• 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!

Marco Rubio Is the Solid Conservative Who Can Beat Hillary

iguanaman said:
I mean every white man living here then. The prevailing logic was "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" Our Govt. was simply helping that along. Sadly most were dead from disease before we were even a nation.
Click to expand...

Personally speaking I don't feel like I had anything to do with it. All that occurred several hundred years before I was born.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL Like anyone cared about the native Americans when we were exterminating them.
Click to expand...

We? Native populations have increased greater than the national average since I was born. Perhaps you have exterminated a native but I never have.

I've also never owned a slave.
 
haymarket said:
The best chance - perhaps the only real chance the GOP has is a ticket of Rubio & Kasich. It gives them Florida and Ohio and a shot in the electoral college.

But with each passing month, the chances for sanity in the Republican Party do not look promising despite rational people like you.
Click to expand...

He is our governor, but Kasich would never be able to deliver Ohio to the clutches of the Republican Party.
 
Napoleon said:
He is our governor, but Kasich would never be able to deliver Ohio to the clutches of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

True. There is some disconnect between perceptions of others out of a state and those within a state. The native son is often ineffectual. Kasich doesn't give Ohio to the GOP. Pataki couldn't win NY in a primary nor could Graham win South Carolina. Trump and Cruz both lead Bush in Florida.
 
Napoleon said:
He is our governor, but Kasich would never be able to deliver Ohio to the clutches of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

From what I know of Governor Kasich, I like him but doubt my vote will matter much.
 
Jack Hays said:
He would roll to victory. Dems likely wouldn't even campaign in the state.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't cede control of either the big battle ground states.
 
Iamjesus said:
We? Native populations have increased greater than the national average since I was born. Perhaps you have exterminated a native but I never have.

I've also never owned a slave.
Click to expand...

No duh... But if you are an American than you are of he same citizenship of American's of the past too. It's just like when WE beat the British in OUR revolution.
 
Jack Hays said:
They would try to compensate elsewhere. No Dem could come close to Kasich in Ohio.
Click to expand...

Giving up either Florida or Ohio would spell doom.

They would fight hard in both.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense. His last statewide victory was overwhelming.
Click to expand...

His last statewide victory occurred in an election with the lowest voter turnout in our State's history. Its not overwhelming when the vast majority of voters (63.8%) don't like any of the candidates enough to even show up at the polls. Not very impressive when you claim victory amidst one of the lowest gubernatorial voter turnouts of any State in Union.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
His last statewide victory occurred in an election with the lowest voter turnout in our State's history. Its not overwhelming when the vast majority of voters don't like any of the candidates enough to even show up at the polls.
Click to expand...

In November 2014, Kasich won re-election, defeating Democrat Ed FitzGerald, the county executive of Cuyahoga County, 64% to 33%. He won 86 of 88 counties.:mrgreen:
 
Typical partisan politics.

Defeating the other party's candidate is all that seems to matter...no matter what either candidate stands for.


I despise both major parties. And I think Hilary Clinton would make a lousy POTUS.

But, outside of Rand Paul, there is no candidate that the Reps are peddling that I would rather have as POTUS then Clinton.

It is not that she is that good...it is that the Reps (outside of maybe Paul) are that bad.


Having said that...I would take Rubio in a second over that whack a doodle Trump.


Basically, federal American politics SUCKS right now. With choices that are incredibly bad for the most part, IMO.
I guarantee you that I could go to a Wendy's restaurant, swing a dead cat and whomever it first hit (providing they were over 18) would do a better job (or a less worse job) at running America then Clinton or Rubio.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Typical partisan politics.

Defeating the other party's candidate is all that seems to matter...no matter what either candidate stands for.


I despise both major parties. And I think Hilary Clinton would make a lousy POTUS.

But, outside of Rand Paul, there is no candidate that the Reps are peddling that I would rather have as POTUS then Clinton.

It is not that she is that good...it is that the Reps (outside of maybe Paul) are that bad.


Having said that...I would take Rubio in a second over that whack a doodle Trump.


Basically, federal American politics SUCKS right now. With choices that are incredibly bad for the most part, IMO.
Click to expand...

Trump and Paul are the two Repubs who would be worse than Hillary.
 
Jack Hays said:
Trump and Paul are the two Repubs who would be worse than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's respect, the proper phrasing would be adding 'in my opinion' after that sentence as you cannot know who is better since you do not know any of them personally. Plus, you cannot know the future so you cannot know how they would fair...you can only believe.

Yes, I would not think Neocons would like either of those two...especially Paul. Neocons seem to hate both him and especially his father.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
In November 2014, Kasich won re-election, defeating Democrat Ed FitzGerald, the county executive of Cuyahoga County, 64% to 33%. He won 86 of 88 counties.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Again, with less than 32% of eligible voters actually casting a ballot. 64% of comparatively no one isn't impressive. The fact that much less than 1/3rd of eligible voters elected him only means that more than 2/3rds of all eligible voters didn't and these are the people that turn out in national elections.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Actually, it's respect, the proper phrasing would be adding 'in my opinion' after that sentence as you cannot know who is better since you do not know any of them personally. Plus, you cannot know the future so you cannot know how they would fair...you can only believe.

Yes, I would not think Neocons would like either of those two...especially Paul. Neocons seem to hate both him and especially his father.
Click to expand...

And you cannot know who's a neocon, or how anyone would fare.
 
cpwill said:
:lol: Trump isn't going to be President and is exceedingly unlikely to be the nominee. He does best with low-information, low-attention voters who are the least likely to show up at the polls, and suffers when people start paying attention. He's not going to win Iowa. Most NH voters don't make up their mind until after Iowa, but he has a better shot there than elsewhere (as there are more moderates, among whom he does best). After that, it becomes a race to coalesce the majority of the party who doesn't like him behind a candidate against the minority of the party who does.
Click to expand...


However, Trump does like tearing down his opposition. When do you expect him to focus on Rubio a lot more?
 
Napoleon said:
Again, with less than 32% of eligible voters actually casting a ballot. 64% of comparatively no one isn't impressive. The fact that much less than 1/3rd of eligible voters elected him only means that more than 2/3rds of all eligible voters didn't and these are the people that turn out in national elections.
Click to expand...

Keep up the silliness.
 
Jack Hays said:
And you cannot know who's a neocon, or how anyone would fare.
Click to expand...

I did not say I knew who was a neocon (but I do believe I know) and I said nothing of who would fare. I only said how I believe they would fare.
One cannot know the future, one can only think/believe they know.

And yes, I believe you are a neocon until I see evidence to the contrary. Plus, I vaguely remember you long ago stating that you were in fact a neocon...though I may be mistaken.
Either way, the positions you take are often lock step with traditional neocon positions.

If you are not one of them, you certainly seem to agree with much of what they generally do politically, IMO.
 
DA60 said:
I did not say I knew who was a neocon (but I do believe I know) and I said nothing of who would fare. I only said how I believe they would fare.
One cannot know the future, one can only think/believe they know.

And yes, I believe you are a neocon until I see evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

I'm indifferent to your view of me, and I certainly don't regard "neocon" as either a compliment or an insult. I doubt the neocons would have me. Regardless, I'm comfortable stating as fact that both Trump and Paul would be worse as POTUS than Hillary.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm indifferent to your view of me, and I certainly don't regard "neocon" as either a compliment or an insult. I doubt the neocons would have me. Regardless, I'm comfortable stating as fact that both Trump and Paul would be worse as POTUS than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Your comfort level does not make an opinion a fact.

'fact
noun [C or U] UK US /fækt/
A2 something that is ​known to have ​happened or to ​exist, ​especially something for which ​proof ​exists, or about which there is ​information:'

fact Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


Since none of the people you mentioned has ever been POTUS, then it is impossible for it to be a fact that one is better then the other at being POTUS.

A fact can never refer to something that has yet to happen. You can believe, hope, prey or assume what a future outcome would be. But until it actually happens, it cannot be a fact.

Good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom