He’s basically announcing a position on an issue that is irrelevant or beyond the control of federal officials in an effort to fool conservatives into thinking he’s on their side, but once elected he will implement his liberal agenda.
For example, Rubio may say he’s anti-abortion. Doesn’t matter, train has left the station, abortion isn’t going anywhere, but he passes a useless conservative litmus test.
For example, Rubio may say he’s pro-traditional marriage. Doesn’t matter. Train has left the station. Gay marriage isn’t going anywhere, but he passes another useless conservative litmus test.
Rubio says he’s pro-Article V. Doesn’t matter. It’s up to the states to do this or not. What a federal official thinks about it is irrelevant, but he passes another useless conservative litmus test.
This is nothing more than a trick used by liberals to appear conservative.
Huckabee is another example of someone like this.
The litmus tests matter and sometimes the contribution is in articulating a sound argument that gets a lot of attention.
That said, Rubio is dishonest and I will never vote for him. Neither will I vote for other candidates who won’t even so much as voice support for what is right.
The train has not left entirely so long as we are alive and able to fight. Some of those battles had no chance but were pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed until they turned things around. Things can in the exact same way be turned back around.
The ruling coalition is united around several things that the people are against. They are skilled at setting up phony issues (or issues that don’t concern the Federal government) to break up the formation of any possible other coalition.
Republicans and Democrats agree that the purpose of the State is redistribution. How much, and to whom, and under what circumstances, there are disagreements. But no elected officials of either Party believe that it is wrong to take from you and give to another of their own choosing, for reasons that make sense to them.
Republicans and Democrats agree that you have “rights” - lots of them. They also agree that any question ABOUT your “rights”, or whether or not something IS a “right”, should not be decided by a political process because that is “divisive”. So, they both agree that the voice of “The People” as contemplated in Articles IX and X can only be voiced by nine unelected life tenure judges, and that five of them, at any time or for any reason, can give new “rights” and take away old ones, particularly if those old ones arise out of majority voting.
Republicans and Democrats all believe in “diversity”. They, ignoring completely the results of all social science research on this subject, and contrary to millennia of human experience and wisdom, believe that the more “diverse” our country, its institutions, and any private entities within her become, the more cohesive and productive we will become.
Republicans and Democrats almost all believe in “free trade” and “immigration”. These things are good for various constituencies of both parties while they wreck the economy and the nation.
Many of the People, perhaps a majority, do not believe in any of these things. But in our existing system, captive as it is to the MSM-mandated “process” for choosing two candidates for POTUS neither of whom will change a thing, leaves the People with no voice.
Something’s gonna blow.