Someone from the campaign needs to make Rand stop saying "military spending"

[Anti-Neocon]

Saying you will cut the military isn't a way to get Republican converts.

As FU Frank would say, the power of language is important.

When you say you will cut military people think that you are not taking care of the soldiers. Instead, using the word "Pentagon" is much more effective. It sounds much more bureaucratic and less about the soldiers themselves.

There is a huge difference between talking about irresponsible Pentagon spending, and irresponsible military spending. One will just be ignored by stupid people because we need the strongest military in the world blah blah, and the other one has potential to make inroads.

[chiefsmurph]

agree come on rand he should know this by now

[idiom]

This is why FU Frank should be on Rand's payroll.

He would come up with amazingly powerful language.

[Brett85]

Ron did the same thing. I don't really understand it. I thought Rand was going to be the liberty candidate who had better messaging than Ron and could better reach out to Republican voters, but that hasn't been the case.

[Theocrat]

Saying you will cut the military isn't a way to get Republican converts.

As FU Frank would say, the power of language is important.

When you say you will cut military people think that you are not taking care of the soldiers. Instead, using the word "Pentagon" is much more effective. It sounds much more bureaucratic and less about the soldiers themselves.

There is a huge difference between talking about irresponsible Pentagon spending, and irresponsible military spending. One will just be ignored by stupid people because we need the strongest military in the world blah blah, and the other one has potential to make inroads.[Emphasis mine]

You've just identified the root of the problem there, Anti-Neocon. Perhaps voters need to be more informed because they are missing Sen. Rand's point. The only way to balance our budget (which is an important facet of being conservative) is to cut all spending, since the current ploy in Washington is that Republicans increase spending for the Democrats so that Democrats increase spending for them.

Sen. Paul is actually for increasing military spending, provided that we cut spending in domestic programs (such as welfare). But as I alluded to, Democrats don't want to cut spending there, so they "force" Republicans to leave such programs alone by promising them to increase spending in foreign programs.

[Anti-Neocon]

This is why FU Frank should be on Rand's payroll.

He would come up with amazingly powerful language.
Lol I would never trust that weasel, but it's really pretty simple.

An example of a powerful statement would be:
"Our last two Presidents have put our nation in danger with exploding national debt, and we need to look everywhere to cut government waste. Most Republicans are unwilling to even audit the Pentagon and see where we can both spend less money yet increase our security at the same time through a strong, efficient military policy. They say all we do is have to spend more like liberals and that will bring us safety, without even considering the national security risk brought upon by the debt. The Clinton-Rubio-Bush foreign policy has completely failed us and led to the rise of ISIS. That is why we need a new foreign policy which puts American national security interests first by aiming to stabilize the middle east rather than destabilize, which we have seen lead to vacuums waiting to be filled by jihadists. I warned about this in the past, while all these other candidates were with Clinton and Obama, and sadly I have been proven right with the grave danger that ISIS poses to all of us today. I was also the very first voice in the Senate asking for a Constitutional declaration of war against ISIS. They all like to pose tough, but where were they when it mattered?"

[Anti-Neocon]

[Emphasis mine]

You've just identified the root of the problem there, Anti-Neocon. Perhaps voters need to be more informed because they are missing Sen. Rand's point. The only way to balance our budget (which is an important facet of being conservative) is to cut all spending, since the current ploy in Washington is that Republicans increase spending for the Democrats so that Democrats increase spending for them.

Sen. Paul is actually for increasing military spending, provided that we cut spending in domestic programs (such as welfare). But as I alluded to, Democrats don't want to cut spending there, so they "force" Republicans to leave such programs alone by promising them to increase spending in foreign programs.
He is not for increasing military spending. That was just a political ploy to make clowns contradict themselves.

But the point is to inform them, and the first step is to make them open their ears and minds to what you are saying. And it isn't all that hard if you use the right language, but he puts the lock on their minds, keeping them closed shut before he can even start explaining the intricacies. Saying that you will "cut military" is just a big no-no, especially putting it forward as the thesis before your arguments, because these trained monkeys have been conditioned to look at all people as either "us" or "them" and you have already lost their attention at that point. It's not horrible to sneak that into your conclusion once the seeds have already been planted, but you can't shock them off the bat.

[cornell]

Let me pretend I am Rand, if so I'd phrase it like this:

We all agree that throwing money at failing schools has not improved anything. We all agree that throwing trillions of dollars at the so-called "war on poverty" has not changed anything despite decades of effort. Indiscriminately throwing money at any problem never solves anything! This applies not just to solving our domestic welfare programs but also to our military. Simply spending more money does not necessarily make us safer. We need to spend our money prudently when American lives are at stake. I am for a strong national defense following Reagan's philosophy of peace through strength, but for us to argue that there is no waste or redundant spending within the Pentagon is for us to deceive ourselves. We need to look at all spending carefully to balance our budget and tackle our national debt which is one of the most dangerous threats to our national security today. Only by cutting the pork from all areas of government and spending funds in the most efficient way possible can we truly be fiscally conservative and protect our future.

[Anti-Neocon]

Yes that would work too.

As more of a one-liner phrase. "We have three major threats that we face today: ISIS, the national debt, and the dictator in chief trying to take away our constitutional rights. I am the only candidate who will fight for all three with all the energy that I have."

Another important messaging thing is tying the 2nd and 4th amendment together. "Liberals are always using fear to try to take away our rights. Why are self-proclaimed conservatives acting just like 2nd amendment hating gun-grabbing liberals when it comes to the privacy guaranteed to us in the 4th Amendment?"

[Cabal]

Ron was always good about making the distinction between defense spending and interventionist warfare spending, which tends to demonstrably compromise national defense. He liked to talk about all the irrelevant military bases we have around the world, as well.

Rand doesn't seem to do this enough, at least from what I've seen.