Chat that destroyed Rubio

[jbauer]

So I was talking politics with a +80 yr old. I didn't bring any names into account. He asked whom I would be voting for. Instead of saying Rand, I simply stated that I think America needs a policy that states that you cannot spend more then you bring in, in taxes. With that limit we'll start to prioritize things such as Social Secuirty, Obamacare, military food stamps etc etc.

He whole-heartedly agreed. That if we could get spending in line with taxation that we would start to prioritize what is important to us in America.

He went on to say that he doesn't like Trump or Cruz. He'd be voting for Rubio. I said my biggest complaint with Rubio was his plan to spend an EXTRA trillion on the military. He stated that was what sold him on Rubio. In his mind "the world is out to get us".

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

I still at that point did not name names, only asking him that he really sit down and look for candidates that will cut spending to get it in line with taxation. I'll guarantee he saw my Rand Paul bumper sticker so naming names wasn't required in this case.

What I did see in his eyes was questioning of his own long held beliefs. I contend that assuming you have enough time with the old guard republicans that putting real numbers behind what is actually being proposed by some of these buffoons can and will change their minds.


So the question is: How do you condense this conversation into 1-2 minutes instead of 10 minutes?

 

[erowe1]

So I was talking politics with a +80 yr old. I didn't bring any names into account. He asked whom I would be voting for. Instead of saying Rand, I simply stated that I think America needs a policy that states that you cannot spend more then you bring in, in taxes. With that limit we'll start to prioritize things such as Social Secuirty, Obamacare, military food stamps etc etc.

He whole-heartedly agreed. That if we could get spending in line with taxation that we would start to prioritize what is important to us in America.

He went on to say that he doesn't like Trump or Cruz. He'd be voting for Rubio. I said my biggest complaint with Rubio was his plan to spend an EXTRA trillion on the military. He stated that was what sold him on Rubio. In his mind "the world is out to get us".

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

I still at that point did not name names, only asking him that he really sit down and look for candidates that will cut spending to get it in line with taxation. I'll guarantee he saw my Rand Paul bumper sticker so naming names wasn't required in this case.

What I did see in his eyes was questioning of his own long held beliefs. I contend that assuming you have enough time with the old guard republicans that putting real numbers behind what is actually being proposed by some of these buffoons can and will change their minds.


So the question is: How do you condense this conversation into 1-2 minutes instead of 10 minutes?

Nice.

You could have made it more shocking by adding the amount you came up with to the already existing deficit.

 

[jbauer]

Nice.

You could have made it more shocking by adding the amount you came up with to the already existing deficit.

I'm a numbers guy. Its how my head works....fortunately or unfortunately!! Keep it simple stupid has always been my mantra. In reality all 320 million people can't pay the extra $500/mo. So you'd probably have to double the number to make up for those without the means to pay for it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

So I was talking politics with a +80 yr old. I didn't bring any names into account. He asked whom I would be voting for. Instead of saying Rand, I simply stated that I think America needs a policy that states that you cannot spend more then you bring in, in taxes. With that limit we'll start to prioritize things such as Social Secuirty, Obamacare, military food stamps etc etc.

He whole-heartedly agreed. That if we could get spending in line with taxation that we would start to prioritize what is important to us in America.

He went on to say that he doesn't like Trump or Cruz. He'd be voting for Rubio. I said my biggest complaint with Rubio was his plan to spend an EXTRA trillion on the military. He stated that was what sold him on Rubio. In his mind "the world is out to get us".

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

Good work. It's very enlightening to get out and try out ideas, strategies and tactics in the real world, with real voters.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The gay sex scandal is probably an easier and more effective way of bringing him down. This story has been active in the Alt-Right News sites for a couple days, which means it will probably break through to the MSM in a week or so if history is any guide.

Guy Rubio was arrested with at a park at 3 A.M. was later involved in a lawsuit centered around his Gay Porn Website. No way Rubio survives this.

the story, published on January 21st, notes that Rubio was with his friend, Angel Barrios, and another unnamed young man, when they were stopped by the police in Alice C. Wainwright Park at about 10 PM on May 23, 1990. Unfortunately, the article does not give very much information about Mr. Barrios, other than the fact that he owns several coin-operated laundries in the Miami area. So we decided to try and find out who this guy is. His LinkedIn page was easy to find: www.linkedin. com/in/angel-barrios-19387360. Further searches revealed a case filed by the City of Miami against an Angel Barrios in 2007, seeking to enjoin him from allowing the use of his residential property for business purposes (http://www.miamigov.com/cityattorney...t-Dec-2011.pdf). What were these business purposes? The production of pornography for distribution over the internet, by a company named Flava Works. What kind of pornography? Gay pornography: flavaworks.com (warning NSFW)

http://pastebin.com/8HGYkLhP

 

[jbauer]

The gay stuff will work but it sure feels seedy and there isn't anything the hits home personally. They don't have to think about gay stuff on a daily basis unless they've got family or friends that it effects. I don't have the answer so by all means hit it however you feel you can make a difference.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The gay stuff will work but it sure feels seedy and there isn't anything the hits home personally. They don't have to think about gay stuff on a daily basis unless they've got family or friends that it effects. I don't have the answer so by all means hit it however you feel you can make a difference.

This unsubstantiated accusation isn't going anywhere. Drinking beer in a park at 18. No one cares.

“When he was 18 years old, he violated a municipal code for drinking beer in a park after hours,” Harris said. “He was never taken into custody, never hired a lawyer and never appeared in court. Why The Washington Post thinks that is a story is beyond me.”

There’s no indication that Rubio was involved in any illegal activity other than drinking beer and being in a public park after closing. The police incident report, which does not mention alcohol, states that drug activity was “not applicable.”
...
It was not far from there that Rubio’s arrest occurred. At 9:37 p.m. on Wednesday, May 23, 1990 — five days before Rubio’s 19th birthday and an hour and a half after sunset — a police officer was dispatched to Alice C. Wainwright Park, a shaded stretch of grass along Brickell Avenue where the neighborhoods of Brickell and Coconut Grove meet, according to a Miami police incident report. The park, studded with palms and gumbo limbo trees, offered a stunning vista of Biscayne Bay, a “millionaire’s view for the masses,” according to one newspaper review.

The bayside park, named for the first woman to serve on the Miami City Commission, had been established in 1965 at the site of a dilapidated estate. It is flanked on three sides by ornate mansions and pricey condominiums. Madonna and Sylvester Stallone would own homes there in the early 1990s.

Despite the high-priced real estate nearby, the park had become a notorious locale in the late 1980s and early ’90s, a haven for drug dealers, prostitutes and gang members.

A local homeowners association’s newsletter documented the complaints of neighbors: “Gang warfare, gunfire, prostitution (straight and gay), drug dealing and muggings.” Police were attuned to the complaints because of a pattern of problems at the park, said Delrish Moss, a Miami police public information officer and a 32-year veteran of the department.

“It was very dark and had lots of trees,” he said. “People went out there to smoke illegal substances, have sex, drink.”

A full account of what led to Rubio’s arrest and the dismissal of the charge are not included in available public records. The court file has been destroyed, according to Miami-Dade County court clerk’s records.

According to the Miami police incident report, a police officer arrived at the park at 9:47 p.m., 10 minutes after being dispatched. The report notes that Rubio and two other teenagers were inside the park after hours.
...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...82a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

 

[hells_unicorn]

The gay stuff will work but it sure feels seedy and there isn't anything the hits home personally. They don't have to think about gay stuff on a daily basis unless they've got family or friends that it effects. I don't have the answer so by all means hit it however you feel you can make a difference.

This would definitely explain why he and Lindsey Graham got along so well in the senate. Yuck! I wanna hurl just saying that.

 

[PaleoPaul]

This would definitely explain why he and Lindsey Graham got along so well in the senate. Yuck! I wanna hurl just saying that.

Looks like Miss Lindsay is a bean queen.

 

[RonPaulMall]

This unsubstantiated accusation isn't going anywhere. Drinking beer in a park at 18. No one cares.

Unsubstantiated? There are sources for every single one of the facts in the OP. He was arrested in a park at night with a man who would go on to become a gay pornographer. It could be a coincidence of course, but highly suspicious to say the least.

 

[statist slayer]

So I was talking politics with a +80 yr old. I didn't bring any names into account. He asked whom I would be voting for. Instead of saying Rand, I simply stated that I think America needs a policy that states that you cannot spend more then you bring in, in taxes. With that limit we'll start to prioritize things such as Social Secuirty, Obamacare, military food stamps etc etc.

He whole-heartedly agreed. That if we could get spending in line with taxation that we would start to prioritize what is important to us in America.

He went on to say that he doesn't like Trump or Cruz. He'd be voting for Rubio. I said my biggest complaint with Rubio was his plan to spend an EXTRA trillion on the military. He stated that was what sold him on Rubio. In his mind "the world is out to get us".

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

I still at that point did not name names, only asking him that he really sit down and look for candidates that will cut spending to get it in line with taxation. I'll guarantee he saw my Rand Paul bumper sticker so naming names wasn't required in this case.

What I did see in his eyes was questioning of his own long held beliefs. I contend that assuming you have enough time with the old guard republicans that putting real numbers behind what is actually being proposed by some of these buffoons can and will change their minds.


So the question is: How do you condense this conversation into 1-2 minutes instead of 10 minutes?

NICE JOB. This is easy enough for Rand to package in a debate response. "Marco Rubio wants $1 trillion more in spending, but also wants to balance the budget by only spending what we take in. No one asks what this means. This means that everyone would pay an extra $6,200 a year in taxes. Marco wants to saddle you with an extra car payment. Might as well vote for Bernie Sanders. I am the only fiscal conservative in the race, because I have a plan to balance the budget, reducing both spending and taxes -- and I have no sacred cows, because I don't pander to the lobbyists and special interest groups."

 

[erowe1]

This unsubstantiated accusation isn't going anywhere. Drinking beer in a park at 18. No one cares.

Except it doesn't look like he was drinking a beer, or, if he was, that's not why he was arrested. So why did his campaign mention the beer? What is he hiding?

I think the evidence points in the direction of gay activity as the reason. I also think that there's no way that WaPo didn't do any more investigation into that angle of the story than their published story indicates (although, even in that story they do throw some hints in that direction). Given that he's running for nomination of the Republican party for president, and is a fairly serious contender, it seems to me like the added details about Angel Barrio are very relevant. The question of who else was part of this group that got arrested is also important--are they also gay?

WaPo isn't finished with this story. If they were, they ought to have mentioned those details, even if only to go on to reveal that that hypothesis proved unlikely (if it did). I believe the reason they didn't is because they already know a lot more than what is in the link that RonPaulMall shared, and they're deliberately sitting on it in case Rubio wins the nomination so they can drop the bomb after that time.

Even before seeing this, who here wouldn't admit that Rubio always set off their gaydar.

 

[erowe1]

Unsubstantiated? There are sources for every single one of the facts in the OP. He was arrested in a park at night with a man who would go on to become a gay pornographer. It could be a coincidence of course, but highly suspicious to say the least.

Not just any park either.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Unsubstantiated? There are sources for every single one of the facts in the OP. He was arrested in a park at night with a man who would go on to become a gay pornographer. It could be a coincidence of course, but highly suspicious to say the least.

The insinuation, and essential accusation here is that Rubio was engaged in gay sexual activities at the park. That is unsubstantiated.

 

[francisco]

So I was talking politics with a +80 yr old. I didn't bring any names into account. He asked whom I would be voting for. Instead of saying Rand, I simply stated that I think America needs a policy that states that you cannot spend more then you bring in, in taxes. With that limit we'll start to prioritize things such as Social Secuirty, Obamacare, military food stamps etc etc.

He whole-heartedly agreed. That if we could get spending in line with taxation that we would start to prioritize what is important to us in America.

He went on to say that he doesn't like Trump or Cruz. He'd be voting for Rubio. I said my biggest complaint with Rubio was his plan to spend an EXTRA trillion on the military. He stated that was what sold him on Rubio. In his mind "the world is out to get us".

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

I still at that point did not name names, only asking him that he really sit down and look for candidates that will cut spending to get it in line with taxation. I'll guarantee he saw my Rand Paul bumper sticker so naming names wasn't required in this case.

What I did see in his eyes was questioning of his own long held beliefs. I contend that assuming you have enough time with the old guard republicans that putting real numbers behind what is actually being proposed by some of these buffoons can and will change their minds.


So the question is: How do you condense this conversation into 1-2 minutes instead of 10 minutes?

Good job! I'm gonna try that with a few of the older party activists here.

 

[invisible]

Wow! Maybe the rube is going to pull out, then start going around spreading santorum.

 

[01000110]

I told him that was fine but we needed to pay for it which he agreed. I then took out my calculator and put in $1T divided by 320 million people which comes out to $3125 per year per person...every man, woman and child in the USA. I explained that if he believed we shouldn't spend more then what we bring it that he and his wife were going to need to start cutting an additional tax check of $6,250/year or $520/month. The price tag of a very nice car.

He was dumbfounded. He had never thought about it in terms of what will HE have to give up to afford some of these ridiculous plans.

Good way to wake him up.

 

[Rudeman]

Is it $1 Trillion in 1 year or over 10 years? Still it'll be quite a bit because not everyone pays taxes.

 

[jbauer]

Is it $1 Trillion in 1 year or over 10 years? Still it'll be quite a bit because not everyone pays taxes.

Good question? I thought it was every year but it looks it might be over 10yrs. So then the math would be:

320 million people = 171.3 million tax units (households) this year, 77.5 million—or 45.3 percent—won't pay income tax

So the math is

171.3M - 77.5M = 93.8

1T/10yrs = 100B/yr

100B/93.8M = $1066 per household per year that pays taxes. So not as extreme but still plenty.

 

[erowe1]

Good question? I thought it was every year but it looks it might be over 10yrs. So then the math would be:

320 million people = 171.3 million tax units (households) this year, 77.5 million—or 45.3 percent—won't pay income tax

So the math is

171.3M - 77.5M = 93.8

1T/10yrs = 100B/yr

100B/93.8M = $1066 per household per year that pays taxes. So not as extreme but still plenty.

You could make it concrete by asking, "If you think the federal government isn't doing a good enough job protecting you with the $600B they're already spending on wars each year, then would you really feel better protected by forking over another $1,000 a year out of your pocket for them to spend than to be able to allocate it yourself to whatever you decide is the best way to make you safer, like a gun?"