• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rubio tells donors he is running for White House

I feel the same about Rubio in that if there was any dirt on him, it would have come out by now. Walker is a good candidate and his executive experience is a plus. Personally, I think there are a number of fine candidates that would make a very good president.

I wish Kasich would toss his hat in.

I also like Senator John Thune. He was in my top 3 for Veep picks for McCain in 2008.
 
Is South Carolina my neck of the woods? I'm in Washington DC. South Carolina is about as much "my neck of the woods" as Indianapolis.

And yeah, wasn't a fan of Bush either. And hey, yet another comparison of Obama to Bush.

I'm in New Hampshire, and you're closer to me than you are to South Carolina, so technically the primary your neck of the woods (NH) went to McCain.
 
It is most troubling when I see a woman allow herself to remain in a relationship when her spouse continually cheats on her which amounts to abusive behavior.

I like this pic too!

Florida-Sen-Marco-Rubio-announces-presidential-run-in-Miami.jpg

He's cute. I always thought he was cute. She's very attractive, I'm not sure I remember seeing her before.
 
I heard Bill Moyer offered Elizabeth Warren a Million to run for president and she declined. What does that tell you? And yes you are correct many voters are not informed....

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

What does that tell me? Several possibilities come to mind.

1) The big banks don't want her meddling in their affairs. With the hundreds of trillions - yes trillions - of dollars in derivatives that the "too big to fail" banks are attempting to remove from their books by making the taxpayers responsible for any losses that occur, this is going to be a big problem if things start to unravel globally. She doesn't trust them, and the feeling is apparently mutual.

2) She has seen the handwriting on the wall that Hillary is totally determined to become the next POTUS, and will not tolerate another "upstart" interfering in her quest - she had that humiliation once, and does not intend to let it happen again. A million dollars is not enough money for her to fight it.

3) The Clinton machine is a "one-world-government" backer, and depending upon what BHO does to either hinder or help her - since she is apparently his choice as his successor - it looks, at the moment, like there will only be one choice as the Democrat contender for the office.

Things can change, and when the dust settles and a Republican nominee is finally chosen, that's when things will get serious. Hillary has a lot of baggage, but she does have name recognition, so we can count on seeing the most cut-throat election in history, IMO. World events will see to that, and the China-Russia machinations on the world stage to undo our favored nation status looks to me to be one of the most important in our country's history, because that is bigger than any one person could ever be, IMO. We shall see.
 
I didn't say it did. Why is Clinton being blamed not only for her side of the relationship, but for Bill's as well?

Sure you did. You're busy claiming the right calls Bill a victim. Bill's certainly guilty of infidelity. Nothing happens within a marriage in a vacuum, however.




The Clintons and their obvious problems. You're upset that they are being pointed out. Their problems are nothing new, and they both keep throwing fuel on that fire. That's not helpful to Hillary's campaign, and pointing them out is a normal routine in presidential campaigns. I believe this started several millennia ago in the course of people selecting their leaders. Those of you on the political left have the option of selecting a different nominee.
 
I feel the same about Rubio in that if there was any dirt on him, it would have come out by now. Walker is a good candidate and his executive experience is a plus. Personally, I think there are a number of fine candidates that would make a very good president.

If I had to pick a ticket right now it would be Walker/Rubio. Then in 2024 it would be Rubio/Love.
 
Sure you did. You're busy claiming the right calls Bill a victim.

I never said that, so lets stick to what I actually said or even implied.

The Clintons and their obvious problems. You're upset that they are being pointed out.

The Clintons have many problems. I'm not upset that they're being pointed out, I'm amused that Hillary is being blamed for the infidelities of not only her husband, but her friend's husband.
 
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

What does that tell me? Several possibilities come to mind.

1) The big banks don't want her meddling in their affairs. With the hundreds of trillions - yes trillions - of dollars in derivatives that the "too big to fail" banks are attempting to remove from their books by making the taxpayers responsible for any losses that occur, this is going to be a big problem if things start to unravel globally. She doesn't trust them, and the feeling is apparently mutual.

2) She has seen the handwriting on the wall that Hillary is totally determined to become the next POTUS, and will not tolerate another "upstart" interfering in her quest - she had that humiliation once, and does not intend to let it happen again. A million dollars is not enough money for her to fight it.

3) The Clinton machine is a "one-world-government" backer, and depending upon what BHO does to either hinder or help her - since she is apparently his choice as his successor - it looks, at the moment, like there will only be one choice as the Democrat contender for the office.

Things can change, and when the dust settles and a Republican nominee is finally chosen, that's when things will get serious. Hillary has a lot of baggage, but she does have name recognition, so we can count on seeing the most cut-throat election in history, IMO. World events will see to that, and the China-Russia machinations on the world stage to undo our favored nation status looks to me to be one of the most important in our country's history, because that is bigger than any one person could ever be, IMO. We shall see.

Mornin Pol!

I've heard of a couple names being thrown out as potential contenders on the left other than just Hillary. I think most folks on the left would feel more comfortable having the candidates announce within the next couple of weeks. We shall see.

All I know is this is the first GOP primary where I can say that I'm looking forward to in a very long time. There's some really good possibilities.
 
I never said that, so lets stick to what I actually said or even implied.



The Clintons have many problems. I'm not upset that they're being pointed out, I'm amused that Hillary is being blamed for the infidelities of not only her husband, but her friend's husband.

You aren't sounding amused, and you're claiming you didn't say what you said in the sentence above. In effect, "I didn't say what I just said."
 
You aren't sounding amused, and you're claiming you didn't say what you said in the sentence above. In effect, "I didn't say what I just said."

No, you said I said something I didn't say, pretended I did, and now you're just going in circles. Anything else?
 
It is most troubling when I see a woman allow herself to remain in a relationship when her spouse continually cheats on her which amounts to abusive behavior.

I like this pic too!

Florida-Sen-Marco-Rubio-announces-presidential-run-in-Miami.jpg



This is why she is seen as evil among Canadian women. She "forgave" Bill and attacked the victim. She engaged in a personal vendetta against the woman her husband seduced and used. Had he been a corporate executive in this country his career would have ended. Period.

She did it for one reason. Her political career. She tied herself to a bad man who cheated on her since the beginning, Bill is a sex addict who has left a trail of destruction in his path and she covered for him to be where she is today, knocking on the door to the White House. As balm somehow she is now laiming to be a champion of women, likely because being a woman is the only thing she has to offer the job.

Today's real women don't have to hide anymore, at least not in this country. What she did relegated the US to another few decades of 1950's June Cleaver "obey" mentality.

There's a reason why the US has no women in power, women like her
 
I never said that, so lets stick to what I actually said or even implied.



The Clintons have many problems. I'm not upset that they're being pointed out, I'm amused that Hillary is being blamed for the infidelities of not only her husband, but her friend's husband.
You are being very disingenuous. I did not put the blame on Hillary. Because she remained in a relationship where her husband continued to be unfaithful I find troubling, bizarre, creepy. Now this is the umpteenth time you have mischaracterized what I stated. One comment I make in response to another poster and you have tried your damndest to derail this thread by mischaracterizing what I said.
 
If I had to pick a ticket right now it would be Walker/Rubio. Then in 2024 it would be Rubio/Love.

I like your picks. I have a half dozen others I like too. Can't remember ever having that many potential candidates in a GOP primary. And that's a good thing.
 
You are being very disingenuous. I did not put the blame on Hillary. Because she remained in a relationship where her husband continued to be unfaithful I find troubling, bizarre, creepy.

You said that because Hillary stayed with a cheater, has a friend who was in a similar situation, she is 'not a swell choice to have as a potential first president.'
 
I like your picks. I have a half dozen others I like too. Can't remember ever having that many potential candidates in a GOP primary. And that's a good thing.

Yeah, I do like the options. It contrasts with the DNC that may not even give their members a choice this year cycle.
 
You said that because Hillary stayed with a cheater, has a friend who was in a similar situation, she is 'not a swell choice to have as a potential first president.'

You couldn't even quote me accurately. geesh
 
I think Hillary's 'baggage' won't hurt her much in the grand scheme of things. Long ago most of the Democrats set the bar very low for what qualities they expected of their leaders. All they require is that the candidate say the right stuff and have a "D" after his or her name, and his/her lack of experience, poor track record, contradictions, questionable ethics or morals are deemed unimportant and will be shrugged off or actually defended.

But any flaw like that in the GOP candidate is magnified many times over and made to be of huge importance.

It doesn't help that most of the mainstream media are supporters of whoever is the Democratic candidate and they tend to inflate GOP flaws and minimalize Democratic ones.

Because most of the Republicans are less committed to brand and more interested in the qualities a candidate can offer, they dilute the field and we are prone to nominate candidates who are imminently qualified but who lack the aesthetic appeal to win. I hope we do better at choosing somebody who is both qualified and electable in this election cycle.

We picked somebody who is probably more qualified to be President than anybody elected in the past 100 years with Romney. I want to cry when I think how much better off we would be now if he was in the White House instead of Obama. Even John McCain, who I had to really REALLY hold my nose to vote for in 2008, would have been way left of anything most of us want and would have been extremely frustrating I think, but he would have done far less damage.

So is Rubio the right guy? I'm not feeling it at this point, but he hasn't had a chance to make his case yet. I think he is likely still too young and likely does not have the connections to pull in a strong team to work with him. Ted Cruz does--not sure about Rand Paul--but regardless of whatever negatives we might see, both have demonstrated leadership skills that suggest they would be better choices at this point. I haven't picked my favorite yet though and that favorite is likely to be somebody different than those three names.

I don't know if Rubio is that person.
 
Was there a segue in my OP to this post? Is there some reason you think I don't know who I'm voting for?

My post wasn't directed at you in particular. I just used your post as an opening for mine regarding Rubio and the normal and inevitable partisan blinders that are rife in threads about politicians running for X political position. More often than not most people don't care to research the people that are running for any given position. They just vote according to the letter placed in front of X politicians name. If none of this applies to you then you may certainly ignore my post. ;)
 
No, you said I said something I didn't say, pretended I did, and now you're just going in circles. Anything else?

Give it a break. You've been busy claiming the right views Bill as a victim throughout the past several pages. Move along now and pretend you didn't say something else you surely did.
 
So if they vote on values and issues, the nominating an Hispanic running mate would be irrelevant.

I've been interested in and volunteering in politics for almost 30 years. I never knew of a candidate who won because of his VP pick. But if it makes you feel better posting this early about the pick Hillary hasn't even made yet, I'll play along.

While it is true that generally a VP pick does not vastly influence the Presidential election, don't fool yourself that it can't. You need look no further than McCain's "hail mary" Palin pick. Obviously people who are professional political strategists believed that it was possible that the VP pick might help McCain. It remains subject to debate whether Palin helped or hurt McCain. The thing with Hillary is that she is going to energize a number of voters...a pick in the vein of someone like Biden/Cheney/Lieberman....is probably not going to do anything to bolster her campaign....but pick a young vibrant successful latino former mayor now serving in the cabinet...and he adds a fresh young element that fits well with Hillary. I don't have any real insight into who Hillary will pick. I'm sure that a lot can change between now and election day. But personally, I think a Hillary/Castro ticket would be virtually unstoppable.
 
I think Hillary's 'baggage' won't hurt her much in the grand scheme of things. Long ago most of the Democrats set the bar very low for what qualities they expected of their leaders. All they require is that the candidate say the right stuff and have a "D" after his or her name, and his/her lack of experience, poor track record, contradictions, questionable ethics or morals are deemed unimportant and will be shrugged off or actually defended.

But any flaw like that in the GOP candidate is magnified many times over and made to be of huge importance.

It doesn't help that most of the mainstream media are supporters of whoever is the Democratic candidate and they tend to inflate GOP flaws and minimalize Democratic ones.

Because most of the Republicans are less committed to brand and more interested in the qualities a candidate can offer, they dilute the field and we are prone to nominate candidates who are imminently qualified but who lack the aesthetic appeal to win. I hope we do better at choosing somebody who is both qualified and electable in this election cycle.

We picked somebody who is probably more qualified to be President than anybody elected in the past 100 years with Romney. I want to cry when I think how much better off we would be now if he was in the White House instead of Obama. Even John McCain, who I had to really REALLY hold my nose to vote for in 2008, would have been way left of anything most of us want and would have been extremely frustrating I think, but he would have done far less damage.

So is Rubio the right guy? I'm not feeling it at this point, but he hasn't had a chance to make his case yet. I think he is likely still too young and likely does not have the connections to pull in a strong team to work with him. Ted Cruz does--not sure about Rand Paul--but regardless of whatever negatives we might see, both have demonstrated leadership skills that suggest they would be better choices at this point. I haven't picked my favorite yet though and that favorite is likely to be somebody different than those three names.

I don't know if Rubio is that person.



Mornin AO.
hat.gif
Yeah he also wanted out of the Senate. Even if he doesn't make the cut. He will run for the Governor of Florida in 2018.
 
While I've never been an advocate of charter schools nor school voucher programs, I'm slowly starting to warm to the idea. Choice and competition, right? Give me a better choice w/the incentive - better teachers - to truly educate my child at an affordable price and I'm there.

A voucher system opens up the school of your choice and when selecting a choice of schools you are going to be looking for results of a certain school. The only reason this is rejected by the left is because of pandering to the unions. The left is pandering to the unions over the needs of a good education for the students. You would think the left would want the best for their children's education. But the union vote trumps a students education.
 
A voucher system opens up the school of your choice and when selecting a choice of schools you are going to be looking for results of a certain school. The only reason this is rejected by the left is because of pandering to the unions. The left is pandering to the unions over the needs of a good education for the students. You would think the left would want the best for their children's education. But the union vote trumps a students education.

I think the issue goes beyond school unions. It's more about access to affordable education. Right now, our public school system is available to all comers. The fear is that charter schools or a school voucher program will pull kids from public schools leaving those who can't afford to make the transition behind. That IS a problem for society as a whole. Look at where we are today with so many students coming out of college unprepared to meet the demands of the labor force today. Same could be said of students graduating from high school unprepared for college.

There's a lot that goes into this one issue of educating our children, but I'm beginning to see that there are benefits to charter schools and/or voucher programs that if done right could change the way our education system works and leave no child behind.

But let's table this debate for another time, another thread and turn the discussion back over to Sen. Marco Rubio: Is he ready to be the next POTUS?

Let the discussion continue...:)
 
While it is true that generally a VP pick does not vastly influence the Presidential election, don't fool yourself that it can't. You need look no further than McCain's "hail mary" Palin pick. Obviously people who are professional political strategists believed that it was possible that the VP pick might help McCain. It remains subject to debate whether Palin helped or hurt McCain. The thing with Hillary is that she is going to energize a number of voters...a pick in the vein of someone like Biden/Cheney/Lieberman....is probably not going to do anything to bolster her campaign....but pick a young vibrant successful latino former mayor now serving in the cabinet...and he adds a fresh young element that fits well with Hillary. I don't have any real insight into who Hillary will pick. I'm sure that a lot can change between now and election day. But personally, I think a Hillary/Castro ticket would be virtually unstoppable.

I think the jury is still out on what the net result of Palin actually was. She brought in votes he wouldn't have gotten, and she lost votes he would have gotten. They will be analyzing that for years but I doubt we'll ever know what the net-net was.

I'm curious. What is about a "woman/Latino" combination that says "great administration" exactly? I would vote for a woman (the right one) and I would vote for a Latino (the right one) but not because of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom