Kasich threatens to leave GOP

[Rjjr77]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

[Rjjr77]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

For what it's worth, you pretty much prove the point I made in my earlier post with that comment. The subtext of this comment also demonstrates how rubio ripped ideological conservative voters away from people who would've otherwise voted Cruz on the basis of ideological, rather than superficial characteristics.

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

[Rjjr77]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

For what it's worth, you pretty much prove the point I made in my earlier post with that comment. The subtext of this comment also demonstrates how rubio ripped ideological conservative voters away from people who would've otherwise voted Cruz on the basis of ideological, rather than superficial characteristics.

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

Rubio actually has a strong conservative record of his own, which you ignore, the man has a lifetime 81% Heritage action score, making him actually one of the most conservative US Senators.

I'd like to point out Rubio voted to have women eligible for the draft btw, as he said he would

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

For what it's worth, you pretty much prove the point I made in my earlier post with that comment. The subtext of this comment also demonstrates how rubio ripped ideological conservative voters away from people who would've otherwise voted Cruz on the basis of ideological, rather than superficial characteristics.

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

Rubio actually has a strong conservative record of his own, which you ignore, the man has a lifetime 81% Heritage action score, making him actually one of the most conservative US Senators.

I'd like to point out Rubio voted to have women eligible for the draft btw, as he said he would

Actually, his Heritage ranking is 73%.

[Rjjr77]

his lifetime heritage action score is 81%

[uti2]

his lifetime heritage action score is 81%

His overall rank is at 15. As a comparison, Hillary in 2008 was ranked as the 16th most liberal.

[Rjjr77]

his lifetime heritage action score is 81%

His overall rank is at 15. As a comparison, Hillary in 2008 was ranked as the 16th most liberal.

thats just this year, please learn to look at lifetime scores as cycles change depending on votes.

Rubios 81% puts him on par with Mike Crapo, and higher than Tim Scott, Jeff Sessions, Tom Cotton, Steve Daines, etc.

Life time score Rubio is the 7th most conservative senator in the senate, and a good chunk ahead of 8th place.

[Kingpoleon]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

Interesting thing about flip flops. No one ever accuses Obama or Clinton of "flip flopping" on gay marriage, for instance. Views of politicians change over time.

[Simfan34]

pls leave. would be hillarious to see him become a nobody independent

Kasich has had more conservative accomplishments then most republicans by far...

Didn't you get the memo? Conservativism means mistreating women, bashing immigrants, and triggering libs. Get with the program!