Resistance is futile!

saw that, he should have sacked up and gone 25 hrs, people these days are soft

he didn't have the moral ground to stand on, not like thurmond did at least


rubio/jindal, 2016!

Was that sarcasm, braden? I'm assuming the bit about Thurmond having stronger moral ground was, but it's kind of hard to tell sometimes.

I do like RP

yes, i was being facetious todd with the first, the second, rubio/jindal? that i do look very forward to (i'm canadian, so take that with a grain of salt :P)

*yawns*

haven't we had enough of amateur hour in the white house do we need continue it after 2016?

no, this is a thread about competent politicians, not community organizers or constitutional lawyers who barely understand the constitution

rubio/jindal, 2016! heard it here first.

Because when the guy you don't like has little experience, he's inexperienced and will inevitably be incompetent/too naive.

When the guy you DO like has little experience, it's that he's an outsider and he's still connected to his everyman roots!

Twain, you are reaching there I think.

Obama was in politics at ANY level for 9 years before running for president 8 at the state level 1 at the national level, and of those 9 years, none of them did he hold any seat or position other than senator.

Meanwhile, Rubio has already 13 years experience in office plus the handful of years as city commissioner of Miami. He was Speaker of the house for 2 years in the state senate and has been assigned to many committees..

Committee assignments

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation[57]
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Science and Space
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security
Committee on Foreign Relations[58]
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy and Global Women's Issues
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere and Global Narcotics Affairs


He has much more experience in his time than the guy currently sitting in office had. To say different is either ignorant or a flat out lie.


That said, it will be tough decision between Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, if Chris Christie gets in the mix it would get really interesting. I also fully expect Newt to run again. They will be going against Hillary so yet another potential historical election coming up.


Also, what would you guys think of a Rubio/Rice ticket?

twain: i'm glad we can agree?
:P

mdevol: rubio is a stud of a candidate

What makes you think he's the best option? Enlighten us, please?

me and rubio for president 45, cerb?

he's a fiscal and socially conservative stud, he carries the latino vote, he'll win the south for us (racists, everywhere, heh), and genuinely he is very well liked by americans anywhere and everywhere.

you can not lose, unless democrats hate whites, of course?

oh, he's brown? you're a racist !!

Just being liked isn't really too high on the requirements that we should have for the job. I can think of many, many things that re far more highly important for such a position.

You can be liked, but still be depriving some village of their idiot, you know?

Being understanding of how the government is supposed to work would be a very high requirement for me. Understanding how the economic system works would also be very high. Managing the day to day operations of the federal machinery is another high area that has really nothing much to do with being liked.

Can the next president actually identify the main problems we're facing and take the appropriate steps to fix it, would be what I would be looking for.

I suppose that this means that I would be excluding almost all of the current politician population as their main skill seems to be related to winning elections and lining the pockets of their supporters and thus enriching themselves rather than actually trying to lead us out of this economic quagmire we find ourselves in.

you guys know that unless we have a candidate that plans to revert all the TSA/homeland security/patriot act/killing US citizens without trial bullfluff, the only thing thats gonna change is the rhetoric? the only difference between obama and bush are slight tax increases on the wealthiest americans, and an attempt to fix our horribly broken and inefficient medical system. obama is actually worse for human rights than bush was, how fluffed up is that?

ps, i have a feeling most of us here dont make over 250k a year so the proposed tax increases really dont affect you.

pps, the purchasing power of the us in the lower end of the wage spectrum has plummeted since the 1970s while the top earners have seen unnatural gains. the growing disparity is what is driving the protests and the democrats to office, it wont change that trend until the republicans start helping the lower classes. trickle down economics is a hilarious joke though.

http://www.alternet.org/...mp;utm_source=twitterfeed

also a hilarious read that has little to do with the current subject.

fair enough, mdevol. I will agree to the point that I didn't actually look up anything on Rubio before I posted.

You are skewing things a bit though by going off of when Pres. Obama announced his candidacy for President by taking two years of his time as Senator away from him.

By the time he was in office, he had that additional experience, and surely you can agree the experience you've had by the time you enter office is more important than the experience you've had when you announce your interest in an office.

Regardless, Rubio's going to have some baggage simply by being associated (even though never by himself) with the Tea Party part of the Republican Party. That might help him in a primary, but the Tea Party candidates haven't tended to do as well when the audience gets bigger.

2016 should be intriguing though. There are a lot of up and comers in the Republican Party, like Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, along with some heavyweights like Chris Christie, that could all be possible candidates, with of course the possibility of another political heavyweight in Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side.

2016 has the chance to be far more like 2008 than 2012 in the interest-level of voters. Also, there's more of a chance of a general election campaign that could actually focus on issues rather than mudslinging, unlike 2012.

I don't really believe that the next general election will have much if any impact of the future of the U.S. We're already in the midst of a coup. The government is going to disenfranchise the public in it's entirety once they scare enough people to vote for severe gun control (read elimination of second amendment protections) and the seiaing of firearms from the citizenry.

At that point, the U.S. population will be living in an Orwellian nightmare state that will make Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia look tame by comparison.

Homeland Security has just purchased a huge cache of hollowpoint ammunition and will be carrying out the seizure of small arms from the citizens at gun point themselves. The U.S. Military cannot be relied upon to uphold a martial law declaration by the administration because they have all sworn to uphold and defend the "Constitution of the United States" from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Not the "Government", but the Constitution. When the government becomes an enemy of the Constitution, military people will act and protect the constitution. At least that is what I hope and believe will happen.

You will notice I'm sure, since I'm going to point this out now before it happens, there will be another Newtown massacre in the near future. As the heat of the public's antipathy towards firearms cools, the government will need to restoke that fire and will thus underwrite another firearms based attack they can blame on "gun-wielding fanatics/nuts/crazies" which will allow them the excuse to clamp down on firearms possession and we will fill the currently constructed "camps" with these erstwhile anti-American activists.

I am beginning to believe that it can not be reversed since the American public is still more concerned over the sale of such and such at the mall rather than worrying about the state of the union.

While I did omit his final 2 years in senate I think he voted 1 or 2 times in those 2 years in senate so he didnt really do anything worth noting, and he was pretty much in campaign mode.

That said, if you think for 1 second that a Clinton on the ballot will result in LESS mudslinging, you surely dont know the Clintons. Did you not see the Hillary/Obama race? Obama wanted to run it clean, the Clintons had no part in that and did everything they could to drag him through the mud. They even filed lawsuits that ended up starting the "birther" movement to try to defame him.

It will be an interesting race to see if you have Biden against Hillary in primaries. We could gain a LOT more insight into some of the gaping holes he have been blocked out of these past few years in those debates. Neither of them are exactly good at keeping things under wraps.

rand just sucks, hey what the frick is that on his head?

he thinks the earth is only 5000 years old, now that is leadership. would rather see rupaul run, he has cuter legs

I find individual acts of people in Washington heroic and worthy of praise, and Rand Paul's filibuster was one such act.

Most actual politicians, and being progressive I'll add, most actual Republicans, I find very few that I actually have any real positive thoughts about.

Especially those that are anti-science and hold to Biblical creationist ideas. I mean, seriously, the Catholic Church even recognizes evolution. The Catholic Church that is still in the Dark Ages when it comes to many women's rights issues (and I'm not talking abortion here where there's a valid moral argument against it, I'm talking priesthood for women). How hard is it to read the Bible as an allegory that was necessary to be written as it was in order for a more primitive society to pick out the values that are espoused in it?

well when you take a book that was written in the 1600s from translated documents they then translated again into a more suitable book according to the kings and church of the time while disregarding the rest of the gospels as to far fetched, and then consider that a guide to life....

you're gonna have a bad time.

which bible should i be thumping here? i gotz the King James, the Catholic, and the Mormon. want to see how well my Nook can handle a thumping. in case i decide to thump some money out of suckers with it.

dont forget catherine the great in russia who had da book for awhile as well.
I took philosophy twice in college once before a logic class, and once afterwards. wow what a difference. but both times lots of super religious ppl went screaming out the doors.

eastern orthodox has it's own bible? is it in English?

those orthodox don't count, i think they went holy roman empire when the good folk went roman catholic, but i wasn;t alive, and i consider lutherans to be heretics, so.. grain of salt, grain of salt.. she'll burn, she'll burn