Rubio will be the neocon pick for 2016

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The GOP needs to become more libertarian if they want to win. Social conservatism is a losing bet. You lose the middle and get no Dem votes. This is an economic era, not a religious one. There just isn't enough social conservatives to win a national election.

I am going to disagree with you on this one but for a roundabout reason. An old Blue Dog Democrat was asked a few years ago why the South left the Democratic Party. Their reply was "The South didn't leave the party, the party left us." I see the same thing with the GOP. For whatever reason both parties have a fringe element tail that wags the rest of their respective dogs. If the real conservatives - which are ably represented by the Tea Party underlings (those at the demonstrations and not the politicians) - left the party and started their own and never looked back then I think everyone would be surprised at the groundswell of support for refuting the two-party system. But that takes people to break their habits and that is extremely difficult. But I can not see anything of real value for the future of the US without it. JMHO

[rpmGator]

Told everyone years back on this board, that Jeb will run next, with Rubio as his VP.

I was right about him not running this past election, and sticking to my prediction for the next one.

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

Told everyone years back on this board, that Jeb will run next, with Rubio as his VP.

I was right about him not running this past election, and sticking to my prediction for the next one.

I think that it is going to be the Battle of the Aristocracy: Bush versus Clinton, unless they have a plan to alternate. That is the Banana Republic way. It keeps things tidily in place. Mustn't have the cattle stampede.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The GOP needs to become more libertarian if they want to win. Social conservatism is a losing bet. You lose the middle and get no Dem votes. This is an economic era, not a religious one. There just isn't enough social conservatives to win a national election.

I agree. The path to victory and the salvation of the country is a coalition of conservatives and libertarians who will double down on federalism, and -- even though they disagree with each other -- mutually recognize and agree that the federal government is not the forum for their social policy debates, that all of it (drugs, abortion, marriage) should be kicked down to the states where it belongs.

[rpmGator]

I don't think Hillary has as much time as Jeb. Her "good" looks are starting to fade.

Even in her best pant suit, she isn't the looker she once was. But she still has that winning personality we all love.

[wgbgator]

Libertarianism is a losing proposition. Has it ever had an effective pitchman? While there is no doubt that certain libertarians have attracted a rabid following, on a national level libertarianism always comes off as "FU, not my problem." A sentiment that is not a very effective way of winning high office.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Libertarianism is a losing proposition. Has it ever had an effective pitchman? While there is no doubt that certain libertarians have attracted a rabid following, on a national level libertarianism always comes off as "FU, not my problem." A sentiment that is not a very effective way of winning high office.

Well, at this point, anything that doesn't promise punch and pie is a losing proposition to winning an election. Statist dependency can win a lot of elections while utterly destroying the institutions and indeed the basic humanity of society.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Well, at this point, anything that doesn't promise punch and pie is a losing proposition to winning an election. Statist dependency can win a lot of elections while utterly destroying the institutions and indeed the basic humanity of society.

The sooner the dead-enders accept that providing a basic level of healthcare and economic security for all citizens is an essential function of gov't in a post-industrial world, the better.

[rpmGator]

Republicans want to tax internet sales in Florida now. Which will take more money out of the hands of the people. But they plan to give it back to private companies so they can prosper.

That way it isn't a tax increase... and you wonder why we are losing ground in elections.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

The sooner the dead-enders accept that providing a basic level of healthcare and economic security for all citizens is an essential function of gov't in a post-industrial world, the better.

And the sooner we'll be imploding back to conditions equivalent to a pre-industrial world. Dependency on government as a substitute for self-reliance is the ultimate dead end.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

And the sooner we'll be imploding back to conditions equivalent to a pre-industrial world. Dependency on government as a substitute for self-reliance is the ultimate dead end.

First, I would point out the American libertarianism is grounded in a pre-industrial understanding of relationships and interactions between people. Moreover, you seem so certain of something that is complete conjecture. Production and economies are like a river, it only flows one way, continuously. We can no more go back to the pre-industrial world than we can pet a dinosaur.

[Itssaul]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

The GOP needs to become more libertarian if they want to win. Social conservatism is a losing bet. You lose the middle and get no Dem votes. This is an economic era, not a religious one. There just isn't enough social conservatives to win a national election.

If only they could just realize this! :/ money, money, money. That's all!

[cocodrilo]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

I don't think Hillary has as much time as Jeb. Her "good" looks are starting to fade.

Even in her best pant suit, she isn't the looker she once was. But she still has that winning personality we all love.

She is the "most admired woman" in the world. She is more admired in America than Bonnie Parker ever was. In 2016 it will once more be the Bush crime family vs. Clinton crime family. I look forward to it, like another Godfather sequel. Happy days are here again.

If Rubio gets nominated instead of Jeb, it will be a neocon vs. a should-be-a-con. Sounds like fun too.

America is in good hands.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Libertarianism is a losing proposition. Has it ever had an effective pitchman? While there is no doubt that certain libertarians have attracted a rabid following, on a national level libertarianism always comes off as "FU, not my problem." A sentiment that is not a very effective way of winning high office.

You wouldn't frame in that way. The left comes across as "I'm stealing from you" and the right comes across as "live life how I want you to" yet they've survived. Then again your quote applies to both parties as well by your definition. Couldn't the Dems say the GOP has a "not my problem" attitude on economic issues and wouldn't the GOP say the same about Dems on social issues?

There are tons of libertarian types in both parties, and they pick their party based on what is more important on the margin...personal or economic.

That is why it's a winning strategy in this era.

You'd frame it as a freedom based economic policy and a mind your own business social policy. Then you'd meet in the middle on foreign policy.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

You wouldn't frame in that way. The left comes across as "I'm stealing from you" and the right comes across as "live life how I want you to" yet they've survived. Then again your quote applies to both parties as well by your definition. Couldn't the Dems say the GOP has a "not my problem" attitude on economic issues and wouldn't the GOP say the same about Dems on social issues?

There are tons of libertarian types in both parties, and they pick their party based on what is more important on the margin...personal or economic.

That is why it's a winning strategy in this era.

You'd frame it as a freedom based economic policy and a mind your own business social policy. Then you'd meet in the middle on foreign policy.

Well, the problem with this idea is that I think people do see discrimination and inequality in the social sphere as a problem, and one that involves the government in either addressing discriminatory laws/policy or passing legislation to prevent such discrimination. The left isnt "libertarian" on those issues (even though they may have common cause on some issues with libertarians), as they most certainly don't think businesses or private entities should be free to discriminate as they wish, and they think the government should actively do something to prevent discrimination against certain classes of people, whether its in marriage, private hiring practices or college admissions.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Well, the problem with this idea is that I think people do see discrimination and inequality in the social sphere as a problem, and one that involves the government in either addressing discriminatory laws/policy or passing legislation to prevent such discrimination. The left isnt "libertarian" on those issues (even though they may have common cause on some issues with libertarians), as they most certainly don't think businesses or private entities should be free to discriminate as they wish, and they think the government should actively do something to prevent discrimination against certain classes of people, whether its in marriage, private hiring practices or college admissions.

You wouldn't run is a full blooded libertarian though. You pick the battles.

The easy ones are economic freedom (lower taxes), smaller government, marriage equality, ending the drug war, etc.

No need to try to achieve utopia right away. Even the extremists in the current parties don't do that.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

You wouldn't run is a full blooded libertarian though. You pick the battles.

The easy ones are economic freedom (lower taxes), smaller government, marriage equality, ending the drug war, etc.

No need to try to achieve utopia right away. Even the extremists in the current parties don't do that.

The problem for this mushy libertarianism is that people like smaller government and low taxes only in the abstract. If people are given the more concrete option to get rid of SS/Medicare or pay higher taxes, they will choose higher taxes. So, basically you're running on vague catch phrases that become less popular the more specific they get detailed, and the more direct the trade off becomes between keeping a favored program or lower taxes. Now, this strategy has worked for a good 30 years or so because growth has allowed a great deal of deficit spending. But once the choice becomes more stark & apparent, I think people will choose more taxes over less economic security. That is basically the end game the "starve the beast" people were after, but probably not the outcome.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

The problem for this mushy libertarianism is that people like smaller government and low taxes only in the abstract. If people are given the more concrete option to get rid of SS/Medicare or pay higher taxes, they will choose higher taxes. So, basically you're running on vague catch phrases that become less popular the more specific they get detailed, and the more direct the trade off becomes between keeping a favored program or lower taxes. Now, this strategy has worked for a good 30 years or so because growth has allowed a great deal of deficit spending. But once the choice becomes more stark & apparent, I think people will choose more taxes over less economic security. That is basically the end game the "starve the beast" people were after, but probably not the outcome.

Again, you wouldn't politic for the utopia overnight. The end goal is very small government, just like the end goal for Obama is borderline communism. It is all incremental. So you don't politic on removing SS, you politic on enhancing it while giving us more freedoms.

SS is a different discussion, and fixing it should be nonpartisan. Screwing it up initially, ponzi instead of pension/private accounts, has cost America trillions and individual retirees hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Again, you wouldn't politic for the utopia overnight. The end goal is very small government, just like the end goal for Obama is borderline communism. It is all incremental. So you don't politic on removing SS, you politic on enhancing it while giving us more freedoms.

SS is a different discussion, and fixing it should be nonpartisan. Screwing it up initially, ponzi instead of pension/private accounts, has cost America trillions and individual retirees hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

Neither "very small government" or "borderline communism" can be achieved incrementally. They both involve pretty fundamental shifts in social relations and economic production that typically entail revolutionary action or state repression (read violence). At best, you could foster the conditions for such action, but that does not guarantee a prefered outcome.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Neither "very small government" or "borderline communism" can be achieved incrementally. They both involve pretty fundamental shifts in social relations and economic production that typically entail revolutionary action or state repression (read violence). At best, you could foster the conditions for such action, but that does not guarantee a prefered outcome.

Of course it doesn't guarantee it. But you don't make America full blown socialist overnight, you do it incrementally. SS, Healthcare, etc. The left has been moving towards its goal. Sure it doesn't guarantee success or even that such "progress" won't be rolled back, but there is no way to sell an uninformed American populace on full change. And even if you could it isn't viable economically. Privatization isn't a switch you can turn on.