Rostere

You do realize that if the EU is destabilized, it is Putin who steps in? Who is BFF with all the anti-refugee parties, do you think? And when Hilary is nominated as the Democratic candidate...what then? Would you be surprised....or would you still not be surprised? I would not be surprised, if the email scandal does not blow up. But maybe it does, which could give Bernie a big push. If the email scandal becomes a big stinker in the media I would be surprised if she still won. Bernie has the possibility to win a lot of the states going forward, but it's unlikely he will eclipse Hillary's lead because it would require him to win by large margins. In any case it is not surprising that Americans who live abroad would overwhelmingly vote for Sanders. Firstly, most of the rest of the world is more like Sanders' vision. Secondly, nothing can disarm the absurd pro-Hillary argument that she has more "experience" with foreign policy than actually going abroad and seeing more of the world, interacting with foreigners yourself. Muh smug superiority! Seriously speaking, I think living in different places around the world can change your world-view by a lot - alternatively, some people move because they already have a different world-view.

For what that's worth, Sanders is absolutely killing it among Democrats abroad. No surprise that people who have spent some time outside the US realize that Hillary Clinton does not have the judgment necessary to be Commander-in-Chief.

I meant that's when I could trace her support to. And besides, it's very flimsy support if you're standing by while someone is subjected to genocide. The US did not start seriously supporting the Kurds until somewhere in the Kobane crisis, which started in late 2014.

BTW, have you guys thought about this: A lot of the polls have been way off. In fact, if the rest of the polls are as off as these, Sanders might be closer to clinching the nomination than commonly thought. He might not even need the FBI.

OK. I did some digging around, and apparently Tulsi Gabbard has also been one of the driving force (in HFAC) behind the US throwing their support behind the Kurds since 2014. Notice that not only does she mention the Iraqi Kurds, but also the Syrian Kurds. Very interesting indeed. I hope she will be a bigger part of the Sanders campaign. Here's another article about her struggle to stop the US from supporting the terrorists they claim to be fighting against. But the tragic fact with regards to this is that the US already acts like terrorists in many ways. Through the drone program, people are killed from the air with little or no thought to civilian casualties, and sometimes targets are chosen just based on metadata. When Trump says it apparently it is a shock, but when Obama does it we get no headlines. You have got to think about this. It's the equivalent of ISIS chopping people's heads off because they follow Bill Kristol on Twitter or because they parked their cars outside the Pentagon. We would undoubtedly call that terrorism. But through the drone program, the US has set the bar for what is OK. This means also that the US has to accept that things such as the murder of Lee Rigby and the Fort Hood shooting are legitimate forms of warfare, or in general the killing of non-combatants because of military ties (also, with disregard for civilian casualties). The terror bombing of Gaza comes to mind. There are people out there who believe that was about "smart" targeting of dastardly Hamas rocketeers conveniently shooting from hospitals, schools, power plants and other pieces of important civilian infrastructure. Despite there being literally no eyewitness evidence of this at all.

I think you're referring to when she called Obama out for not referring to "Islamic extremism" as such? I'm kind of split on the issue. I do believe that what we call "Islamic extremism" is at the roots mostly issue-related and in that sense the "Islamic" label is just there because of the nations where the issues exist, but that does of course not mean that we should not look at the phenomenon of Islamic extremism collectively as one phenomenon, in which case the "Islamic" label is actually helpful. More on Tulsi Gabbard's archenemy DWS here. Select quotes: Apparently DWS also tried disinviting Tulsi Gabbard from a debate. Go figure.

Wow. This woman would be the perfect VP (or Secretary of State) for Sanders. She's spot on where she calls out Hillary'd bad judgment on foreign policy. Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that she resigned her vice-chairmanship of the DNC over a row with the sell-out DWS who wanted to restrict the number of debates only serves to prove her judgment further. It's going to be interesting to see the aftermath of a Bernie loss in case Hillary does not get indicted afterwards or chooses him as VP. Eventually, other people will take up the torch.

Wow, this is crazier than even I expected. Time to take a look at who Rubio would have planned as foreign policy advisors. Almost nobody who is not originally from the GWB administration. Elliott Abrams - Iran-Contra veteran, former PNAC member, deputy national security adviser under GWB. Keith Alexander - Responsible for the Abu Ghraib during the torture scandals, subsequently named director of NSA where is is famous for lying to the American public about the extent of surveillance. Michael Chertoff - Secretary of Homeland Security under GWB, co-author of the PATRIOT act. Eliot Cohen - PNAC co-founder. Infamous for calling for war against Iran and Iraq before 9/11. Norm Coleman - Republican ex-Senator, since 2009 a pro-Israel lobbyist for the RJC. Paula Dobriansky - Bush-era Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs. Eric Edelman - Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy under GWB. Aaron Friedberg - Deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning under GWB. Kim Holmes - Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under GWB. Robert Joseph - Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security under GWB. Jon Kyl - Republican ex-Senator. Appears to have no foreign policy experience in particular. John Lehman - Former PNAC signatory. 9/11 commission member. Michael Mukasey - Attorney General under GWB. Known for advocating the use of torture and calling terrorism an act of war rather than a crime. Andrew Natsios - Administrator of the USAID program under GWB. Dan Senor - Chief Spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority under GWB, after that a pro-Israel lobbyist. Kristen Silverberg - Former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under GWB, after that a pro-Israel lobbyist. Jim Talent - Republican ex-Senator. Appears to have no foreign policy experience in particular. Dov Zakheim - PNAC co-author and subject of repeated scandals. This poor guy is at the center of every 9/11 conspiracy theory under the sun, in part because he was CEO of a company selling remote flight control equipment until 2001, but also because he served as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) where he lost track of trillions of dollars of transactions (hardly helped by all the accountants who died in the Pentagon attack on 9/11). If you look up "dodgy" in a lexicon, there is a picture of this guy. Lindsey Graham joked earlier that he would have a "all-Jewish cabinet" because of all the pro-Israel funding. Turns out that joke - which was decried as anti-Semitic - wasn't actually so far from the truth at all, seeing how Rubio's foreign policy advisors are 56% Jewish, which is quite an achievement. There's some serious reverse anti-Semitism going on in the US when you get so absurdly disproportionate appointments. I wonder what people would say if 56% of Obama's foreign policy advisors were Muslims.

Guys. We need to talk about Hillary. Specifically, we need to address the myth that she is more electable than Sanders. Let us look at the facts: I have no idea where the notion that Hillary is more electable than Sanders is coming from. She polls worse than Sanders against all Republican contenders, and currently loses to all of them except Trump. People say that Sanders is disadvantaged by being to the left of Hillary, but this seems very out of touch in a year where the most important line in the sand has been drawn between establishment candidates and outsider candidates. Her favourability ratings have been steadily declining since 2012. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders favourability is growing, and has been growing ever since he entered the race. Clinton has a current net favourability of -14 pp, while Sanders' is +12 pp. Hillary would be the most disliked nominee in modern history. She would be more generally disliked than any of the candidates who have lost in landslides. And considering her pending indictment by the FBI, this only looks to get worse. Why would you choose a scandal-ridden corrupt dynastic heir with declining popularity over a principled rising star? Sanders has shown an ability to fundraise from small donors which beats anything we have seen so far in any election. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's reliance on super-wealthy donors is second only to Jeb Bush and John Kasich. What does it tell you when a left-wing politician runs a campaign financed almost exclusively by money from the extremely wealthy and corporate special interests? Clinton and Rubio are essentially clones on ME foreign policy situating them both in the Cheney-style neocon camp - I've already addressed this before at length so I won't talk more about it now. But hey, don't take it just from me. The case against Hillary Clinton: This is the disaster Democrats must avoid Dump Hillary, and Dump Her Fast: The Democratic Establishment is on a Suicide Mission, and it Will End With Trump Democrats have their history wrong — and are about to make a grievous mistake Don’t be fooled: Clinton is not more electable than Sanders

More neocons come out as Hillary Clinton supporters.

Yeah, let's check. Advising Jeb Bush up until very recently. More crackpots for Trump to disavow I guess. Great to hear the journalist corps won't become unemployed in the near future.

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld. Sorry to break it to you, but Hillary Clinton's go-to consultancy firm used for foreign policy advice is the same one Rubio uses. The two are all but identical on foreign policy issues. Hillary has always been a foreign policy hawk historically (except for a short period in the run-up for 2008), and so unless you are suggesting she is some kind of Manchurian candidate for the realist foreign policy crowd, she will do the walk like she does the talk. Anyway, you are completely off the point when you talk about this as if decisions would originate in Hillary's mind, or that her own psychology would be the deciding factor. Hillary will likely do whatever her advisors (and donors, indirectly) tell her to. Reading about how foreign policy decisions are made in the Obama administration would show you very clearly how much presidents' decisions rely on advisors. She has been paid off by neocons, been groomed by neocons, and so expect her administration to be crowded with neocon "experts" just like in the GWB years. There is literally no reason to expect otherwise, and even some old GWB neocons have already started migrating from the GOP to the comfort of the Hillary camp in case Trump signals a decreased tolerance for their foreign policy there. I think you have missed something. All the #NeverTrump people had already coalesced around one candidate, and that candidate was Marco Rubio. When he was repeatedly mauled, some started pushing to vote for a third party (to give Hillary the election) or outright endorsing Clinton. A lot of people don't want Cruz either. If he was in the lead, we would see #NeverCruz instead. Naturally, Cruz want people to look upon him as the anti-Trump candidate, but in that quest he's really just exploiting the hysteria and hot air of the Rubio people. Meanwhile, Kasich is only in this to try to deprive Trump of Ohio, which might be crucial in order to achieve a brokered convention.

Tomato, meet potato. Ergo, being a racist towards Iranians would mean having racial prejudice towards Persians, Azeris, Arabs and Kurds. I don't get it, there is no law of nature saying that you can't be racist towards several groups at once, right? Really, there is also no scientific notion of "race" (lexicon says races are "major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics" which is pretty much 100% subjective) so the entire concept of a racist is also not well-defined at all. A racist might be a person who is prejudiced against a group of people whom he/she considers a race, or a person who is prejudiced against a group of people whom any outside observer considers a race. I use the term interchangeably with "xenophobe" because the notion of race is hazy enough that nobody thinks seriously about the definition.

This is hilarious:

So... Rubio's boyfriend has left him over Trump? The best thing is that this is not even photoshopped or anything...

Wait, how is that racist ? Clear to me she means Iranians as in their state not every single one in existence. Suppose the Ayatollah said that he was proud that his enemies were "the Jews". Or that Obama should say that "the Jews" have been undermining his talks with Iran. Does that sound racist to you? It should, and those are all equivalent. If this is not apparent then it's a sign of how easy it is to objectify and lump together people in the public debate. It's not hard at all to say "the Iranian regime" or "the Iranian government". In fact, those are the two commonly used terms which Hillary seemed almost to deliberately avoid in this case, possibly to sound more brash and tough. It is very, very incriminating that someone who makes a living in part out of shilling for hawkish special interest groups fails to distinguish between an entire people and an authoritarian clique ruling them. It is this type of toxic and careless attitude which led to prejudice against Germans during and after WW1, with very awful resulting backlash.

But what is the "Obama idea of foreign policy"? If we look at her voting record, Hillary is a neocon who voted for the Iraq War, while Obama is not. Secondly, Obama did not choose her as Secretary of State to be his surrogate, but to appease special interest groups (read the entire fascinating story in the NYT here): But then of course when Obama no longer needed so seek re-election, she left that post. Because why stay in an administration if you are going to run your campaign on criticizing the foreign policy of its leader? Let us look at Hillary's record since after she left the Senate. We could look at her earlier views from 1990 onwards, but I could just as well sum it up as "Hillary has voted for and supported every single war or military intervention possible". Libya (read more in a Vox article here): Obama was reluctant to intervene, Clinton pushed him to do so. Of the disorder which broke out after the fall of Gadaffi, Obama said: "We're going to have to have some humility in recognizing that we don't have the option of simply invading every country where disorder breaks out,". Clinton said: "We have learned the hard way when America is absent, especially from unstable places, there are consequences. Extremism takes root, aggressors seek to fill the vacuum, and security everywhere is threatened, including here at home.". Which means that Clinton would support American troops in Libya. Which is what even the secular Libyan factions have said that the DO NOT WANT, because it would give the radical Islamists more fodder for their arguments. On all these matters, Hillary took the side of neocons such as Lindsey Graham against Obama and his non-interventionist advisors. Syria: Clinton has said that "the U.S. decision not to intervene early in the Syrian civil war was a failure" and pushed repeatedly for intervention, even though 70% of the American public was against it. She has called for imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, which recklessly would bring US in immediate shoot-out with the Russian air force. Under Obama's watch, Russians and Americans currently share the Syrian skies. On all these matters, she has agreed with Senate neocons such as Lindsey Graham, and been against Obama. Iran: Before being appointed Secretary of State, Clinton denounced Obama's policy of diplomacy towards Iran as "naive". She says that the enemy she is most proud of having is "the Iranians". Which is shockingly racist and shows how she really looks upon the world. There are tens of millions of Iranians and she tires to blame them for the acts of their authoritarian leadership - needless to say, this does not fit into an Obama worldview. Clinton said recently: "You know, the NRA’s position reminds me of negotiating with the Iranians or the communists. There’s no possible discussion.". Needless to say, this goes against Obama's strategy of negotiating with the Iranian regime. In January, Hillary made an about face and started calling for new sanctions on Iran again. This goes against the current Obama policy. On all these matters, Hillary opposed Obama's policy and stood with the neocons before she became SoS. Afterwards, she has repeatedly ridiculed the idea of negotiating with Iran's regime without explicitly condemning Obama's key foreign policy achievements. Read into that what you will. Afghanistan: Clinton sided with the Bush holdovers in sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan. Then, when Obama brought them home, she strongly recommended him not to, in contrast to Robert Gates.Israel: Israel's current leader Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US and made a speech to Congress in an effort to undermine Obama in his foreign policy efforts. This speech was boycotted by the Democrats who were loyal to Obama on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton however, has refused to condemn Netanyahu for this act, and in fact, she has said she will invite him to the White House the first thing she does once in office. Meanwhile, the Clintons have earned the astronomical amount of $4000000 in speaking fees from pro-Israel organizations. Obama has recently criticised (although in very meek terms) Israel's policy of land theft and ethnic cleansing as being contrary to achieving lasting peace in the region. Meanwhile, Hillary is on the payroll of the JNF (see above), a very controversial organization whose purpose literally is ethnic cleansing and land theft. On these matters, Hillary Clinton has consistently taken the side of leaders of foreign governments and foreign organizations against Obama, and distanced herself from him. Wrong. Hillary has called Obama's policy in Syria a failure, criticized him for not intervening more and earlier, and recently flip-flopped into supporting American "boots on the ground" in Syria. Hillary Clinton supports taking out Assad in spite of the UNSC veto. Bernie Sanders does not support the US overthrowing Assad militarily. Conclusion: Bernie Sanders supports continuing the policy you mention. Hillary Clinton does not. Wrong. Hillary has consistently mocked negotiating with Iran (see above), and has not condemned Netanyahu's obstruction of the Iran deal which is VERY conspicuous, since all the Democrats which actually supports Obama's foreign policy have done so. Hillary has consistently pushed for intervention and an increased American military presence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya and in Syria. Furthermore, she is on the payroll of far-right pro-Israel groups (for giving speeches supportive of Israel, see above). Bernie has voted against interventions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, and in Syria. He has pretty much the same views on Israel as Obama. Conclusion: Hillary is pandering to, and is paid off by "friends". Bernie is not. Wrong. Hillary Clinton has said that Iran should not be allowed to have military in Syria, and she has advocated a no-fly zone despite the presence of the Russian air force. Read this article about how "Hillary Clinton took a big step away from President Obama’s foreign policy at Tuesday night’s debate, challenging him to resist Russia's intervention in the Syrian war." Meanwhile, Bernie has talked of working with Iran and Russia to combat ISIS. Conclusion: Bernie follows the Obama policy you describe. Hillary does not. In short, Sanders has been against all wars, while Hillary has been for all wars, and for all escalation (except for a short stint at the end of the Bush years when her neocon views became wildly unpopular). It's astonishing that you are wrong on every single point. Do you even read the news? There's a wealth of information on this all over the Internet in various news sources, read this article for example, summing up the foreign policy differences between Obama and Hillary. When one of the two founders of PNAC jumps ship to support Hillary (and forgets about almost a lifetime of supposed Republican views), you know she's a ****ing neocon. I mean come on - this is basically the equivalent of an endorsement from **** Cheney. Anyway, here's Rand Paul again explaining why Hillary is a neocon (while crashing a Democratic meeting... which is hilarious): Yes, I mean, apparently that seems to be the case - but that's just stating what we know. What we want to know is an explanation for this, why this is the case. Yes, but Cruz also has the overwhelming support of evangelical pastors, yet evangelicals vote Trump. The lack of debates is an invalid explanation, because while it might explain why people in general vote Clinton, it does not explain the absurd discrepancy between black and non-black voters. So this leaves us with only the "religious leaders" explanation. But it also seems absurd that black religious leaders have a level of control over their congregations so much greater than that of any other religious group.

This is the single most interesting thing this far. I am completely flummoxed by the fact that Bernie does so bad with black voters. It's not local to SC, he also did very bad with black voters in Nevada, but not with any other minorities. Truly incomprehensible, and I have not found any good explanations on the Internet either. We don't know if Sanders' strategy has worked out or not. And we can't really make such a statement without a comparison to a campaign where he did not have that strategy, which sadly did not (and probably will not) happen. But who knows, maybe he was forced to use his kitten mittens by the DNC in exchange for being allowed to enter the Democratic primaries at all. No, Trump is a candidate who has not been reluctant to denounce his opponents in the strongest terms available to him. The entirety of Trump's original popularity came from his inclination to denounce people such as Bush in very, very strong words. From which we got the famous "You can't insult your way to the presidency" quote. He also gets lots of attention for bad things, but that only would not have helped him. Of course, the exact types of insults and the same rhetoric used by Trump would be suicide to use in the democratic primary. But that does not mean that Bernie should not denounce Hillary in the strongest of words available to him in the areas where they differ the most - economic policy and foreign policy. It's absurd that Bernie calls for more debates, only to weasel out of the action and ignore calling Hillary's bluff in these areas. I like Bernie's policies, but in the contest against Hillary I've found him to be rather spineless. But maybe he counts on her being indicted by the FBI, and wants to pick up 100% of her voters afterwards. But foreign policy is Hillary's weak point. Sanders has been consistently right on every matter since the nineties, while Hillary has taken the wrong side. Her brief job as Secretary of State consists mostly of failures like the "Russian reset button". Experience does not mean that you have been a bobblehead on a shelf in the Obama administration, you must point to situations where Hillary's own unique advice and insight has shifted the course of the US to the better. If not, she would be replaceable by anyone. Frankly, I can't think of any such situations, on the contrary with her views I think she might be toxic to US foreign policy.

Okay, so the latest news of any interest is that neocon - or "liberal interventionist" - extraordinaire Robert Kagan (whose wife is the equally infamous Victoria Nuland) has jettisoned from the GOP and officially endorsed Hillary Clinton. Flashback to 2014, when Rubio became the anointed candidate of the neocons. Even then, the signs were there that they would jump ship to Clinton. But don't take it from me, here's Rand Paul saying Clinton and Rubio are two birds of a feather on foreign policy. Naturally, this has lead to more spotlight on Hillary's lifelong dedication to the neocon cause. Still, Bernie Sanders offers only very mild criticism on Hillary's so-called foreign policy experience. I really wonder what will happen with the Democratic party in the next few years. Their primaries have been almost completely devoid of any serious disagreements or arguments, compared to the what has happened on the Republican side. I think Bernie Sanders could have won if he had been more aggressive in denouncing Hillary. As things are, he is still using kiddie gloves when discussing how Hillary is bought and paid for by special interests. The fact that Republicans make so much better anti-Hillary ads than the Bernie folks do is depressing, especially since those will dry up now, with the rise of Trump.

Lots of Bernie Sanders people in here.

Well... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3trHKqdiM

But this is very, very bad counterargument if it can even be called a counterargument at all. The actual moment of irony might have occurred now or at some earlier point in time when I learned of the contradiction, it doesn't change the fact that it happened, and that it was dramatic irony. Even so, I might also have written it assuming the dramatis persona of the generic Swede, who has no idea that there are any differences in free speech between the US and Sweden, in which case the dramatic irony occurs at the same point as the written narrative. But most importantly, you are mistaken in your conception of irony. Here is a pedagogic comic strip for you. Or in the definition from Merriam-Webster: "(1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity". Going to a forum and seeing American members hate hate speech laws constitutes "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result" when previous advice from Americans would have you expect the opposite. 90% of Swedes, or Europeans (not counting Germany which have very harsh hate speech laws) in general have either no idea of any differences between the US and European countries with regards to freedom of speech, and if they do, they might consider the differences completely inconsequential. I'm sure you are very, very proud that waving the Nazi flag and shouting "sieg heil" in a public place in front of people is not criminal in your country, but very few people outside of your country are aware of these differences at all. This is for the simple reason that this is a non-issue in practice. If people would have been asked for legal differences between the US and Europe, I think most would have answered something about abortion or homosexuality being illegal in the US, maybe something about death penalty. As for the actual famous judicial approaches that the US is known for, it would probably be mass surveillance of own population through NSA, drone assassinations and kidnapping and then holding people in Guantanamo without trial, in that order. The primary sources are from newspapers in the 1940s, when this was a big affair. I doubt you would be interested in chasing down paper issues of 70-year old Swedish newspapers. Anyways, all of this is common knowledge as I stated before. If you are seriously interested you try putting parts of this document through Google Translate, it's a report from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention dealing with hate speech, where what I've talked about is mentioned briefly. Of course they didn't "make" Sweden change create hate speech laws (which was in the making anyway), but they created pressure and a sense of international embarrassment. Their advice might have contributed to his punishment being more severe than otherwise though. Anyway, the degree to which they were involved was not the point, but rather the uniformity of advice coming from America on this issue, which was in favour of hate speech laws. No, all of the examples are not going to be different, since there are things which would be illegal both in the US and in Sweden. What would be illegal in the US essentially forms a subset of what is illegal as hate speech here. My point is that some of what is covered under hate speech is also criminal in the US. And parts of what the strawman notion of "hate speech" in your article have no counterpart in actual hate speech laws where I live. I have already enumerated the categories in my previous post. So there are absolutely differences, but the actual differences are more subtle and smaller than in strawman notions of hate speech laws entertained by the writer of your article, for example. You may absolutely be right that much of what is currently handled as hate speech could be equivalently handled as defamation against groups of people. But if so then it is also silly to denounce hate speech as being something very different from defamation. You're kind of conveniently forgetting the context, that this was a reply to you justifying indiscriminate attacks on civilians and lumping together an entire people as terrorists - a despicable stance. That entire passage was me being ironic while making an analogy of your stance to make you understand just how reprehensible your opinion was. I have no idea of how this makes me look any bad at all, rather you are seeing a mirror reflexion of your own opinions. Sadly, if I recall the rest of the thread correctly, the point was completely lost on you. In any case, I was more curious as to what might make a Native American rush so fast to eagerly support and defend genocide and ethnic cleansing - the psychological motivation behind such an obviously contradictory position could possibly be a prime example of compensation for a very serious inferiority complex. I am also very fascinated by Israeli Jews who have the Holocaust and Hitler's ethnocratic policies in near memory, but still without even a droplet of self-criticism talk about Arabs as an inferior race, as a demographic threat, and plan the "Judaization" of land conquered by military force through an Apartheid regime. Watching people choose between reconciling contradictory positions or going for denial or rationalization like that is very interesting, and there's not always good opportunities to do so. You could think of such intentionally provocative statements as a particle collider of sorts for testing theories of political psychology.

And for more on-topic discussion: "Why I'm more worried about Marco Rubio than Donald Trump" "Donald Trump's Rise is the Rejection of more than a Quarter of Bush Republicanism" "Marco Rubio is the real Bush in the 2016 race" Rubio has risen to don the mantle of neocon darling. Luckily, because of his extreme-right views on other issues like taxes and abortion he's pretty much unelectable in a general election. Recall people saying similar about GWB Yeah, this is pretty much the danger with Trump. A Trump/Rubio ticket would be horrifying, potentially even more catastrophic for the US than GWB/Cheney.