle of responsibility as a watchdog, casting a skeptical eye on every dollar spent, every warrant granted, and every boot on foreign soil. Instead, all they have to offer are looters, claiming the government as a spoil of war for their religion, to be wielded against whoever their clergy deems a little bit icky.

That's called libertarians. But now because of propaganda, the media has made the idiotic masses think it's a bad word.

Because apparently if you're a libertarian but you're not extreme, you're not a libertarian but just an idiot. Funny how conservatives who aren't warhawks aren't treated equally.

 

[jamil]

What I want is a conservative party that stops wasting resources on a war it's demographically guaranteed to lose, and takes up the mantle of responsibility as a watchdog, casting a skeptical eye on every dollar spent, every warrant granted, and every boot on foreign soil. Instead, all they have to offer are looters, claiming the government as a spoil of war for their religion, to be wielded against whoever their clergy deems a little bit icky.

That's not untrue but you believe that the dems are better on ANY of those points.

 

[Alpo]

That's a completely different process from assessing the character of someone who wants to be president, which is almost purely subjective. If you want to tell me that you disagree with my conclusions, or that my point of view is uncommon, okay, fine. You can even talk about why you disagree. We might both learn something from that discussion. But no. Instead you sit there using the criteria that because I view someone significantly differently from you that it somehow impugns my character.

I'm an individualist. It seems you view the world more from a collectivist point of view. Don't be surprised that we view the world and judge people using different criteria. I'm not going to question your character for disagreeing with me about a subjective matter, but I will question your character when you say stupid **** like that.



Well, not here it's not.

And yet someone is willing to call Christie a "fatass pussbag" with some regularity and believe that is the moral high ground? Methinks not.