I don’t get why adaher keeps clinging to this idea that earmarks are “the primary means by which politicians reward their campaign contributors”. If you look at the biggest political contributors they are mostly investment firms and a few unions. Koch being a stand out exception but really, you think they give a crap whether a bridge gets built in Wherever, Arkansas? They all care about legislation that affects their business practices. Maybe at a smaller local level some contributors get to build that bridge, but neither Soros Fund Management nor Elliot Management really give a crap.
Moving beyond the ideological bullshit, about how it’s the Big Bad Democrats who are Ruining The Country, to the voting bullshit… How does voting for Johnson (or Hillary, for that matter) have the slightest thing to do with who you vote for in Congress?
Already addressed, so
You were asked for fact and cites, not more partisan bluster. So we can conclude you ain’t got.
Again, you were asked what you think happened to DREAM. You can keep ducking and blustering, but you’ll convince absolutely no one that you have anything to say.
So why then do they keep winning elections? Do you think the people are that stupid?
You could quit making it up. Just a thought.
If you ignore what he stands for, he’s better? Srsly dude? 
You’re reinforcing my point, that getting things done has become more important than a clean, transparent, honest process. Earmarking as you describe is rarely done in the open, and most earmarks do in fact go to campaign contributors, with some Congressmen being more openly corrupt than others:
One Illinois Congressman was actively selling earmarks, although it’s Illinois so what should we expect, right?:
“Earmarks and campaign contributions are part and parcel of the pay-to-play system that permeates Washington,” said Ryan Alexander, President of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Companies making thousands of dollars in campaign contributions get millions of dollars of earmarked taxpayer dollars from lawmakers.”
That’s not to say that all earmarks are corrupt, just that they are a very frequently used means of corruption. Some earmarks are as you describe, and those tend to be placed into bills openly and voted on. The earmarks I’m talking about are quietly inserted into bills in conference committees or not even voted on at all, actually added after the bills have passed. Which makes them not law, and Presidents can ignore them, but in practice treat them as if they’d been legitimately passed. There is zero chance that Hillary Clinton, the queen of money for access, would ever ignore these earmark requests.
Then there’s Democrats lately making a virtue of just not enforcing laws they don’t like out of frustration with their inability to pass laws. Not necessarily due to Republican obstruction, but because actually writing down their opposition to such laws would cause them to lose their job.
The Democrats have become anti-rule of law and pro-rule of men. They have politicized executive offices and either turned a blind eye or actively encouraged them to act in partisan fashion.
These are not ideological issues and they will have to stop if Democrats ever want to enjoy power for more than two years at a time. And even getting another slim two year window looks increasingly unlikely since nowadays Democrats aren’t even pretending to be a reformist party anymore.
Guns are frequently used in crimes but we’re not getting of them. Maybe you should think of earmarks that way. Sure, the occasional armed robbery happens but mostly they’re for hunting deals and home district protection.
So how are you doing with the facts and cites and stuff, adaher? Entertainment value you’ve got.
I could live with earmark reform:
- All earmarks must pass through the regular legislative process. Before the earmark ban, most earmarks were added in conference committee:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Earmarks#The_earmarking_process_today
- No earmark may go to a campaign contributor. This does not need to be a law, just a rule that can be invoked by the parliamentarian simply by one member of the HOuse or Senate raising a point of order.
My cite also lists bills that have been proposed to reform the earmarking process, although none of them really get at the root of the issue, the nexus between big campaign contributors and extremely profitable earmarks that are often 100 times as much as their contributions.
Rubio has the worst voting record of any Florida Senator in nearly 50 years.
Confirms Politico (yes, I know, but there’s data and cites and shit there).
Oh Patrick. You got crushed at the debate.
It’s not easy to lose a debate to Rubio at this point in his career.