why not a Kasich-Rubio ticket?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
His interpretation of God conveniently costs people more money... mine does not. That's not a religious statement, it's a factual fiscal statement.

It does not. More people have more spending money in nations with higher taxes. If you're not purchasing a product through tax money, you're purchasing it out of pocket, either way it's getting purchased. The difference is that there is an upper limit to how much people can consume, a person who makes 10x the average wage does not consume 10x as many products as the average person. When that is evened out some, more people have more money to spend. So your fiscal statement is flawed.

a reply to: bobval

Rubio talks republican and votes democrat (big gov't).

Thats why the GOP loves him. Between the gop and dnc candidates you are guaranteed a big govt candidate

Big corp controls govt and govt controls the consumer and market. Its no wonder who ever the gop or dnc endorses we continue to get big govt.

Its a catch 22.
1. GOP or DNC endorsed will give you more of the same: corporate friendly laws on the tax payers back,

2. Not GOP or DNC endorsed candidate then they will never get elected as long as the DNC, GOP, and MSM are all controlled by big Corp.

bottom line is : that in reality your vote doesn't matter. The sooner the people wake up to this fact, the faster we can go after fixing the corrupted system.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: amazing

Like I said before I would consider Kasich, but he also belongs in jail so I need a good reason to vote for him. Some of the biggest baggage Kasich has is that he's one of those bankers who took bailout money as a bonus, he took about a million dollars.

Yeah, see that's the problem with almost all of them. Look at that and look at who voted to bail out the banks and who is getting donations from big banks, like Hillary.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: ketsuko
Kasich stood on the debate stage and defended his expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare using theology. This is as liberal an argument as I've often heard the left make to try to shame those of us on the right into expanding entitlements.

"Oh, but how can good Christians be against caring for the poor?"

So, right there he's no different than any other big government type. The only difference is that he'll tell you that he's doing it in the name of God than just because he's all for compassion and making the rich pay their fair share. In the end, the result is the same - government grows and liberty lessens.

So you don't want to vote for him because his interpretation of God is different from yours. Got it.

More like ... I wouldn't vote for him because he sounds like a liberal, using whatever argument he thinks I need to hear to con me into going along with more government spending which inevitably leads to more taxation.

I wouldn't vote for Huckabee for the same reason.

I also find it hilarious that you end up defending him. I thought we were supposed to have separation of church and state and not a theocracy ... or is that only when you don't like the policy attached to the use of "God?"

a reply to: ketsuko

I would prefer to not have a candidate making policy based on religious beliefs, but if they're going to (and everyone on the right with any substance is doing so) it's much more tolerable for someone to justify helping people rather than denying them help.