Who is your worst politician from your own party? (legal, John Edwards, voted)

[jburress]

Rep: Mitch McConnel
Dem: Debbie Wasserman Schultz

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by Troyfan

Rand Paul.

Your worst is my favorite. He is one of the few politicians with an independent mind that doesn't go with the flow of the Uniparty. He is a true fiscal conservative. I appreciated his vote against the most recent budget. I also like that he is not a neocon and is one of the few that doesn't want us going to war in the Middle East (which always makes the region less secular).

My only problem with Rand Paul is one of his big issues is prison reform. I want more prisons and longer sentences including for drug addicts. I want a war on drugs...which we never truly had...one where we literally go to war gainst drug addicts (no not weed, OK potheads) and eliminate them from the general population....I am the polar opposite of Rand Paul on this but he is still my favorite.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Bureaucat

Not a current Dem, but it’s hard to beat the former Governor of New Jersey, James McGrevey, who put an Israeli lover on the state payroll and when it came to light and he was criticized for it, said he was being persecuted because he was a gay man.

No Jim, it was because you put a lover on the state payroll.

How did you know they were lovers at the time ????

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic

I'm liberal and the list of Democrats I actually like is very short.

Even if I'm a conservative I can respect that. If I was a liberal my problem with Dems would be they are in bed with corporate America. I recall how they, not Republicans, were the ones who bailed out big banks and "too big to fail" companies after the financial crisis. They said they had to do it but what they ended up doing is creating the biggest wealth gap in American history...which is ironic considering their class warfare rhetoric.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Yep. That's why I tell the young Republicans in the college organization I used to run that it makes no sense to try to appease the left and to go out of your way to "be liked" by leftists on campus. While they may applaud some of you for "resisting" () President Trump today, they will be back to bashing you as racist, sexist, homophobic (you name it) for being a Republican tomorrow. Its the Dem way. I recall during the 2016 election cycle when several articles mentioned this issue with today's Dem party . . . they had spent so much time referring to every Republican candidate as a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot (with nothing to show for it) that people became desensitized to such attacks and they had little impact when used against what they deemed to be an "actual threat" (again, ) in Trump.

This tends to go both ways.

[shokwaverider]

Originally Posted by pknopp

It's no different than those on the right being silent about Trump running up the deficit.

Just goes to show how Hypocritical they all are, they would be calling out the firing swads if it were not a Republican in the White house. This TRULY sums up the Trump "Hangers On" party. Not the Republican party I signed up for, for sure.

In reality Our government is completely corrupt. Their mantra is Give me Money & get me re-elected and I will do anything for you, and they mean ANYTHING. Our founding fathers would Roll in their graves if they witnessed the travesty that is the US government today.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Even if I'm a conservative I can respect that. If I was a liberal my problem with Dems would be they are in bed with corporate America. I recall how they, not Republicans, were the ones who bailed out big banks and "too big to fail" companies after the financial crisis. They said they had to do it but what they ended up doing is creating the biggest wealth gap in American history...which is ironic considering their class warfare rhetoric.

Your logic doesn't make sense for multiple reasons

1. Republicans supported the bill 34-15 in the Senate , 108-91 in the house

So a majority of Republicans voted for it in both Chambers

2. To big to fail is about pragmatism(reality), not philosophy( personal beliefs ) . You can very well believe that no bank or company should be to big to fail, that doesn't change the fact that the auto industry indirectly and directly employ a couple of million people. Those companies folding means millions of jobs lost and more people in poverty

3. None of which had anything to do with the wealth gap.

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Your logic doesn't make sense for multiple reasons

1. Republicans supported the bill 34-15 in the Senate , 108-91 in the house

So a majority of Republicans voted for it in both Chambers

2. To big to fail is about pragmatism(reality), not philosophy( personal beliefs ) . You can very well believe that no bank or company should be to big to fail, that doesn't change the fact that the auto industry indirectly and directly employ a couple of million people. Those companies folding means millions of jobs lost and more people in poverty

3. None of which had anything to do with the wealth gap.

Nothing to do with the wealth gap? I have never heard that before. Propping up Wall Street absolutely creates a huge wealth gap. It is a much bigger factor than the "tax cuts for the rich" liberals always complain about.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

This tends to go both ways.

It does. In my experience, however, it is much more pronounced on the left . . . it does help that the media overwhelmingly leans left/helps spreads such mess via their opinion panels and what not.

[Bureaucat]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

How did you know they were lovers at the time ????

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McGreevey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Cipel