Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

He can talk my ears off and can be inspiring.

What has Marco Rubio inspired you to do, that you wouldn't have done already?

 whembly wrote:

FWIW: I thought Mitt Romney would have been an excellent 'moderate' President.

If by "moderate" you mean "ineffectual", then sure.

 Ahtman wrote:
I have heard that the GOP needs to do some soul searching for years but nothing has amounted to much. Having two ass clowns like Cruz and Trump as front-runners probably won't change that either. Intellectual conservatives thought about this long ago but they are outnumbered by the less gifted party members/voters so I doubt we'll see much change.

My conservative friends, have, in years past, expressed the opinion that the only reason conservative candidates have failed was that they simply were insufficiently conservative. That was a hard point to counter when the candidate was Mitt Romney... but Ted Cruz? This is a dude who has a 95%+ record no matter how you run the metrics. At the very least, if Cruz somehow becomes the candidate, I feel like that old chestnut will be... look, I don't know how to end that idiom, exactly, but I'm sure you get the gist.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

He can talk my ears off and can be inspiring.

What has Marco Rubio inspired you to do, that you wouldn't have done already?

It's the simple fact that he's one of the few Republican who can actually address hard challenges w/o looking like a total bag of dick. Just watch him on youtube when he talks about:
-Race relations
-Reforms such as medicare/medicaid
-Immigration (yes, he's ding'ed on it, but he at least tried in a meaningful manner)

My only real beef with Rubio is that's he so neocon with respect with foreign policy, I think he'd be a GWB x100.

If I could take Cruz' foreign policy acumen (he's *more* deliberate than Rubio)... and Rubio's domestic acumen... we'd have something of a strong candidate imo.

 whembly wrote:

FWIW: I thought Mitt Romney would have been an excellent 'moderate' President.

If by "moderate" you mean "ineffectual", then sure.

Nah... I think he'd be very effective. Maybe not great, but an effective President.

 whembly wrote:


My only real beef with Rubio is that's he so neocon with respect with foreign policy, I think he'd be a GWB x100.

.

This right here should be enough to automatically disqualify him from any serious discussion.

I just saw this posted under the caption "Donald Trump Rally"




I had a giggle.

I think that's the sense that most people - or at least, many outside the USA - have about the US Republican candidates in general.

You go through them and it's a case of, "yeah, ok, yeah, I agree with that, no I don't like that, but fair enough..." Until you get to some point. Just one or two single, super strongly held beliefs that's just so completely opposite to a persons own beliefs that it doesn't just cross a redline, but settles there, plants a flag, builds a castle and raises an army there. Then there's no way you could ever support them

 whembly wrote:

-Reforms such as medicare/medicaid

All I've heard Rubio say on that front is "Repeal Obamacare!" A conservative refrain which basically means nothing.

 whembly wrote:

-Immigration (yes, he's ding'ed on it, but he at least tried in a meaningful manner)

Rubio opposes normalization of relations with Cuba. That, in and of itself calls his stance on immigration into question; "dings" or no.

 whembly wrote:

If I could take Cruz' foreign policy acumen (he's *more* deliberate than Rubio)... and Rubio's domestic acumen... we'd have something of a strong candidate imo.

Cruz doesn't have foreign policy acumen. Why do you think that he does?

 whembly wrote:

Nah... I think he'd be very effective. Maybe not great, but an effective President.

So, Obama.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:


My only real beef with Rubio is that's he so neocon with respect with foreign policy, I think he'd be a GWB x100.

.

This right here should be enough to automatically disqualify him from any serious discussion.

Both of the other Republican candidates are the same way. Cruz was talking about carpet bombing ISIS...

 skyth wrote:
Both of the other Republican candidates are the same way. Cruz was talking about carpet bombing ISIS...

Dont forget that Cruz was the one who wants to find out if "sand glows"


Never mind that he, Rubio and others would undoubtedly veto any kind of increase to VA spending for healthcare for their idiotic foreign expeditions.

In fact, I'd say VA healthcare and Vet issues is where they are by far, at their worst. They'll carpet bomb a country that's barely got electricity, but if you get hurt doing your job there.... tough gak.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-we-know-america-is-anxious-about-a-president-trump-shrinks-and-massage-therapists/2016/03/03/e5b55a22-e0bb-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Psychologists and massage therapists are reporting ‘Trump anxiety’ among clients




On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?

Because of nationalized healthcare, and the water quality? C'mon man, EVERYONE knows you don't drink the water in Mexico...


When it comes to Trump, the one thing that "comforts" me is that so many people out there are seeing how violent and racist his rallies are becoming, and making public comparisons to another world leader from another point in time.... That people are making the comparisons allows me to believe that most people are smart enough to NOT vote for the orange guy.

Because people would rather deal with maple syrup smugglers than drug cartels, perhaps? You get a polite talking-to for writing a blog about them, instead of being brutally murdered.

Also, it is the traditional threat.

Liberals thinking about moving to a more liberal country? Shocker...

 d-usa wrote:
Liberals thinking about moving to a more liberal country? Shocker...

Yeah, what really amuses me is conservatives who claim they want to move to Canada because America is becoming too liberal. It's almost like they have no knowledge about the rest of the world.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-do-we-know-america-is-anxious-about-a-president-trump-shrinks-and-massage-therapists/2016/03/03/e5b55a22-e0bb-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Psychologists and massage therapists are reporting ‘Trump anxiety’ among clients




On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?

Because if you move to Mexico you will end up having to pay for a huge wall you voted against.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
On another note, why is it that so many liberals are claiming that they will move to Canada if he is elected, but so few claim they would move to Mexico?

Because if Trump becomes President there'll be a big wall blocking them from getting into Mexico.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

-Reforms such as medicare/medicaid

All I've heard Rubio say on that front is "Repeal Obamacare!" A conservative refrain which basically means nothing.

Then you haven't really paid attention.

He constantly talks about that he wouldn't approve anything that changes current reciepients as his mother is currently on medicare.

 whembly wrote:

-Immigration (yes, he's ding'ed on it, but he at least tried in a meaningful manner)

Rubio opposes normalization of relations with Cuba. That, in and of itself calls his stance on immigration into question; "dings" or no.

Yeah... that makes zero sense.

 whembly wrote:

He's not so "gung-ho" to be as aggressive as Rubio. Hence my label that he'd be more "deliberative".

Really??? Finding out whether sand glows is not "as aggressive" and more "deliberative"... What.. Did Rubio actually say he'd literally nuke the site from orbit, and we all missed it?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

He's not so "gung-ho" to be as aggressive as Rubio. Hence my label that he'd be more "deliberative".

Really??? Finding out whether sand glows is not "as aggressive" and more "deliberative"... What.. Did Rubio actually say he'd literally nuke the site from orbit, and we all missed it?

Yes. Really.

 whembly wrote:


Anyone really believes a President can order the military to "carpet bomb" a target to disregard civvie casualties, in this age?

A president can order whatever he or she wants, the question is will the military refuse to follow the order. As soon as you have the military put into a position that it would consider having to disobey a presidents order, that is the day you should really question if the president is really cut out for the job. The fact that he said he wanted to do something that is illegal under international and national law, should be all we really need to know to make an informed decision on whether or not to vote for that person as commander in chief. It was dumb posturing for the base. And if the base finds that appealing, I would never consider voting in the same way as that base.

Sorry Whembly, I cannot take your assertion that Cruz is any more deliberate in foreign policy than the other candidates specifically because of the rhetoric he uses.

I know I keep repeating it, but "finding out whether sand glows" is not the hallmark of rational thinking, especially in the sphere of international relations.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Sorry Whembly, I cannot take your assertion that Cruz is any more deliberate in foreign policy than the other candidates specifically because of the rhetoric he uses.

I know I keep repeating it, but "finding out whether sand glows" is not the hallmark of rational thinking, especially in the sphere of international relations.

"make sand glow" is tough talk to ISIS targets.

Jesus... are you thinking he's implying something else? Like nuking them?

EDIT: I think here you're "looking for things" to dislike.

*I* want to bomb the gak out of ISIS. As long as there's a clear strategy for victory.

 whembly wrote:

*I* want to bomb the gak out of ISIS. As long as there's a clear strategy for victory.

I personally think that there isn't really any clear strategy for victory. Carpet bombing, turning the whole place into glass, and other rhetoric that implies a full scale bombing campaign is very short-sighted, as no campaign can be won entirely from the air. I also do not think that Republicans would hesitate for one second to put more boots on the ground, a la Iraq all over again. As you say, there needs to be clear strategy and end state goals. But, the one thing that I KNOW the republicans will discount, and vote down time and again, are ANY increases in VA spending to deal with the further increase in patients as still further conflicts eventually wind down.


And that, I have major problems with.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

*I* want to bomb the gak out of ISIS. As long as there's a clear strategy for victory.

I personally think that there isn't really any clear strategy for victory. Carpet bombing, turning the whole place into glass, and other rhetoric that implies a full scale bombing campaign is very short-sighted, as no campaign can be won entirely from the air. I also do not think that Republicans would hesitate for one second to put more boots on the ground, a la Iraq all over again. As you say, there needs to be clear strategy and end state goals. But, the one thing that I KNOW the republicans will discount, and vote down time and again, are ANY increases in VA spending to deal with the further increase in patients as still further conflicts eventually wind down.


And that, I have major problems with.

There's merits/demerits on doing any campaign towards ISIS. It *really* should be a UN/NATO endeavor.

Also, I wouldn't square the blame on the VA solely on the Republicans, nor solely on Democrats either.

It's Bureaucracy.

Has any of the VA directors been fired yet over their frauds? Any?

If I had the means, I'd make the VA the primo, absolute bestest Healthcare organization ever. Such that, it's a massive god damned perk for joining the service. How to achieve this? I have no fething idea... but, not being able to fire incompetence is a fething disgrace.

Short of that? Disband the VA and give service personels a massive insurance benefit similar to the private sector.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Sorry Whembly, I cannot take your assertion that Cruz is any more deliberate in foreign policy than the other candidates specifically because of the rhetoric he uses.

I know I keep repeating it, but "finding out whether sand glows" is not the hallmark of rational thinking, especially in the sphere of international relations.

"make sand glow" is tough talk to ISIS targets.

Jesus... are you thinking he's implying something else? Like nuking them?

EDIT: I think here you're "looking for things" to dislike.

*I* want to bomb the gak out of ISIS. As long as there's a clear strategy for victory.

Well seeing how most people equate glowing sand with nuclear weapons, yeah I am pretty sure everyone here is thinking that.

 whembly wrote:
It *really* should be a UN/NATO endeavor.

Also, I wouldn't square the blame on the VA solely on the Republicans, nor solely on Democrats either.

It's Bureaucracy.

Has any of the VA directors been fired yet over their frauds? Any?

If I had the means, I'd make the VA the primo, absolute bestest Healthcare organization ever. Such that, it's a massive god damned perk for joining the service. How to achieve this? I have no fething idea... but, not being able to fire incompetence is a fething disgrace.

Short of that? Disband the VA and give service personels a massive insurance benefit similar to the private sector.

-Agreed on UN/NATO thing

-Agreed that it isn't solely a Republican v. Democrat thing, however if we look up voting records, as well as campaigns: Republicans tend to be the "promilitary" people, but, like John McCain consistently voted against any expansion of funds to the VA, until after the 2014 scandal broke.
-No, VA directors haven't been fired, and that is wrong... I can only hope that this will eventually pan out that way where applicable

-Being in the VA system myself, I agree: it should be the absolute Best available care in the US. It *should* be the model that all other healthcare systems in the US look up to.

 Ustrello wrote:
Well seeing how most people equate glowing sand with nuclear weapons, yeah I am pretty sure everyone here is thinking that.

Absent of context, making x glow is a euphemism for nuclear weapons, I think - but from the text of his speech I think it was clear he meant conventional weapons. I mean, he's still a dumpster fire garbage person and all, but I don't think he advocated for nuking ISIL.

Edit: double posted for some reason

Clinton pretty much side stepped and twisted the "Do you support fracking" by saying "Under these conditions I do not..." which means YES she does support it.

Bernie the straight shooter: "No"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope undecided voters saw that exchange and realized just how manipulative Hillary tries to be...she rarely gives straight answers, *especially* when it comes to her corporate contributers (such as energy companies that practice fracking)