'nuff said.
I think he’d be great. I’ve seen him speak (I live in Florida) and he’s an excellent, intelligent speaker and his ideas are excellent.
If you disagree with him on immigration (and he’s not in favor of what you call “amnesty”) go ahead, but look at the other things he has said. This election is not going to be won on whether or not people hate Mexicans.
Why do you throw the word "hate" around like a hyperventilating leftwinger?
You think I "hate" Mexicans because I don't want my country flooded with millions of illegals?
If you do...oh,well. *shrug*
"Hating Mexicans" is a red herring. Hating the fact we have surrendered our southern border and are being overrun is the issue.
Hate Mexicans? You better back off on the hate accusations. What do you not understand about about current immigration law and for that matter the rule of law.
There are ways to legally immigrate to this country, sneaking across the border or overstaying visas are not included in them. I will never consent to reward illegal aliens with a path to citizenship.
Thank you.
I agree.
I like Rubio for the reasons you stated.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Remember, if a few million conservatives had been realistic and voted for Romney, we wouldn’t have had four extra years of Obama. John Kerrey would not be our Secretary of State. There would be no Holder at DOJ. The Keystone Pipeline would be under construction. Rubio is much better than Romney. You can listen to him without dozing off, for one thing. I hope we are over pi$$ing on good people because they are not perfect.
'nuff said.
“If you disagree with him on immigration (and he’s not in favor of what you call “amnesty”) go ahead, but look at the other things he has said. This election is not going to be won on whether or not people hate Mexicans.”
amnesty is a stopper for me, and for a whole lot of other people.
Rubio could be ok.
And yes, I do disagree with him on his stand on immigration-that-is-not-amnesty because the rule of law has to mean something. I would have the same issues with Canadians if they over-stayed their visas and bypassed checkpoints in the millions.
I agree with your sentiment, although it’s less his stance on immigration than his awful performance during that period. He turned in to EVERYTHING he ran against on that issue. It wasn’t simply a moderated view on immigration (which he always had). It’s that he went all-in on a Democrat version, and really performed terribly in defense. First, he voted down all GOP changes to improve it. Secondly, he sounded horrible when trying to sell it. Third, he joined the ‘DC think’ of ‘we must rush this through right now’ syndrome that he specifically ran against.
I am not by any means going to ignore all the good aspects of Rubio’s view points, and normally he is one the best at articulating conservatism. I am way down on him running in 2016...he needs more seasoning and experience and needs to prove he has IT and can take on the left and shrink when the spotlight is on.
I voted for him, once. He told us one thing on immigration and turned around on Spanish TV and said the opposite, in Spanish, when he thought no one was listening. Oops.
I have a rule for all politicians: They are scoundrels until proven otherwise. When proven otherwise, they must make regular installments of proof. When proven a scoundrel...forget it, they are done, rotten and no good.