PDA

View Full Version : Be Prepared To Hear A Lot Of Things You Don't Like In 2016




trey4sports
05-17-2013, 10:37 PM
In 2012 Mitt Romney was mercilessly attacked by the left for even the most MODEST reforms. Things like....



simply SLOWING the rate of growth of the budget
just REFORMING student loans


At the end of the day, most of America is not ready to hear things like "scale back our empire" and "end student loans from the government" and they're certainly not ready to hear that the drug war is a failure.

So, if you're hoping for a 2016 campaign based on the ideals of "Libertopia" you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm just stating this because I don't want mass defection any time our candidate doesn't advocate immediately ending _______ program.

VoluntaryAmerican
05-17-2013, 10:40 PM
In 2012 Mitt Romney was mercilessly attacked by the left for even the most MODEST reforms. Things like....



simply SLOWING the rate of growth of the budget
just REFORMING student loans


At the end of the day, most of America is not ready to hear things like "scale back our empire" and "end student loans from the government" and they're certainly not ready to hear that the drug war is a failure.

So, if you're hoping for a 2016 campaign based on the ideals of "Libertopia" you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm just stating this because I don't want mass defection any time our candidate doesn't advocate immediately ending _______ program.

Sad thing is they won't have to go far to figure out a way to divide the libertarian vote for Rand... just look at all the haters on this board and copy their idiotic rhetoric.

paulbot24
05-17-2013, 10:55 PM
I think most people on these boards will know exactly who they want when they see the options are Hillary, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, Biden, and Rand Paul. We already instinctively sift through the list and check for the last name "Paul" so we at least have that in our favor.:D

RonPaulMall
05-17-2013, 10:58 PM
Romney wanted to cut the rate of growth on spending, but he wanted to increase spending on the military. He wanted to reform education loans, but in a way that avoids any pain to his banker friends. Rand is different. When he talks about spending cuts, the left won't be able to call him a hypocrite because his plan cuts the military same as domestic. You can do the same sort of "square deal" type thing on education loans. Take the Feds out of the business of giving education loans but at the same time tie that bill to a provision that allows current debtors to discharge their loans in personal bankruptcy. Romney failed because he wasn't sincere. He believed in "conservatism" only when it didn't interfere with the interests of the Military Industrial Complex or Wall Street and the public (mostly in the form of Conservatives who simply stayed home instead of voting) saw right through him.

jkob
05-17-2013, 10:59 PM
It will not surprise me whatever scare tactics they employ, hopefully the country is ready by 2016. We need to take a stranglehold of the GOP regardless of general election win or loss.

emazur
05-17-2013, 11:08 PM
The sequester nonsense taught me that. Simply cutting the rate of increase in spending was constantly hammered as "Draconian". The liberty candidate would need to take the bull by the horns and declare that that he intends to rollback the Draconian increases in spending that have happened over the years that will leave us chained to debt and/or at the mercy of foreign creditors - by 2025 (and that's being optimistic) ALL federal revenue will be consumed by a combination of interest payments on the national debt and entitlement spending. And it gets MUCH worse after that:
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/FINAL%20DRTF%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY_0.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/iaR6g.jpg

Tod
05-17-2013, 11:33 PM
I think most people on these boards will know exactly who they want when they see the options are Hillary, Rubio, Jeb, Christie, Biden, and Rand Paul. We already instinctively sift through the list and check for the last name "Paul" so we at least have that in our favor.:D


I would expect a significant number of them to either sit out the election or vote for a candidate who has far less chance of winning than Rand because Rand doesn't pass their purity test.

Anti Federalist
05-17-2013, 11:41 PM
I would expect a significant number of them to either sit out the election or vote for a candidate who has far less chance of winning than Rand because Rand doesn't pass their purity test.

I have been as harsh as anybody on Rand, yet I will most likely vote for him and will probably support him fiscally as well, assuming no great upheavals or shifts in rhetoric or votes.

Because of my complaints and harshness over some stances he has taken, I've had the book thrown at me on more than a few occasions.

The last go around included a suggestion that it would be a good thing if the cops come and kill my dog, because I'm some sort fascist "enemy of freedom" or some such.

So now, I've pretty much made it policy to stay the fuck out of any Rand Paul thread or associated issue.

Which, admittedly, puts me behind the information curve WRT to current political events.

A cross I'll have to bear I guess. ;)

Now, having said that, I'll await the incoming...

VoluntaryAmerican
05-17-2013, 11:50 PM
I have been as harsh as anybody on Rand, yet I will most likely vote for him and will probably support him fiscally as well, assuming no great upheavals or shifts in rhetoric or votes.

Because of my complaints and harshness over some stances he has taken, I've had the book thrown at me on more than a few occasions.

The last go around included a suggestion that it would be a good thing if the cops come and kill my dog, because I'm some sort fascist "enemy of freedom" or some such.

So now, I've pretty much made it policy to stay the fuck out of any Rand Paul thread or associated issue.

Which, admittedly, puts me behind the information curve WRT to current political events.

A cross I'll have to bear I guess. ;)

Now, having said that, I'll await the incoming...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

paulbot24
05-18-2013, 12:13 AM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

I don't think that is what he meant.:D

Anti Federalist
05-18-2013, 12:16 AM
I don't think that is what he meant.:D

LOL - I'll take it...

John F Kennedy III
05-18-2013, 02:44 AM
In 2012 Mitt Romney was mercilessly attacked by the left for even the most MODEST reforms. Things like....



simply SLOWING the rate of growth of the budget
just REFORMING student loans


At the end of the day, most of America is not ready to hear things like "scale back our empire" and "end student loans from the government" and they're certainly not ready to hear that the drug war is a failure.

So, if you're hoping for a 2016 campaign based on the ideals of "Libertopia" you're going to be sorely disappointed. I'm just stating this because I don't want mass defection any time our candidate doesn't advocate immediately ending _______ program.


Who is our candidate? I didn't realize he was picked for me.

S.Shorland
05-18-2013, 02:53 AM
The market will have topped by 2016...

DamianTV
05-18-2013, 02:59 AM
One thing I am looking forward to hearing again:

"Fuck Mitt Romney"

John F Kennedy III
05-18-2013, 03:17 AM
Lol fuck Mitt Romney!

fr33
05-18-2013, 04:08 AM
I understand what the OP is saying and what Rand's strategy is. And I do support him.

But the logical response is: Be prepared for people react negatively to these things. Actions have consequences.

It isn't automatically because someone "hates Rand" that they react negatively to, for example, "attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on US"

I don't know if this strategy is going to work but I do know many of these backlashes are natural responses to wrong statements.