Magox

Honestly, I think you have a problem with comprehending what you read. That's not what he said. Re read it again, and I'm not going to spell it out for you, just read it and comprehend. I provided the link for you. And you believing that this litmus test somehow is the determining factor is vapid TMZ style. I'd agree with you if he were someone who wore this issue on a sleeve or had red hot rhetoric on the topic or proposed legislation that restricted gay marriages to occur on a federal level. But that simply isn't the case. My parents, who aren't bigots are Catholics. They believe a gay couple shouldn't marry in church. That's what the bible says and that's what they were taught to believe. I disagree with them, mainly because I'm not a religious person. Although I disagree with their position, I respect it because that's what the bible that they followed all their lives taught them to believe. That's the adult thing to do. That's what well-reasoned people do. They agreeably disagree and the vast majority of people don't see this as the or one of the defining issues that help them determine who is to be the next president. Specially when the argument for traditional marriage is done in an amicable, non offensive way such as: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/marco-rubio-defends-gays-attacks-gay-marriage And please, can you not at least have one complete post that is well-reasoned and doesn't contain any mistruths?

Oh, so it was ok if you held that position a few years ago, so that Obama could get elected (was his calculation) but not so today? Do you really not see how ridiculous that sounds? You aren't making sense...

Gay marriage? It's the same stance that Obama had just a few years ago. Over gay couples that give immigration rights? Sorry, you are going to have to dig deeper than that, specially considering that it was a just recently held position by the president. No, that's not what he said. Again, I have to correct the record. This is becoming very common for me to have to do with alot of you. You really should do more research before you post. Seriously.

For many reasons. He is universally known on both sides of the aisle as a policy driven person. I keep up with this ****, and I've seen him in Q&A's and he has absolute mastery and command of anything to do with policy. That's his strong suit and he'd much rather be discussing policy than getting on the stump and delivering one-line zinger red meat that appeals to the base.

A few things. Rubio isn't your Huckabee, Santorum or Cruz sort of pol. I don't know where you guys are coming up with this. This is actually the first time I've really heard anyone attempt to put him in that category of a religious conservative. I can tell you right now, that wouldn't be what derails him. You can bet on that. In regards to running to the right of Jeb, well....he is to the right of Jeb. That's not a bad thing, that's just who he is. Don't get me wrong, I believe Jeb is the most thoughtful and policy driven pol running, but I realize the distinct possibility that he probably won't win the primaries, and even if he did many conservatives would sit out the elections much like they did with Romney. So i'm probably not going to hitch my wagons with him for that reason alone. I'm curious to know, which social conservative stances does he have that are too far out there? In regards to a bruising primary, I don't see this one playing out that way. Sure, the last one was damaging to Romney, simply because the other candidates weren't viable and the incoming he received made him awkwardly position himself to the right of where he really stood. I happen to believe that in this very contested primary filled with quality candidates that the cream will rise to the top. I see them coming out of this battle-tested whereas Hillary will most-likely continue to be a very rusty candidate.

For the record, I do think Scott Walker will win the primary, unless he continues to flub much like he did about a month or so ago. I just see a very difficult path to the nomination for Rubio. My argument is that he is the best suited to beat Hillary in a match up and that most people who are policy makers and people who actually follow this stuff know him to be a very substantive person. No, the only posts you made were false. You said he was against immigration reform, which is wholly untrue. And you made another untrue claim that is refuted by most people that he lacks substance. You aren't to be taken seriously. Let me rephrase what I said, Hillary will be the weakest Democratic politician nominee since Mondale. She comes across as very stiff and phony, yet the fact that she is a well-known politician and a female, will make her more formidable than she really should be.

Will he win? I don't know, but can he win? Absolutely. He's the most gifted politician running Try reading up even a little more, here, here here and here . I get it, possibly you and others who probably formed their opinions on shallow misconceptions of the SOTU response with the water bottle and for whatever non researched reason believe he's not a viable candidate, that's fine. But when you begin to inject things that are outright untruths, then I will call you out on them. Words matter, you can do better than that. Don't become another Baskin

Again, most people disagree with you You may want to read up a little more.

Now that we've established that your words carry no credibility, no one serious, cares what you have to say. You think Hillary is a formidable candidate? She will be the weakest democratic nominee since Mondale.

There are two main problems with Rubio, one that it's a crowded field with quality candidates. And two, he looks even younger than he really is and I think that could hinder him. In regards to being a gifted speaker, well, that's your opinion, but not shared with even most pols from both sides of the aisle.

That's funny, considering that the moderate democrats in the Senate and house are virtually extinct. See Blue Dog Democrats You are either a liar or an uninformed lemming. Rubio is still for immigration reform. Anyone who actually keeps up with this stuff knows that both Democrats and Republicans come away very impressed with Mr Rubios depth on all the issues. Which now reconfirms that anything you say moving forward has no credibility. http://www.vox.com/2015/4/6/8350757/marco-rubio-president And stop pretending to not be a liberal, dumbass. I wasn't referring to that. Re read what I wrote, I said he has a 50/50 chance at gathering the support of the Tea party, not at winning the primary. Even though those odds are much better than I thought betting odds would have given him at this point. I suppose I could have tried to add a little more context. The part of the article that I was attempting to high light was the fact that his foe in the state legislature's wife began crying after Rubio's speech and Gelber conceding that he is a gifted speaker. And he can win.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/04/14/marco-rubio-a-man-in-a-hurry/

I believe that these sort of things should happen organically. I applaud the owner.

I just think he provides the best contrast to Hillary. He would certainly do better than Romney with latino's, youth vote, tea partiers and some of those white collar non ideological working class folks who bought into the caricature of Romney being a heartless plutocrat.

He WAS a TEA party favorite. Just ask some of the resident nativist's of this board what they think of Marco Rubio.

He'd be in my view the next biggest threat.

I don't believe this being a contract year has anything to do with that. Nope, not one bit. In any case, I don't care what the motivation is as long as it gets the job done.

Marco Rubio would pose the biggest challenge to Hillary. It's just a matter of whether or not the tea party folks could accept him.... I'd say it's 50/50

Maybe, maybe not. 2008 things were pretty stable; You'd be surprised what a large peace keeping contingency and financial aid can deliver. The point is that there are parallels that you can draw between the two. It is impossible to say whether or not it would have succeeded in the long-term. However, we can confidently say that in other areas that we engaged and followed through on nation building, that it has worked. It's just a matter of human and financial capital commitment.

I believe the larger point stands. It is quite possible if the US had invested another 15 more years and hundreds of billions of dollars that Iraq could have been stable partner and ally in the region. But of course, we know that isn't realistic. Politics and the American electorate would have never allowed it.

ISIS was spawned a long long time ago, well before anyone on this planet was born. It never left. Having said that, the destabilization of Iraq, Syria and Libya did provide a fertile land, land being the key word for these nut balls to carry out their extremist religious wet dreams. Interventionism done the wrong way does have it's blow backs, specially the way our political system works. If you are going to intervene and topple these dictators, then you better be prepared for nation building. And if you are going to nation build, then you better be prepared to spend a tremendous amount of money and risk American lives. And considering that the American electorate's temper shifts like figs in the wind, we just aren't equipped to follow through properly with these goals. I'd rather we just not take out any of these dictators and wipe out whatever Jihadist threats that are posed to the U.S You can do both.

Sounds reasonable. However, knowing that they haven't even agreed to anything yet, and that we have already stated our "fact sheet" which is essentially our starting position of negotiations, and we now know that they are already beginning to balk at our demands, even if you take the "fact sheet" as the end product, which is the very best that they could hope for, which there is no chance in hell that the Iranians will accept, it's still a ****ty position because it allows them to have full capacity to build the necessary components to have a weapon within 15 years.

I tend to agree with much of what you are saying, but when you purposely obfuscate and cheat by hiding your true intentions, which is to build a weapon and state that it's for the purpose of energy and medicine, that in my view is also not negotiating in good faith. Having said that, this deal is so bad that it essentially gives Iran the green light to go ahead and follow through with their intentions within 15 years.

Pretty much.

The fatal flaw with all these negotiations is simple, they assume that the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. The Obama foreign policy in one word, Naive.