Jim DeMint a bit fired up for Mike Pence for president

I'd just as soon kick Mike Pence in the nuts as vote for him, but he is as about as good as it gets in terms of someone "realistically" winning the presidency.

Such is the futility of Libertarian politics.
 
I'd just as soon kick Mike Pence in the nuts as vote for him, but he is as about as good as it gets in terms of someone "realistically" winning the presidency.

Such is the futility of Libertarian politics.

That's what I've been saying. Pence isn't a libertarian, but he was staunchly opposed to the big government policies of the Bush administration like the bailouts, the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, the no child left behind act, etc. He's certainly better than the likes of Huckabee, Romney, Gingrich, etc.
 


Yeah. Dumb reason. Of all the things we have to worry about, these "fiscal hawks" are worried about earmarks now...

I really don't understand Ron's position on this since earmarks are not actually authorized by the Constitution. Local pet projects do not involve interstate commerce in any way.
 
Very disappointed...

I know there is always an outside chance that DeMint could buck the mainstream and endorse Ron, but I don't see it happening.

The Tea Parties are still too convinced of morality-statism. And since the Tea Parties are going to be very influential in 12, the eventual nominee will probably to be someone in the mold of Palin/Pence/DeMint.

Yes, and then the GOP will lose again. Honestly, that would be fine with me..i would rather have a r dominated congress and a d president, then have a statist neocon/social con with an r congress.
 
Last edited:
I still think a 3rd party anti-war, anti-nafta anti-bailout candidate could win enough states to throw it to the house, and then negotiate a Nick Clegg role; the Vice Presidency with a share of Judges, Cabinet etc.
 
We have a lot worse foreign policy problems than our relationship with Israel. I don't understand all of the focus on Israel when we should be trying to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well, let's see, besides Israel creating hatred around the world which is directly reflected in terrorism, this of course is the game plan, funded all by the Washington DC prostitutes, let's look closer at this Psychopathic Pence god.

Pence is a true believer, emotionally addicted to his belief in the sacrosanctness of Israel/AIPAC as an outcome of a visit to Yad Vashem.
Mark Braverman described Yad Vashem as an indoctrination center Israel for American politicians. Take a guess where Marco Rubio just went? Yeap

US Congressmen are trotted to Israel, taken to YV, and administered the injection; thereafter, they are hooked.
Worth noting that AIPAC managed to carve out a special exemption for their activities in taking US legislators on those trips, from the controls on gifts to congressmen.


a. The trips to Israel have to stop, NOW.
b. Israel lobby(S) AIPAC, etc, should come under the same regs as any other lobby for a foreign state — ie. abide by gift limits, register under FORA, National Security Risks, registration of all money movement and contact with all government officials for ANY country within the US.
c. Congress shall make no law — and declare no war — until it has visited the country targeted for harm by the actions of the US government

Here's Mike Pence Praying to his Lord:

YouTube - From Indiana to Israel: Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)


Oh this is an AIPAC winner for Pence: "There's No Humanity Crisis in GAZA"
YouTube - Pence: Turkey Needs To Decide

Checkout Mike PENCE defend his Lord's Nuclear Weapons
 
Last edited:
We have a lot worse foreign policy problems than our relationship with Israel. I don't understand all of the focus on Israel when we should be trying to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Israel is the reason (one of the reasons anyway) why there are troops in Iraq, Af-Pak, Yemen.
Israel is the excuse for TSA, Patriot act and the rest of the terror measures
Israel is the justification for those promoting involuntary servitude
 
So...is that an endorsement?

In the Senate level of politics, that is as far from an endorsement as it gets. All he said was that Mike Pence is a member of the same political party and is a person he is currently staying on good terms with due to his legislative agenda. Then he said that the party needs a "good group" out there, which means it is absolutely not an endorsement.

:)
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand Ron's position on this since earmarks are not actually authorized by the Constitution. Local pet projects do not involve interstate commerce in any way.

That's why RP always votes No on the bills that have those earmarks in them.

I wonder how many of those Republicans out there who tout their refusal of earmarks have no compunction about voting Yes on the bills that have that stuff in them.
 
That's why RP always votes No on the bills that have those earmarks in them.

And that's why Ron always gets criticized by the right on this issue. Many people see it as hypocritical that he inserts earmarks into bills, and then votes against the bills knowing they will pass anyway. It's hard to defend him against those attacks.
 
Back
Top