A Few Comments about Cruz and Rubio

[Boss]

This is all true, but the reality is that the Neo-liberals can only be destroyed from the left.

Cruz cannot win because no matter what he does because Neo-liberals in the media and the government will lie about what he does or what he did, use those accumulated lies to throw him out of him office and use the changing demographics to permanently keep Republicans out. Trump can win because he agrees or partially agrees with the left on everything they claim matters while also agreeing with the right and alt-right on pretty much everything they absolutely need him to.
Trump is both locking the left in place(so much for time magazine banning the term "illegal immigrant", now the media uses the term "illegal alien" with impunity, just like they used to do during the Bush administration and before)and keeping the right on message with their strongest issues(immigration, military and gun rights). The only way to destroy "progressivism" is locking them in place and then destroying the paths that they will use to further their agenda before they use them, a humble Christian Libertarian type cannot do that, it has to be a leftist.

I've contemplated something along these lines recently as well. I think one of Trump's main appeals is that he doesn't appear to be an ideologue. He's not exactly left, not exactly right, not exactly libertarian, not exactly liberal or conservative. His positions and views sometimes seem dynamic and change back and forth. One sentence he is for individual mandates and the next sentence he is for free market solutions from the private sector. He's really a mixed bag and I think this appeals to a lot of people.

I think today's Conservatives are unfairly tainted by the actions of the Republican elite. Whenever we talk about lowering the debt and cutting spending, we're reminded of how Bush exploded the debt and increased spending. When we talk about the need for a strong national defense we're reminded of Iraq. So we really can't make an effective argument because we are too closely tied to the establishment and we're labeled extremists... "far right" extremists, to be exact.

It doesn't matter that true Conservatives have not been in charge of policies from the top since the days of Reagan and even then, often were forced to moderate due to a majority Democrat congress. They are part of the Republican party so they are tied to the Republican party. Therefore, perhaps the approach of trying to get a true Conservative elected is just never going to work and the only way we can ever get there is to first elect someone who can clean the slate... clear the table... do away with the partisan polarization. Perhaps that is Trump?

The problem I have with this is... whenever Trump wins and whatever Trump does, will be labeled as "Conservative" and "Republican" by the left and Democrats. It may not clean the slate or clear the table at all, it may in fact exacerbate the situation even more. And maybe we're just all completely wrong about this and there's no way to prevent the nation from going over the cliff into full-blown Socialism because that's just where we are as a nation? We're collectively too stupid to realize our mistake and no one can save us from ourselves? Like every great nation that ever existed, maybe our time has come and gone and the sun is setting? We're going to have to endure the dismal hardships and despair for a century or more until the people again rise up and form a "more perfect union" to replace what we've built. I guess, time will tell?

 

[Bassman007]

Just some thoughts to share.

Ted Cruz
I'm a Texan, and Cruz is our senator. He is a true fighter for conservative values, or more precisely, "very conservative values", no doubt about that. He promised that he would fight against Obama, and so he did, fiercely. Nowadays few politicians keep their promises to that extent. If you are a very conservative voter, Cruz has a proven record of being a loyal conservative -- something you may highly value.

The downside, however, is that the man stands for "very conservative values". Not everybody support all of them (certainly not me). To make the matter "worse", he has proven that he does not bother to negotiate (reasonably and effectively) with the left, or anyone who do not share his extreme conservative values. That worries a lot of people who are relatively moderate. The concern is that while he fights for his very conservative values with strong resolution, little can be achieved under our bipartisan government. After all, this is a country with highly diversified views, and he is a candidate who seems to care about only the (extreme) conservatives.

Another problem in my opinion is the lies and frauds from himself and his campaigns. Every politician lies, and lying on a few issues is probably fine. However, some dirty tricks are just disgusting. For me, the bottom line is that you (or your campaign) cannot fool voters for their votes directly. The scams about Carson, and the voter violation fraud obviously crossed that line. Also, Cruz fired his communication director for putting on a false video on Rubio recently. To me, these form a pattern of "dishonesty" unparalleled among all campaigns.

Note that an avid Cruz supporter on the forum (BOSS) argued that those dirty tricks were not from Cruz himself, and that Cruz had zero control over what his PACs did, therefore he should not be blamed. I will leave the readers of the thread to decide whether Cruz should be held responsible.

Marco Rubio
He was my favorite candidate before Trump jumped in. He is young and energetic, with a pretty good resume and an inspiring life story. He is much quicker and smarter than Jeb (which is, in my opinion, totally incompetent), and he has a good memory. Also, he is more moderate and open minded compared to Cruz, something appealing to an independent like myself.

What concerns me most about Rubio is his "unusual reaction" against pressure. He sweats like a nervous kid, recites well-prepared debate responses like a robot, and melted down in an inexcusable way against Christie. All of these are clearly signs of weakness. To me, this is much worse than disagreement on certain political positions, and it cannot be corrected in a short period of time. I do not think that someone who failed to stand the pressure of a TV debate can be trusted as the president of the United States. If he can be destroyed by Christie in a Republican debate, what can I expect of him going against leaders such as Putin or Xi? Can I count on him to fight for the American people's best interest against pressure from the Congress and other countries around the world? Rubio might become a successful leader given more time, but now he just doesn't seem ready for the job.

I'd be happy to learn more about your opinions on these two candidates (why do you like/dislike them). However, please refrain yourselves from personal attacks -- we've had enough on TV!

Who the hell are Cruz and Rubio????????????????????

 

[Iceweasel]

This is all true, but the reality is that the Neo-liberals can only be destroyed from the left.

Cruz cannot win because no matter what he does because Neo-liberals in the media and the government will lie about what he does or what he did, use those accumulated lies to throw him out of him office and use the changing demographics to permanently keep Republicans out. Trump can win because he agrees or partially agrees with the left on everything they claim matters while also agreeing with the right and alt-right on pretty much everything they absolutely need him to.
Trump is both locking the left in place(so much for time magazine banning the term "illegal immigrant", now the media uses the term "illegal alien" with impunity, just like they used to do during the Bush administration and before)and keeping the right on message with their strongest issues(immigration, military and gun rights). The only way to destroy "progressivism" is locking them in place and then destroying the paths that they will use to further their agenda before they use them, a humble Christian Libertarian type cannot do that, it has to be a leftist.

I've contemplated something along these lines recently as well. I think one of Trump's main appeals is that he doesn't appear to be an ideologue. He's not exactly left, not exactly right, not exactly libertarian, not exactly liberal or conservative. His positions and views sometimes seem dynamic and change back and forth. One sentence he is for individual mandates and the next sentence he is for free market solutions from the private sector. He's really a mixed bag and I think this appeals to a lot of people.

I think today's Conservatives are unfairly tainted by the actions of the Republican elite. Whenever we talk about lowering the debt and cutting spending, we're reminded of how Bush exploded the debt and increased spending. When we talk about the need for a strong national defense we're reminded of Iraq. So we really can't make an effective argument because we are too closely tied to the establishment and we're labeled extremists... "far right" extremists, to be exact.

It doesn't matter that true Conservatives have not been in charge of policies from the top since the days of Reagan and even then, often were forced to moderate due to a majority Democrat congress. They are part of the Republican party so they are tied to the Republican party. Therefore, perhaps the approach of trying to get a true Conservative elected is just never going to work and the only way we can ever get there is to first elect someone who can clean the slate... clear the table... do away with the partisan polarization. Perhaps that is Trump?

The problem I have with this is... whenever Trump wins and whatever Trump does, will be labeled as "Conservative" and "Republican" by the left and Democrats. It may not clean the slate or clear the table at all, it may in fact exacerbate the situation even more. And maybe we're just all completely wrong about this and there's no way to prevent the nation from going over the cliff into full-blown Socialism because that's just where we are as a nation? We're collectively too stupid to realize our mistake and no one can save us from ourselves? Like every great nation that ever existed, maybe our time has come and gone and the sun is setting? We're going to have to endure the dismal hardships and despair for a century or more until the people again rise up and form a "more perfect union" to replace what we've built. I guess, time will tell?

conservatives will know if Trump is conservative. The left wing won't or won't care and will label things that they think helps them the most. Look at Bush, hardly a right winger on most stuff but the right gets blamed for whatever went wrong.

 

[ptbw forever]

This is all true, but the reality is that the Neo-liberals can only be destroyed from the left.

Cruz cannot win because no matter what he does because Neo-liberals in the media and the government will lie about what he does or what he did, use those accumulated lies to throw him out of him office and use the changing demographics to permanently keep Republicans out. Trump can win because he agrees or partially agrees with the left on everything they claim matters while also agreeing with the right and alt-right on pretty much everything they absolutely need him to.
Trump is both locking the left in place(so much for time magazine banning the term "illegal immigrant", now the media uses the term "illegal alien" with impunity, just like they used to do during the Bush administration and before)and keeping the right on message with their strongest issues(immigration, military and gun rights). The only way to destroy "progressivism" is locking them in place and then destroying the paths that they will use to further their agenda before they use them, a humble Christian Libertarian type cannot do that, it has to be a leftist.

I've contemplated something along these lines recently as well. I think one of Trump's main appeals is that he doesn't appear to be an ideologue. He's not exactly left, not exactly right, not exactly libertarian, not exactly liberal or conservative. His positions and views sometimes seem dynamic and change back and forth. One sentence he is for individual mandates and the next sentence he is for free market solutions from the private sector. He's really a mixed bag and I think this appeals to a lot of people.

I think today's Conservatives are unfairly tainted by the actions of the Republican elite. Whenever we talk about lowering the debt and cutting spending, we're reminded of how Bush exploded the debt and increased spending. When we talk about the need for a strong national defense we're reminded of Iraq. So we really can't make an effective argument because we are too closely tied to the establishment and we're labeled extremists... "far right" extremists, to be exact.

It doesn't matter that true Conservatives have not been in charge of policies from the top since the days of Reagan and even then, often were forced to moderate due to a majority Democrat congress. They are part of the Republican party so they are tied to the Republican party. Therefore, perhaps the approach of trying to get a true Conservative elected is just never going to work and the only way we can ever get there is to first elect someone who can clean the slate... clear the table... do away with the partisan polarization. Perhaps that is Trump?

The problem I have with this is... whenever Trump wins and whatever Trump does, will be labeled as "Conservative" and "Republican" by the left and Democrats. It may not clean the slate or clear the table at all, it may in fact exacerbate the situation even more. And maybe we're just all completely wrong about this and there's no way to prevent the nation from going over the cliff into full-blown Socialism because that's just where we are as a nation? We're collectively too stupid to realize our mistake and no one can save us from ourselves? Like every great nation that ever existed, maybe our time has come and gone and the sun is setting? We're going to have to endure the dismal hardships and despair for a century or more until the people again rise up and form a "more perfect union" to replace what we've built. I guess, time will tell?

It is all because of the racist racialized political spectrum that Democrats created and Republicans ignored(which Trump is damaging right now in a number of ways). There are very very few actual left wing non-whites who are in favor of gay rights, abortion, environmental regulations etc, so by the standards of the Democratic Party these people(who make up a massive chunk of Democrat voters)should be right wingers and not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as only white people who are religious, own guns, want limits on immigration etc. are considered "right wing", then all Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have to do to label someone "conservative" is point out a white person who fits one or more those descriptions. Republicans must become an unapologetically pro-white, civic nationalist party if it wants to survive even another decade, this will do tremendous damage to the "progressive" agenda because then the Republicans would have tons of social justice issues to use to flip the script and turn "progressivism" on its head.

When it really comes down to it, "far right" is nothing but a racial slur for uppity white people who won't lay down and die.

 

[Boss]

It is all because of the racist racialized political spectrum that Democrats created and Republicans ignored(which Trump is damaging right now in a number of ways). There are very very few actual left wing non-whites who are in favor of gay rights, abortion, environmental regulations etc, so by the standards of the Democratic Party these people(who make up a massive chunk of Democrat voters)should be right wingers and not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as only white people who are religious, own guns, want limits on immigration etc. are considered "right wing", then all Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have to do to label someone "conservative" is point out a white person who fits one or more those descriptions. Republicans must become an unapologetically pro-white, civic nationalist party if it wants to survive even another decade, this will do tremendous damage to the "progressive" agenda because then the Republicans would have tons of social justice issues to use to flip the script and turn "progressivism" on its head.

When it really comes down to it, "far right" is nothing but a racial slur for uppity white people who won't lay down and die.

I disagree with the racial aspects you make here. Yes, the left and democrats play the race card for all it's worth but the conservative right is far from "pro-white" when 3 of the top 5 candidates for president are not white. I think Conservatives have to stick to the message... it's not about your race. We want EVERY American to have liberty and opportunity. We're not going to exploit you in order to advance our agenda and retain political power, we are going to empower you as an individual, regardless of race.

 

[ptbw forever]

It is all because of the racist racialized political spectrum that Democrats created and Republicans ignored(which Trump is damaging right now in a number of ways). There are very very few actual left wing non-whites who are in favor of gay rights, abortion, environmental regulations etc, so by the standards of the Democratic Party these people(who make up a massive chunk of Democrat voters)should be right wingers and not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as only white people who are religious, own guns, want limits on immigration etc. are considered "right wing", then all Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have to do to label someone "conservative" is point out a white person who fits one or more those descriptions. Republicans must become an unapologetically pro-white, civic nationalist party if it wants to survive even another decade, this will do tremendous damage to the "progressive" agenda because then the Republicans would have tons of social justice issues to use to flip the script and turn "progressivism" on its head.

When it really comes down to it, "far right" is nothing but a racial slur for uppity white people who won't lay down and die.

I disagree with the racial aspects you make here. Yes, the left and democrats play the race card for all it's worth but the conservative right is far from "pro-white" when 3 of the top 5 candidates for president are not white. I think Conservatives have to stick to the message... it's not about your race. We want EVERY American to have liberty and opportunity. We're not going to exploit you in order to advance our agenda and retain political power, we are going to empower you as an individual, regardless of race.

That message only works with whites and "whitewashed" non-whites, it has failed for over 40 years with everyone else because they have their own agenda. The real right wing non-whites will always vote Democrat, along with pretty much all the spectrum of non-whites because white liberals are naive and weak and the masochistic nature of white liberalism even allows non-whites to influence right wing white people through the direct power of the Democrat party.

I also did not say Republicans were pro-white, I said they have to become pro-white. The only hope Republicans have is to turn white areas everywhere into Republican areas. Republicans must turn the Northwest, Midwest and Northeast as red or more red than the South(which will eventually be all Democrat). The only way to turn liberal white areas into Republican areas is for Republicans to embrace a strongly pro-white platform and turn that into a human rights issue which draws strongly humanitarian-minded whites to the party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

I don't consider "on the far right" to be a problem. I've been hearing this "we need a mushy moderate!" schtick every single election for decades now, and it always turns out that conservative does better at the ballot box.

We already have a party that represents liberals. We don't require a second one to be Liberal Lite.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Supporters are really fundamentally similar to their candidate (or the candidate as in their mind)! This is amazing!
Fortunately for you, I don't have Mr. Trump's "not-so-nice" temperament, so I will just point out that I'm not "weak-minded".

You also didn't answer my fucking questions! ...Just pointing THAT out!

Seriously, here's my suggestion, if you have time, join the Cruz campaign (maybe a volunteer?) or do something really effective for your candidate. I'm afraid you don't have much time to do it though. Persuading people on a forum is really inefficient. What you can do here is to understand how others think and why they think so (obviously there are a lot of people with different ideas here)... Believe me, even a face to face conversation with a neighbor is much more effective. g.n.

Well thanks for your advice but no amount of me supporting my candidate is going to change the sheep mentality of most Americans who are simply going to believe the narrative that "Cruz is a liar." It's being shouted by Trump, Rubio, their supporters, the media, the establishment and even the so-called "independents" such as yourself. Even though you can't give a single example of something the man has deliberately lied about. All you can do is twist and distort things into "lies" like some left-wing moron from MoveOn.org, and parade around with that baseless allegation 24/7.

So... Once again, the true CONSERVATIVE in the race is demonized and smeared by all the assorted elements who aren't interested in a smaller limited government that adheres to the founding principles. And like I've said in another thread... perhaps us constitutional originalists are wrong? Maybe our America is gone forever and we're simply destined to become some form of a Socialist nation whether we like it or not? Maybe we should just hang it up and forget ever returning to the principles and foundation set by the framers and just embrace this idiotic idea of Socialist Utopia? If there aren't enough people with the sense to stand up and fight for it, what are we to do?

Just a few words: have faith and be hopeful... It may look bad sometimes, but it will be fine...

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

By the way... If you will simply highlight the text from any post, you will get a little box that says "+quote/reply" The "+quote" is used to copy one of several quotes you plan to use, the "reply" copies that highlighted text into a quote box automatically. No need to use colors to highlight quotes.

Sure, I used it before. Thank you for the suggestion, but I like using different color for other people. Call it personalization

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

 

[ptbw forever]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

I don't consider "on the far right" to be a problem. I've been hearing this "we need a mushy moderate!" schtick every single election for decades now, and it always turns out that conservative does better at the ballot box.

We already have a party that represents liberals. We don't require a second one to be Liberal Lite.

The "far right" is nothing more than a straw man created to push uppity white people into a corner to ostracize them into oblivion. The most radical right wingers actually vote Democrat.

 

[Votto]

Just some thoughts to share.

Ted Cruz
I'm a Texan, and Cruz is our senator. He is a true fighter for conservative values, or more precisely, "very conservative values", no doubt about that. He promised that he would fight against Obama, and so he did, fiercely. Nowadays few politicians keep their promises to that extent. If you are a very conservative voter, Cruz has a proven record of being a loyal conservative -- something you may highly value.

The downside, however, is that the man stands for "very conservative values". Not everybody support all of them (certainly not me). To make the matter "worse", he has proven that he does not bother to negotiate (reasonably and effectively) with the left, or anyone who do not share his extreme conservative values. That worries a lot of people who are relatively moderate. The concern is that while he fights for his very conservative values with strong resolution, little can be achieved under our bipartisan government. After all, this is a country with highly diversified views, and he is a candidate who seems to care about only the (extreme) conservatives.

Another problem in my opinion is the lies and frauds from himself and his campaigns. Every politician lies, and lying on a few issues is probably fine. However, some dirty tricks are just disgusting. For me, the bottom line is that you (or your campaign) cannot fool voters for their votes directly. The scams about Carson, and the voter violation fraud obviously crossed that line. Also, Cruz fired his communication director for putting on a false video on Rubio recently. To me, these form a pattern of "dishonesty" unparalleled among all campaigns.

Note that an avid Cruz supporter on the forum (BOSS) argued that those dirty tricks were not from Cruz himself, and that Cruz had zero control over what his PACs did, therefore he should not be blamed. I will leave the readers of the thread to decide whether Cruz should be held responsible.

Marco Rubio
He was my favorite candidate before Trump jumped in. He is young and energetic, with a pretty good resume and an inspiring life story. He is much quicker and smarter than Jeb (which is, in my opinion, totally incompetent), and he has a good memory. Also, he is more moderate and open minded compared to Cruz, something appealing to an independent like myself.

What concerns me most about Rubio is his "unusual reaction" against pressure. He sweats like a nervous kid, recites well-prepared debate responses like a robot, and melted down in an inexcusable way against Christie. All of these are clearly signs of weakness. To me, this is much worse than disagreement on certain political positions, and it cannot be corrected in a short period of time. I do not think that someone who failed to stand the pressure of a TV debate can be trusted as the president of the United States. If he can be destroyed by Christie in a Republican debate, what can I expect of him going against leaders such as Putin or Xi? Can I count on him to fight for the American people's best interest against pressure from the Congress and other countries around the world? Rubio might become a successful leader given more time, but now he just doesn't seem ready for the job.

I'd be happy to learn more about your opinions on these two candidates (why do you like/dislike them). However, please refrain yourselves from personal attacks -- we've had enough on TV!

All you have to know about those two are, Rubio sweats like a hog and Cruz has a duck face!

 

[Cecilie1200]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

What concerns me most about Rubio is his "unusual reaction" against pressure. He sweats like a nervous kid, recites well-prepared debate responses like a robot, and melted down in an inexcusable way against Christie. All of these are clearly signs of weakness. To me, this is much worse than disagreement on certain political positions, and it cannot be corrected in a short period of time. I do not think that someone who failed to stand the pressure of a TV debate can be trusted as the president of the United States. If he can be destroyed by Christie in a Republican debate, what can I expect of him going against leaders such as Putin or Xi? Can I count on him to fight for the American people's best interest against pressure from the Congress and other countries around the world? Rubio might become a successful leader given more time, but now he just doesn't seem ready for the job.

Holy fuck.
You take a snippet out of someone's life, greatly exaggerated at that, and proceed to tar and feather them for it. Rubio did well except for those 4 too many times of repeating the line that got replayed thousands of times. He has a more conservative voting record that Reagan. Hillary has baggage the size of Mt. Everest, to me that matters much more.

People like you put more value on presentation and appearance, even though Rubio does very well almost always, people like you will choose to focus on the few times he didn't. Which candidate has performed flawlessly for the camera? None that I know of.

Those are NOT tiny little thing you can ignore. If he did it in a debate right before the general election, it would be a game changing event (yes, the MSM WILL slaughter him just like before)... Exaggeration? I don't think so! I don't count on you to be objective about the candidate you support, but the point has to be made clear. He has obvious weakness in personality, and it can and will be exploited by his opponents.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

Certainly there is this "true meaning" for the constitution, but who speaks for that "true meaning"? You? Me? Cruz? Sanders? Everybody can claim that he speaks for the constitution and that he interprets it in the most objective way in the world. The problem is, when different interpretations are backed by large group of people, you have to go through very complicated processes to prove which one is correct. Just claiming that you are right isn't going to do a damn thing.
Therefore, claiming that someone defends the true meaning of the Constitution is hardly a convincing argument that can bring people on board, although it makes those who are already on board feel better. Lastly, in case you fail to notice, the game is all about bringing people on board. That's the point!

 

[Cecilie1200]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

Certainly there is this "true meaning" for the constitution, but who speaks for that "true meaning"? You? Me? Cruz? Sanders? Everybody can claim that he speaks for the constitution and that he interprets it in the most objective way in the world. The problem is, when different interpretations are backed by large group of people, you have to go through very complicated processes to prove which one is correct. Just claiming that you are right isn't going to do a damn thing.
Therefore, claiming that someone defends the true meaning of the Constitution is hardly a convincing argument that can bring people on board, although it makes those who are already on board feel better. Lastly, in case you fail to notice, the game is all about bringing people on board. That's the point!

You act like the meaning and purpose of the provisions of the Constitution is some mysterious set of heiroglyphics, requiring a Rosetta Stone to decipher. It's ENGLISH, and the people who wrote it left extensive records of what their intentions were. This isn't rocket magic.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

I don't consider "on the far right" to be a problem. I've been hearing this "we need a mushy moderate!" schtick every single election for decades now, and it always turns out that conservative does better at the ballot box.

We already have a party that represents liberals. We don't require a second one to be Liberal Lite.

The "far right" is nothing more than a straw man created to push uppity white people into a corner to ostracize them into oblivion. The most radical right wingers actually vote Democrat.

Spoken like a true Trumpette.

 

[Boss]

It is all because of the racist racialized political spectrum that Democrats created and Republicans ignored(which Trump is damaging right now in a number of ways). There are very very few actual left wing non-whites who are in favor of gay rights, abortion, environmental regulations etc, so by the standards of the Democratic Party these people(who make up a massive chunk of Democrat voters)should be right wingers and not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as only white people who are religious, own guns, want limits on immigration etc. are considered "right wing", then all Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have to do to label someone "conservative" is point out a white person who fits one or more those descriptions. Republicans must become an unapologetically pro-white, civic nationalist party if it wants to survive even another decade, this will do tremendous damage to the "progressive" agenda because then the Republicans would have tons of social justice issues to use to flip the script and turn "progressivism" on its head.

When it really comes down to it, "far right" is nothing but a racial slur for uppity white people who won't lay down and die.

I disagree with the racial aspects you make here. Yes, the left and democrats play the race card for all it's worth but the conservative right is far from "pro-white" when 3 of the top 5 candidates for president are not white. I think Conservatives have to stick to the message... it's not about your race. We want EVERY American to have liberty and opportunity. We're not going to exploit you in order to advance our agenda and retain political power, we are going to empower you as an individual, regardless of race.

That message only works with whites and "whitewashed" non-whites, it has failed for over 40 years with everyone else because they have their own agenda. The real right wing non-whites will always vote Democrat, along with pretty much all the spectrum of non-whites because white liberals are naive and weak and the masochistic nature of white liberalism even allows non-whites to influence right wing white people through the direct power of the Democrat party.

I also did not say Republicans were pro-white, I said they have to become pro-white. The only hope Republicans have is to turn white areas everywhere into Republican areas. Republicans must turn the Northwest, Midwest and Northeast as red or more red than the South(which will eventually be all Democrat). The only way to turn liberal white areas into Republican areas is for Republicans to embrace a strongly pro-white platform and turn that into a human rights issue which draws strongly humanitarian-minded whites to the party.

Well I reject basically everything you are saying here, that's all I can say. A high majority of minorities vote Democrat because Democrats pander to them with special programs and handouts. But while they get an extra $40 on their AFDC check, some rich liberal crony gets a billion-dollar tax break, others get their taxes increased and the cost of living increase trumps any morsel they handed out to the minority. Rich liberals continue to get richer while the minorities supporting them continue to be shackled to the welfare plantation... it's been going on for over 75 years.

What we have to do is break this mentality of racism where society segregates people based on their skin color and instead, recognizes the individual for who they are and what they bring to the table. It shouldn't matter what color you are... so why does it? Why do minorities continue to let themselves be subjugated by a party that simply doesn't give a rat's ass about them and will use them by exploiting their race to stay in power and advance the agenda of rich white liberals? You'd think 76 years of struggle would be an indicator their plans aren't beneficial.

I don't think you get ANYWHERE by trying to turn the Republican party into the KKK. That is just pure ignorance and I reject that with every fiber of my being and in no uncertain terms. It is certainly NOT what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about under any circumstance.

 

[Boss]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

I think that liberal activists have been twisting and distorting the original intents of the Constitution for decades. The meaning SHOULD be clear... it's explained verbatim in the Federalist Papers. The role of the SCOTUS should be to review the writings of our framers and make rulings based on their original intentions, but they don't... they try to finagle new meanings and interpretations by twisting and distorting context or completely ignoring any original intent. It should never be up to the court to "interpret" the Constitution... they should interpret whether the case conforms or doesn't conform to the original intentions of the framers.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

I think that liberal activists have been twisting and distorting the original intents of the Constitution for decades. The meaning SHOULD be clear... it's explained verbatim in the Federalist Papers. The role of the SCOTUS should be to review the writings of our framers and make rulings based on their original intentions, but they don't... they try to finagle new meanings and interpretations by twisting and distorting context or completely ignoring any original intent. It should ever be up to the court to "interpret" the Constitution... they should interpret whether the case conforms or doesn't conform to the original intentions of the framers.

That's what Justice Scalia tried to do, but unfortunately not everyone in the SCOTUS shares his views, not to mention the general public.
The point is, I learned clearly from reality that when you say a candidate represents the values in the Constitution, his supporters will be happy about it while others tend to ignore it or treat the argument like you-know-what...