Uh, I do not think abandoning is the issue, we are talking about using your political power to get a retaliative that was involved in a crime a break that many would never get, there were still many other things a family would had done to help instead.
It was a real estate license. That’s the advantage Rubio has over the Clintons, he’s one of us. It’s hard to relate to billionaires asking for pardons and giving six figures to the First Lady’s brother to get it done. We can relate to a relative getting out of prison and needing a hand to get a real estate license.
And that is how you are avoiding the point that abandoning a family member was dumb. In any case AFAIK, the pardons were requested by the brother and not Hillary, and that pardon was for a buddy of the brother, not Hillary.
You may not get to choose your blood relatives, but generally relatives by marriage are considered less integral.
There’s this thing called ‘divorce’ by which people jettison a very immediate relative by marriage, and almost always for reasons that are considerably more trivial than the spouse being a drug lord whose ill-gotten gains have been sustained in part by murder and police corruption.
And even if a blood relative refuses to divorce a villain such as this, that doesn’t mean the rest of the family has to continue to regard him as a family member.
Finally, this ain’t Billy Carter or Neil Bush. This is no family buffoon whose crimes, if any, are relatively trivial. Just to re-emphasize the point, this is a fucking drug lord whose associates murdered at least two people and had police helping to manage their profits.
How about “wimp who doesn’t have the backbone to kick a fucking drug lord brother-in-law out of his family”?
I don’t find Rubio personally scary, quite the opposite. But if he can’t stand up to this guy, good luck with Putin. He’s been stress tested, and failed totally.
And he clearly comes from a family culture that tolerates all this bad shit, so this is apparently deeply embedded in who he is. I wouldn’t want him in the White House even if his political views were identical to those of Bernie Sanders.
Bolding mine. There should be a place in the English language for this word. 
The relative had served his time. Is this the new liberal philosophy on crime, that once criminals have served their time that their families should abandon them and they should be denied access to jobs?
Or does that only apply to the relatives of Republicans?
Damn, the liberal hypocrisy card! We lose again!
Good. Then he should have been, and was, released from prison.
Much as I would like to claim I represent a trend, this position is mine and mine alone. While I figure it’s worth persuading others on this issue, it’s still only mine.
No, you should ditch a spouse, abandon an in-law, when you find out that, hopefully to your complete surprise, they’ve been a major drug dealer whose close associates have been having people murdered and chainsawed, and have been paying off a passel of cops.
Remember that many conservatives were pissed at Hillary because she didn’t divorce Bill over the Monica Lewinsky business.
So, the new conservative standard: women should divorce husbands over extramarital blowjobs, but not over big-time drug-dealing fueled by murder and corruption.
Agree, or not? If not, please explain.
And yes, I know: Rubio wasn’t married to Cicilia; his sister was. But it’s no more morally problematic to cut your in-law out of your life than it is to divorce a spouse.
Where did I say this?
The only thing I’d ding Rubio for about the letter is not saying that he was writing the letter on behalf of his brother-in-law. This was not an arm’s-length endorsement, and he needed to say so.
While we’re on this, which party do you think is more receptive to legislation outlawing artificial private-sector barriers to employing ex-convicts, and which party is less so?
If you don’t have that card in your hand, you don’t get to play it.
Employers can decide for themselves. Democrats are weird that way, they want to make employers justify their decisions, while continuing to expand the occupational licensing regime and bar ex-felons from most jobs that require a license.
And in our data-driven age, many large employers, having easy access to law enforcement records, have basically screened out anyone who’s ever had problems with the law from even getting an interview.
Democrats want to limit that sort of thing, because it gives ex-cons no chance to get back into the working world. Unless they’ve got Marco Rubio for a brother-in-law.
Guess that’s the Big Take-Away: don’t commit crimes unless you’ve got influential relatives, huh? Dems think that’s ridiculous, but apparently you want ex-cons to get another chance only if The Right People decide to give them one.
We are. And damn fucking proud of it.
Can you give for-instances of this? AFAICT, legislation that we lefties are proposing would ban ex-cons from being screened out before being interviewed. Basically what that would do is give ex-cons a chance to make the case for themselves, rather than being screened out, sight unseen.
That’s The Heavy Hand Of Government for you, interfering with private employers’ rights. And yeah, I’m damn fucking proud that people on my side of things are in favor of such government intervention.
Why are you against this sort of intervention, but in favor of Rubio-style Influential Person Throws His Weight Around intervention?
Please provide evidence that this is particularly a Dem thing. Because for the most part, it tends to be a Small Business Owners Protecting Their Turf thing, and they lean on whoever’s running the state government to initiate and maintain unnecessary licensing systems. If hairdressers have to get a license, then there will be less competition, and all that.
The loudest voice I’ve seen arguing against this sort of thing is liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias. Just sayin’.
Should they be denied access to voting?
Absolutely. They aren’t everyone’s family member.
Do you ever seriously ponder if you’re supporting the right party? Ever?
The problem for your side is that we’ve had two decades of thorough examination to firmly establish that the substance is 99 44/100% pure nothingburgerium.
Haven’t you been listening to the people on the radio who tell you the truths the librul lamestream media won’t? Any day now, the enforced gay marriages will start!
Anyway, adaher’s position on ex-cons and jobs is that it’s A-OK to deny them access to jobs, unless they’ve got influential friends. And if you don’t like influential people pulling strings for ex-cons, then you’re for denying jobs to ex-cons.
It’s the Republican philosophy in a nutshell, really.
Wasn’t a real estate license involved? Well, there you go right there! What could be more conducive to a full recovery and repentance than working in the pristine purity and honesty of America’s real estate and financial sector!
One thing at a time, first we have to seize all the guns.
Pssst! New plan!!
Remember the original plan to round up all the wingnuts and ship them off to FEMA camps? Well, it’s back on again - and when we round up the wingnuts, we get most of the guns for free!
Then we force everyone in the FEMA camps to get gay married. 