Is the Freedom Caucus only learning what we all learn about our politicians? At some point you will be betrayed.

I know. It is what I've been reminding people of. Many are opposed to National Health Care altogether. Why should you expect anything to pass? This post was edited by O-uknow at March 30, 2017 9:40 AM MDT

We could argue the merits of that comment, but the real issue are the wishy washy, disingenuous loons who are are showing their true colours. You are either for it or against it.  I remember when the words "AND REPLACE" started appearing.  It was in response to the popularity of Bernie Sander's message and all of a sudden it started showing up in candidate rhetoric. 

Cowards need to stand their ground...they are either for it...or against it.  Nothing in between is acceptable.

And that further evidences how far removed from reality these repubs actually are.

Many of Sanders' supporters were Ron Paul supporters in 2008 and 2012, their candidacies were near identical as well. Think about that for a moment, you couldn't find two people more principally divided than Paul and Sanders and yet they were carrying the same supporters. Evidently no one in the two big parties bothered to ask why that was.

It's a testament to how truly put out people are with the political flip flop class. Voters would have sooner gotten behind a candidate they may not have agreed with at all principally, but could trust do do what they said they would do, than a party hack who would knife them in the back at first chance.

That's a huge insight into the minds of voters and it escaped the two parties entirely. Because they don't care, they couldn't give a **** less if we all fell off the face of the planet tomorrow.

This post was edited by my2cents at March 30, 2017 8:28 PM MDT

You are confirming my comment meritable or not.

I've always found it odd that limited government proponents are quick to judge limited government elects for not passing legislation. When Paul ran for president, many conservatives told me he was ineffective his 30 years in Congress because he never had a legislative accomplishment, not true (he managed the first Fed audit in history), but that was their argument in favor of Romney and against Paul.

What a weird thing for a small govt. supporter to say, isn't that the whole point of small govt; i.e. to not pass law just for the sake of passing law? Never made sense to me.

I find that anti-gov, small-gov proponents (or at least those who say they are, are the first ones to create new laws that actually increase the gov. 

Exactly! This health care law is the perfect example. It's really very weird to me, legislative accomplishment as an indicator for efficacy. It wouldn't be so bad if they actually rolled back bad law, but they rarely if ever actually eliminate things that don't work. Seems to me it's really more about increasing budgets and that's easier to do while holding up a perceived failure. But then that becomes the new budget from then on. As an example, the wall or the allegedly gutted DOD, those arguments serve one purpose, increasing the budget. It's easier to do when people think we're 'fixing' something rather than increasing the defense budget to $1T 'just cuz.'

Oh...I don't argue with you at all on that.  Glad we could keep the conversation on point

Very good comment about Trump.

Here's my favorite about a Trump supporter heard outside one of the Trump rallies.

"KEEP YOUR LOUSY GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE !!!"