I don't know what we he is. When he just talks and forgets he's a Republican, he does so with a lot of intelligence. But then he remembers what he's running for, he stops being moderate.
I think in a different environment, Rubio would be dramatically more serious as a candidate, and a better candidate. But he's trying to take a tone that fits the electorate rather than a tone that fits him. And it just doesn't work. Romney had the same problem.
Kasich; you need half the delegates to win! When you say half of the delegates has yet to be counted, you need to win all of them.
Obama & Boehner actually had a great relationship. The Tea Party got in the way. If they were allowed to continue, then they could have gotten a lot of stuff done, and all of it would have been a compromise between Progressive & Conservative desires.
I'm about done with Kasich. I get that he's qualified and has a resume, but has he mentioned a single specific policy proposal in this debate?
I actually think, for once, Trump wasn't the worst on that stage; that probably goes to Cruz IMO, who was fuzzy on policy and too often resorted to the talking points he felt comfortable rehearsing. Kasich was positive and highlighted his experience, as usual. Trump was subtler and less nauseatingly loud and obnoxious, but equally clueless on policy. Rubio found a nice mix of passion, substance, and mixing it up with Trump that made for his strongest debate yet, but that's a hollow victory at this point. Overall nothing changed, but it was less damaging to the Republican brand than previous debates due to a better and more constructive tone.
But they do recruit from outside Europe. I know Tunisia has a lot of citizens that have gone and some have come back and are giving them trouble. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/02/here-are-the-countries-where-isis-recruits-come-from/21189692/ http://ambienteja.info/2016/03/09/tunisia-shuts-libya-border-after-50-die-in-isis-attack.html
You're confusing tone with substance. There are no moderates in the GOP field. Not even Kasich. -- Anyway, I didn't watch. I assume Trump won.
One lends itself to the other. You can be very moderate on substance and tremendously radical on tone and vice versa. Just look at Trump on some issues; that doesn't make him moderate. Tone is as important as substance. It indicates temperament, willingness to compromise, ability to get along with your opponents, composure, negotiate with foreigners, receptiveness to other ideas, respect, etc. A huge part of being President is setting the tone. I don't think there's a massive difference between Rubio and Cruz, for example, on policy, but I think there's a massive difference in terms of the tones they set and their respective approaches to governing. That matters, it's not just fluff IMO.
What would you consider a moderate? I think Kasich and Rubio are moderate on quite a few issues--trade and illegal immigration come to mind. Do you think letting 11 million illegal immigrants pay a fine and legally stay here is a moderate position amongst the GOP? Guys like Kasich and Rubio have been absolutely lambasted by Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter and all the other far right knuckleheads. On trade you have protectionist Trump slapping on 45% tariffs and Cruz trying to abolish the IRS and institute a flat tax to fix trade--from what I heard, Rubio and Cruz aren't that far off on trade from Clinton. Are you talking relative to Bernie Sanders or Clinton?
No we are. There are no longer any moderates in the GOP. Save, perhaps, Olympia Snowe. And once she's gone, they're all gone. -- edit -- Some might make a case for Brian Sandoval. I don't know him well enough.
No. Unlike you perhaps I recognize exactly what the GOP has become: a right wing party, with no real moderates to speak of. This is pretty well documented. Here, less than a minute of googling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/ I'm not saying anything controversial. If anyone is denying objective reality here, it's you. Just because the party moved even further right doesn't mean the old, ordinary conservatives are now moderates. Are you going to tell me that Newt Gingrich was a lot more reasonable then Ted Cruz, and is therefore a moderate? No. That would be relativistic bullshit. But that is what you're doing here. You're moving the goalposts about what moderation means. You're doing this because the GOP has homogenized and moved even further right. That's wrong. This is the reality of political polarization. Just because you want moderates to exist in the GOP doesn't mean they do.
No candidate is going to fit perfectly into any label for either party. When you look at trying to win the nomination of your party you need to move in the direction you feel the consensus is going, once you gain the nomination you need to move back toward the middle for the general election. I believe the history of presidential elections will show that to be true but i would need to chack with @American Brummie to be completely sure without doing the research. I'm sure he knows off the top of his head..
It's been pretty common since the advent of primaries for people to tack to the extremes and then return to the center. It's been more obvious the last few election cycles because of the way the public is beginning to sort itself.
Anyone who thinks Rubio is a moderate needs to read this. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...so_determined_to_make_marco_rubio_happen.html How about Pataki? I figured, since he got elected governor in NY, that he would be moderate on social issues. But then he never got above 1% so I never got around to seriously researching him.