okay? explain how an anti war, anti big government, anti government interference candidate it right of rubio? you understand libertarians are social liberals and fiscal conservatives right?
he is pro choice, pro equality, anti war...how is he insane? Do you know anything about him or are you just being dumb as F#$k...
LMAO. I see Marino is going to fellate Johnson as he did Ron Paul for 2 elections. Didn't your dumb ass learn anything from those?
so because they are anti spending they should neglect their districts or states? you cant change the game if you're not in it...
so lets say Ron (yes an old example) says i dont want the fed spending any money and so im going to go completely on my beliefs and not take any money...does he get reelected? nope...Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
That's my point- they AREN'T anti-spending to the degree they portray. Only when it's convenient to say so for a PR spot or to make a point via a session in congress. For guys who supposedly want to gut the Federal government, they sure as hell had no issue with taking huge sums of money back to their district or state.
You're such an excuse making machine. It's quite sad.Originally posted by Dmarino110:
so lets say Ron (yes an old example) says i dont want the fed spending any money and so im going to go completely on my beliefs and not take any money...does he get reelected? nope...Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
That's my point- they AREN'T anti-spending to the degree they portray. Only when it's convenient to say so for a PR spot or to make a point via a session in congress. For guys who supposedly want to gut the Federal government, they sure as hell had no issue with taking huge sums of money back to their district or state.
people understand why he takes the money, because its there and the government isnt going to give it back to the people if it doesnt get spent, they are just going to spend it somewhere else...thats called living in the real world...at the same time you build up a following among younger voters who bring on change as the older population dies out...
think about it, in another 20 years, no one like mitt romney is going to bother running for president for any reason other than pocketing campaign money...
Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
You're such an excuse making machine. It's quite sad.Originally posted by Dmarino110:
so lets say Ron (yes an old example) says i dont want the fed spending any money and so im going to go completely on my beliefs and not take any money...does he get reelected? nope...Originally posted by UCFKnight85:
That's my point- they AREN'T anti-spending to the degree they portray. Only when it's convenient to say so for a PR spot or to make a point via a session in congress. For guys who supposedly want to gut the Federal government, they sure as hell had no issue with taking huge sums of money back to their district or state.
people understand why he takes the money, because its there and the government isnt going to give it back to the people if it doesnt get spent, they are just going to spend it somewhere else...thats called living in the real world...at the same time you build up a following among younger voters who bring on change as the older population dies out...
think about it, in another 20 years, no one like mitt romney is going to bother running for president for any reason other than pocketing campaign money...
First, what you basically admitted is that voters in fact don't WANT people to gut the Federal government. Hence supporting my own belief that Paul and Johnson are joke candidates that would never sniff the Presidency.
Second, you are just making excuses for Paul being a hypocrite. He spoke out against pork barrel funding yet annually requested millions upon millions for his tiny district. That is by definition a hypocrite.
So basically, he spoke a big game on spending and cuts yet took in huge sums of pork money for his district in an effort to appease his voting base which in fact did not actually support ANY of the cuts he preached from his pulpit. And he did this for most of his life as a career politician.
Wow, what a leader.
so if ron stuck to his guns and didnt take the money for his district, what would have happened to hit? would congress have given it back to the people?
hes right at the point his donors want him...
You're a goddamn moron.
is it congressman for life or is that only for presidents? and would doctor be the more impressive title?
Yea, thus far, but that changes if Warren or O'Malley or (obviously) Sanders throws their hat in. Any other Dem that comes in at this point is going to be left of Hillary on just about everything.
you dont think one of the 1% wants to pay her fair share do you?
Hillary keeping her mouth shut is the best strategy she can have for her campaign (she was caught in another stupid lie the other night on the campaign trail...kept changing her story).
