Make no mistake he is pandering for votes.

 

Do you think he believes what he said?

If I only voted for candidates I agreed with on everything, I would never vote for anyone. Marco Rubio is an excellent candidate. He has many attributes that should make him hard to beat.

 

I remember reading a couple months back that he was the candidate that most concerned the Clinton insiders. Not sure if it's still true or not.

Do you think he believes what he said?

 

Weirdly enough, yes I do.

True they all are, but don't you think he sounds more honest about what he's saying than what some others have said on this same subject.

 

Yes, I do think he is being honest. I think his answer was well thought out and too insightful for it to not be sincere. I'd love to see him and Dr. Carson debate on it.

Weirdly enough, yes I do.

 

I do, too. "Pandering" has the connotation of "saying whatever it takes." By that definition, I don't believe he was pandering.

 

Heck, I'd argue saying anything remotely supportive hurts his cause in the R primary.

What he said it eminently reasonable and I'm glad to see a mainstream Republican politician take this seriously. Who knows how this would translate into his policy-making, but it's a start.

 

There are frequent calls for the Republican party to change course on certain policy issues to win the votes of minorities. It goes something like "if Republicans want Hispanic votes, they need to lighten up on immigration." Same thing for other groups. If you want X's vote, change Y policy. As I've said before, I think this is superficial reasoning. People first and foremost want to know that their claims are being heard and respected.

 

The Republican party's problem, collectively, isn't that they aren't endorsing the right policies, it's that they are dismissing out of hand the experiences and claims made by minority groups, claiming that they are whining, playing the victim, want to oppress white males, etc. The Democratic party is hardly the great Party of Minority Benevolence, but Republicans aren't an alternative as long as the above is still the case.

I do, too. "Pandering" has the connotation of "saying whatever it takes." By that definition, I don't believe he was pandering.

 

Understood. I get that.

Yes, I do think he is being honest. I think his answer was well thought out and too insightful for it to not be sincere. I'd love to see him and Dr. Carson debate on it.

I'd like to see them on the ticket together!

I remember reading a couple months back that he was the candidate that most concerned the Clinton insiders. Not sure if it's still true or not.

 

I would think it is. I really don't think Clinton is as formidable as she's made out to be. Bush v. Clinton is such a snoozer of a race, but it probably favors Clinton. Clinton v. Trump/Carson/Cruz/Fiorina/Huckabee/Whoever is what she is salivating for. Clinton v. Rubio/Kasich/Paul are probably her worst possibilities.

 

Of all those options, it's still most likely to be Bush. But there's a possibility his uninspiring performance thus far might get him replaced as the Establishment's golden boy by either Kasich or Rubio.

I'd like to see them on the ticket together!

 

And then that would ruin Rubio's chance for my vote. :lol2:

And then that would ruin Rubio's chance for my vote. :lol2:

 

Anyone but Hillary. Please America spare us the misery of what she will bring and do.

Anyone but Hillary or Dr. Carson. Please America spare us the misery of what they will bring and do.

 

Fixed it for you.

And then that would ruin Rubio's chance for my vote. :lol2:

Yeah I forgot that you hated Carson from the beginning:lol2:

And then that would ruin Rubio's chance for my vote. :lol2:

 

 

Rubio has little chance to get my vote, but he would have zero chance with Carson on the ticket.