He wasn’t running for President just as an excuse to not have to deal with the fucking Senate anymore. Do please read closer.
Oh please. He was running in year 2. Rubio at least waited 4.
Rubio quit on his job, and his constituents/employers, but not his paycheck long before he decided to run for President. Missing votes is only a small part of the story. You know that, don’t you?
One poll, and not even the most recent poll, does not determine where he now stands. An aggregation of recent polls shows that his F-U is more like 33.2 - 31.5.
Link.
The Rubio/Obama comparison attack does not appear to be a strong one. “Look at this guy, he’s a lot like this very electable, two-term president over here, except that his politics align more with ours.”
The GOP establishment should be fully embracing Rubio. He’s arguably their most electable candidate, which of course means they’ll throw all they’ve got behind Cruz and then wonder what went wrong.
That giant snapping sound?
A 15-year streak of “Regards, Shodan” being broken.
I saw it, but I still don’t believe it. 
So if I’m a second lieutenant paper-pusher at the Pentagon, they’re going to put me on kitchen duty, or punish everyone in my office, or demote me to PFC, if my performance rating sucks?
Because he got elected in a midterm year, and Obama didn’t.
“Oh please” yourself.
I haven’t seen any evidence that Rubio is running for President as an excuse. At least, you haven’t presented any.
And the idea, unsurprisingly, makes no sense. If Rubio was looking for a reason to quit, he would quit half way thru the way Obama did. Instead, he is serving out his full term.
And you haven’t addressed why it is so terrible to miss 24% of your votes but missing almost three times more is excusable. I grant you, Obama had much less experience of the rigors of full-time employment than Rubio does, but I still think missing two thirds of your votes is worse than missing a quarter of them.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with Shodan. There are plenty of things to attack Rubio on aside from missing votes, which is pretty common. His tax plan is inane, his foreign policy would greatly weaken America, he’s a mediocre speaker at best, he doesn’t appear to have any original ideas, he’s bought and paid for, he’s anti choice, and much, much more.
All that being said, he’s probably one of the better candidates in that side,which does how weak the field is, in my view.
Voting records
Jan-Mar 2007/2105
Obama 2.4%
Rubio 18.5%
Apr-Jun 2007/2105
Obama 17.9%
Rubio 32.9 %
Jul-Sep 2007/2015
Obama 56.3%
Rubio 53.8%
Oct-Dec 2007/2015
Obama 89.4%
Rubio (Oct-Nov) 78.6%
He needs the money, as already discussed.
There’s a lot more to it, as already discussed.
Ha.
I too agree with Shodan on this. The missed Senate votes, as well as the lack of resume depth, are the kinds of thing that bother people who fundamentally don’t like the candidate and/or his policies. That’s why those on the right who are enthusiastic about Rubio are happy to overlook the same sort of shit they beat up Obama about.
Frankly, the same can be said about Clinton’s whole Email Thing. If conservatives were honest about it, they would admit that if someone on their side had all the right policy positions, a deep resume etc.–and moreover there was no other candidate who even came close on those dimensions–they would shrug and say, “Ok, that was a poor judgment call but it’s not a deal-breaker.” Otherwise, they’re guaranteed to be charged with hypocrisy when in some future cycle an exactly analogous situation arises on their side and they start spinning like so many Iranian centrifuges.
My problem with Rubio is that he subscribes to an almost cartoonish version of neoconservative orthodoxy. If you want at least 4 more years of intensifying military engagement in the Middle East and all the attendant blowback, vote for Rubio.
I agree with Donald Trump and iiandyiiii, but not Shodan, since he isn’t actually making the argument that’s being ascribed to him here.
The name’s Rump. Donald Rump. 
Well, perhaps call it a surfeit of charity on my part. But I took Shodan to be making the point that it’s internally inconsistent to go after one guy Rubio for missing 24% of his votes but to give another guy Obama a pass for missing 2/3 of his votes. I agree with this.
Only I go further: it’s silly to say one guy Rubio missing lots of votes is totally a-ok but one guy Obama missing lots and lots of votes is beyond reprehensible. The reality is this is the kind of thing no one gives a shit about when their own side does it. So, one can either resolve the inconsistency by being a perpetually outraged purist, or one can stop pretending that certain things actually matter when they so obviously don’t. I favor the latter.
Shit. Sorry! :smack:
On the officer side all the time but it’s a slow motion process. If you get passed over for promotion twice you can be discharged for that reason alone. There’s some possibility for selective continuation without promotion if the military needs enough at that current rank. You don’t even have to necessarily have clear derogatory information in your file to not get selected either. You can simply not be the best qualified.
On the enlisted side there are tools like bar to reenlistment that doesn’t fire them but prevents them from staying in. There are also qualitative retention boards when they need to cull the herd. There’s administrative separation proceedings that can be implemented for repeated issues. Not getting promoted past certain ranks in certain time frames can also result in discharge. The weight control program chews up and discharges people all the time. There’s also administrative reductions in rank/pay/responsibility that don’t count as firing but don’t generally have a civilian parallel.
For both side there can be requirements to maintain certain qualifications. It might be a security clearance or it might be something like civilian certification for some of the specialty folks Failure to meet those standards can have repercussions including discharge.
It’s hard to draw the line between conduct and performance too. Personal conduct can bear directly on one’s capacity to lead subordinates. Is violating two direct orders during off duty time conduct or performance? What if those orders were directly related to safety on duty the next day? What if the leader in question was seen by their subordinates violating those orders? It’s not a hypothetical for me. For me it was both. That so called leader’s conduct IMO made him unqualified to perform at the level of his current rank. I didn’t directly kick him out but I did inform him quite clearly about the process I was starting in response. He chose retirement instead. Is that firing? 
[/endRubiothreadhijackp]
^^^^ Well written and informative. Thank you.