quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Even at his young age, Rubio has a lengthy, lamentable track record of financial irresponsibility, to put it mildly. To think of what havoc he would wreak as President on the public coffers is terrifying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Even at his young age, Rubio has a lengthy, lamentable track record of financial irresponsibility, to put it mildly. To think of what havoc he would wreak as President on the public coffers is terrifying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Even at his young age, Rubio has a lengthy, lamentable track record of financial irresponsibility, to put it mildly. To think of what havoc he would wreak as President on the public coffers is terrifying.

Oh yes yes. It will be terrible when he's president. Hehe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen

Even at his young age, Rubio has a lengthy, lamentable track record of financial irresponsibility, to put it mildly. To think of what havoc he would wreak as President on the public coffers is terrifying.

Oh yes yes. It will be terrible when he's president. Hehe.

Do you think that maybe leftists are being a tad disingenuous when they wring their hands over the prospect of a Tea Party conservative being fiscally "liberal"

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the only legitimate questions here are:

if marco Rubio has indeed made some mistakes, or bad financial decisions personally, has he done so in any way shape or form in his capacity as a government official?

leftists are the last people that should be mingling the private with the public.

as a follow-up to the first, if he has made some mistakes and bad decisions, what did he do about them and what is his present status in relation to them? another way to read that is, "i screwed up, and im not doing that anymore." what more could you want from a person?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

the only legitimate questions here are:

if marco Rubio has indeed made some mistakes, or bad financial decisions personally, has he done so in any way shape or form in his capacity as a government official?

leftists are the last people that should be mingling the private with the public.

as a follow-up to the first, if he has made some mistakes and bad decisions, what did he do about them and what is his present status in relation to them? another way to read that is, "i screwed up, and im not doing that anymore." what more could you want from a person?

How many exposes did the far left New York Slimes do on the Obamas private life

"OMFG, MARCO RUBIO BOUGHT A BOAT, OMFG OMFG OMFG, STOP THE PRESSES OMFG"

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen
Mr. Rubio, in his 2012 memoir, “An American Son,” confessed a “lack of bookkeeping skills” and an “imperfect accounting system.”

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
FR
I wonder if Thune was gonna throw his hat in the ring.....hilarious man...
https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/607990379619696640
Yesterday, Senator John Thune (R – Reaganland) distilled the Republican argument in King v Burwell, the Supreme Court case that could wipe out Obamacare subsidies for over 6 million Americans due to a typo in the bill, to its purest form: “I know you are, but what am I?”
In a tweet that was seemingly memetically generated in order to grate his nails across the chalkboard that is political Twitter as loudly as possible, Thune argued that if the Supreme Court invalidates federal insurance subsidies for consumers whose states did not set up their own health insurance exchanges, it will be President Obama’s fault for signing a bill that covered those consumers in the first place:
On a scale from one to trolling, that tweet is straight out of Lord of the Rings. Thune is basically saying that if the good parts of Obamacare are overturned, it will prove that Obamacare is bad.
Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress could step in at any time and pass a bill to fix the drafting error in Obamacare, which would render this whole Supreme Court case moot and guarantee that no one loses their subsidies. But they won’t, because that would mean that journalists could write articles that put the words “Republican,” “vote for” and “Obamacare” in the same sentence, which could then be used in ads run by primary opponents.
All of this underscores a point that Chris Trejbal made late last week: No matter what happens in King v Burwell, Republicans lose. If the court rules that the subsidies are okay, in keeping with the clear intent of the bill, then Republicans will have brought a frivolous lawsuit that put 6 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage. If the court invalidates the subsidies, then Republicans will have actually taken away health coverage from 6 million Americans with absolutely no fallback option to restore them. That they’re field-testing arguments that not only defy logic, but flip logic the bird and insult its mother, only makes that all the more clear.
That didn�t stop Twitter from taking Thune�s argument and running with it:

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: markyugen
Even at his young age, Rubio has a lengthy, lamentable track record of financial irresponsibility, to put it mildly. To think of what havoc he would wreak as President on the public coffers is terrifying.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
FR
I wonder if Thune was gonna throw his hat in the ring.....hilarious man...
https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/607990379619696640
Yesterday, Senator John Thune (R – Reaganland) distilled the Republican argument in King v Burwell, the Supreme Court case that could wipe out Obamacare subsidies for over 6 million Americans due to a typo in the bill, to its purest form: “I know you are, but what am I?”
In a tweet that was seemingly memetically generated in order to grate his nails across the chalkboard that is political Twitter as loudly as possible, Thune argued that if the Supreme Court invalidates federal insurance subsidies for consumers whose states did not set up their own health insurance exchanges, it will be President Obama’s fault for signing a bill that covered those consumers in the first place:
On a scale from one to trolling, that tweet is straight out of Lord of the Rings. Thune is basically saying that if the good parts of Obamacare are overturned, it will prove that Obamacare is bad.
Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress could step in at any time and pass a bill to fix the drafting error in Obamacare, which would render this whole Supreme Court case moot and guarantee that no one loses their subsidies. But they won’t, because that would mean that journalists could write articles that put the words “Republican,” “vote for” and “Obamacare” in the same sentence, which could then be used in ads run by primary opponents.
All of this underscores a point that Chris Trejbal made late last week: No matter what happens in King v Burwell, Republicans lose. If the court rules that the subsidies are okay, in keeping with the clear intent of the bill, then Republicans will have brought a frivolous lawsuit that put 6 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage. If the court invalidates the subsidies, then Republicans will have actually taken away health coverage from 6 million Americans with absolutely no fallback option to restore them. That they’re field-testing arguments that not only defy logic, but flip logic the bird and insult its mother, only makes that all the more clear.
That didn�t stop Twitter from taking Thune�s argument and running with it:

Maybe they should have found out what was in it before they passed it?

(Just to reiterate, I believe the text of the law supports the challengers, but the intent of the law opposes the challengers. SCOTUS is going to have to rule on letter vs. intent, which could have far-reaching ramifications. I'm, generally, more supportive of intent, so I'm actually on the side of Obamacare on this challenge.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
the only legitimate questions here are:
if marco Rubio has indeed made some mistakes, or bad financial decisions personally, has he done so in any way shape or form in his capacity as a government official?

quote:

as a follow-up to the first, if he has made some mistakes and bad decisions, what did he do about them and what is his present status in relation to them? another way to read that is, "i screwed up, and im not doing that anymore." what more could you want from a person?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
FR
I wonder if Thune was gonna throw his hat in the ring.....hilarious man...
https://twitter.com/SenJohnThune/status/607990379619696640
Yesterday, Senator John Thune (R – Reaganland) distilled the Republican argument in King v Burwell, the Supreme Court case that could wipe out Obamacare subsidies for over 6 million Americans due to a typo in the bill, to its purest form: “I know you are, but what am I?”
In a tweet that was seemingly memetically generated in order to grate his nails across the chalkboard that is political Twitter as loudly as possible, Thune argued that if the Supreme Court invalidates federal insurance subsidies for consumers whose states did not set up their own health insurance exchanges, it will be President Obama’s fault for signing a bill that covered those consumers in the first place:
On a scale from one to trolling, that tweet is straight out of Lord of the Rings. Thune is basically saying that if the good parts of Obamacare are overturned, it will prove that Obamacare is bad.
Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress could step in at any time and pass a bill to fix the drafting error in Obamacare, which would render this whole Supreme Court case moot and guarantee that no one loses their subsidies. But they won’t, because that would mean that journalists could write articles that put the words “Republican,” “vote for” and “Obamacare” in the same sentence, which could then be used in ads run by primary opponents.
All of this underscores a point that Chris Trejbal made late last week: No matter what happens in King v Burwell, Republicans lose. If the court rules that the subsidies are okay, in keeping with the clear intent of the bill, then Republicans will have brought a frivolous lawsuit that put 6 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage. If the court invalidates the subsidies, then Republicans will have actually taken away health coverage from 6 million Americans with absolutely no fallback option to restore them. That they’re field-testing arguments that not only defy logic, but flip logic the bird and insult its mother, only makes that all the more clear.
That didn�t stop Twitter from taking Thune�s argument and running with it:

Maybe they should have found out what was in it before they passed it?

(Just to reiterate, I believe the text of the law supports the challengers, but the intent of the law opposes the challengers. SCOTUS is going to have to rule on letter vs. intent, which could have far-reaching ramifications. I'm, generally, more supportive of intent, so I'm actually on the side of Obamacare on this challenge.)

quote:



Sen. Marco Rubio’s quest for the Republican presidential nomination is getting an unlikely lift from The New York Times.

The newspaper published two unflattering stories about the Florida senator in the course of five days, including a piece about his family’s traffic violations that was widely mocked on Twitter.

Republican strategists argue that attacks from the mainstream media, and the Times in particular, could help galvanize conservatives behind Rubio’s candidacy.

“If you’re a Republican, there is probably no better bogeyman for you than The New York Times,” said GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak, who also writes for The Hill’s Contributor’s blog.

Rubio tried to press his advantage Tuesday, firing back at a Times report that called attention to his personal finances, including the purchase of an $80,000 boat.

In a statement posted on Rubio’s website, spokesman Alex Conant accused the newspaper of mounting “the latest in their continued hits against Marco and his family.”

“First The New York Times attacked Marco over traffic tickets, and now they think he doesn’t have enough money. Of course if he was worth millions, The Times would then attack him for being too rich, like they did to Mitt Romney.”

quote:

It’s no surprise the liberal paper of record will bash leading GOP contenders. But two hit jobs in one week on a guy who’s at best third in a Republican field of nearly 20?
Perhaps Sen. Rubio represents a special threat. He’s not just a credible GOP candidate — he’s also a first-generation Cuban-American success story.
Few things worry the liberal establishment more than the rise of minority conservatives who reject welfare-state identity politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

http://nypost.com/2015/06/10/why-the-times-is-obsessed-with-smearing-marco-rubio/

quote:

It’s no surprise the liberal paper of record will bash leading GOP contenders. But two hit jobs in one week on a guy who’s at best third in a Republican field of nearly 20?
Perhaps Sen. Rubio represents a special threat. He’s not just a credible GOP candidate — he’s also a first-generation Cuban-American success story.
Few things worry the liberal establishment more than the rise of minority conservatives who reject welfare-state identity politics.