Voting choice: WHAT do people believe they have to lose by voting for Ron Paul?

[dkim68]

We know the reality is they have EVERYTHING to gain and NOTHING to lose. However, this is not clear for a majority of Americans. This is an important topic because if we are able to breakdown "WHAT" exactly people think they have to lose by voting for Ron Paul I am certain it will reveal that there is nothing of significance to lose at all. That the choice of voting for Ron Paul is something they can live with and something to be proud of as an American. And that nothing is important enough to warrant voting for McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary or Obama because that is a choice they will undoubtedly regret in years to come. There is only one candidate that can bring about true, positive change for America. I dread to think the kind of change that is in store if any of the others are elected.

So if all that is at stake is laid out on the table then the crossroads we are at becomes startlingly clear. At this point one cannot in good conscience simply vote for one of mainstream media's pre-declared "winners" over a candidate who is "right" and speaking "truth". When the words of "truth" finally sink in one cannot ignore them and then begins to understand the magnitude of the losses to the forces opposing the messenger. Also, the great courage of the messenger becomes apparent. We understand why he is being silenced. At this point, "right" and "wrong" takes priority over "winning" and "losing". Then we know we have reached clarity in thought. Only then can a sound voting choice be made.

We must awaken the American people. Inform, educate, wake them to the harsh reality surrounding us. This is too important. We must try! Because if we don't WE stand to lose everything.

[Edu]

That is the argument for when someone says "he can't win", so they want to vote for someone else. I say "but they will all have the same results, same, same" or something like that. It makes them think.

[dkim68]

One guy said if he votes for Paul it will takes votes away from McCain and then Hillary wins. Likening Paul to the Nader-effect.

[dblee]

One guy said if he votes for Paul it will takes votes away from McCain and then Hillary wins. Likening Paul to the Nader-effect.

der.... that would only work in the general election if paul ran third party... this is the primaries.

[zebov]

I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but I've come to a realization about people. If you read books on rhetoric and persuasion from thousands of years ago up until today, you see the same thing. People like to belong. People like to vote for winners. People are much more inclined to vote for someone that is already doing well. We can say "not fair" all we want and complain about how "that's stupid," but we can't change that fact. Thousands of years of persuasion have come to that conclusion and that's just how it is. A group of people will go along with the crowd they associate themselves with. The same is true about folks not thinking logically or being persuaded by slick politician-speech. That stuff has worked for thousands of years. We aren't going to be able to change it in one election cycle.

What we CAN do, however, is try to win people over one-by-one, door-by-door, phone-by-phone. Make them feel bad for voting against the candidate they truly side with. Make them second-guess themselves at the booth. And, furthermore, make them agree with Paul, whether or not they end up voting for him. This is a revolution. Whatever happens from now until November, we need to build up a mindset in the American population that Dr. Paul is right.

[dkim68]

Well if we could blackout the mainstream media the same way they've blacked out Paul what they would see remaining is the Ron Paul movement. In that case WE and Dr. Paul would be perceived as the winning choice. The Revolution itself would be seen as representing the majority and something they feel they need to belong to.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but I've come to a realization about people. If you read books on rhetoric and persuasion from thousands of years ago up until today, you see the same thing. People like to belong. People like to vote for winners. People are much more inclined to vote for someone that is already doing well. We can say "not fair" all we want and complain about how "that's stupid," but we can't change that fact. Thousands of years of persuasion have come to that conclusion and that's just how it is. A group of people will go along with the crowd they associate themselves with. The same is true about folks not thinking logically or being persuaded by slick politician-speech. That stuff has worked for thousands of years. We aren't going to be able to change it in one election cycle.

What we CAN do, however, is try to win people over one-by-one, door-by-door, phone-by-phone. Make them feel bad for voting against the candidate they truly side with. Make them second-guess themselves at the booth. And, furthermore, make them agree with Paul, whether or not they end up voting for him. This is a revolution. Whatever happens from now until November, we need to build up a mindset in the American population that Dr. Paul is right.
I agree, they are conformists

[Energy]

Well if we could blackout the mainstream media the same way they've blacked out Paul what they would see remaining is the Ron Paul movement. In that case WE and Dr. Paul would be perceived as the winning choice. The Revolution itself would be seen as representing the majority and something they feel they need to belong to.

Would be nice to blackout the media "V" style.

This election is uncharted territory. Totally unexpected things can happen that can send ripples of wake-up juice throughout the country. We have a ton of creativity, drive and passion that can conceive the extraordinary.

[acptulsa]

They get the opportunity to vote for the "lesser of two evils" and a chance to be unable to look themselves in the eye in the bathroom mirror.

Tell them that people who don't much like either of the "leading" candidates of their party are the overwhelming majority. That makes 'em think.

[ConstitutionGal]

Sadly, the analogy of a herd of sheep or lemmings is more apt than we like to think. People have been schooled into thinking they need to "pick" the winner like they would in a horse race as opposed to picking who they would really like to see win putting aside any perceived or touted 'front-runner'. The public schools have done performed their actual purpose. Thankfully, quite a few of us have been in this battle to wake up the American people for decades now and, thanks to Dr. Paul, the message of liberty and thinking for one's self if finally beginning to spread (kinda like 'crabgrass' ;-)

[acptulsa]

Slate.com has an article about how a direct, straightforward appeal for votes would play. They have a couple real examples and give a couple of possible ads for Democrats. In response, I just posted this:

So, here you are, a Republican primary voter, once again trying to choose between the lesser of the evils before you. So why don't you choose the one you actually agree with? Because the Liberal Media tells you over and over and over again he can't win.

What would you say if I told you that I have talked to dozens and dozens of Republican primary voters just like you and the vast majority of us agree. We all feel the same way. All it takes to get the one we really agree with, the one Ronald Reagan campaigned for (that sure wasn't McCain), the nomination is for us to vote for him. We have more votes in the Republican primaries than the liberal media, after all.

You know, the media was just as scared of Reagan, too, and used the same tactic against him. Then Republicans ignored them and voted for him anyway--and his numbers in the primaries just got better and better and better. Why do we have to wait for a herd to follow? Can't we just vote our consciences first and let the herd follow us? Let the liberal media--and that network that claims to represent us but is sponsored by arms merchants--both be damned. This is our party, not theirs!

Cast the vote that'll allow you to look yourself in the eye in the morning--whether the media wants you to believe he can win or not!

[familydog]

It's the same concept behind sports teams. When a team wins the Super Bowl, ever notice how they magically gain thousands of new fans?

There really is no other way to explain it. People want to vote for a winner no matter how much they may agree with a "loser."

[acptulsa]

It's the same concept behind sports teams. When a team wins the Super Bowl, ever notice how they magically gain thousands of new fans?

There really is no other way to explain it. People want to vote for a winner no matter how much they may agree with a "loser."

If any of us is ever called a "fair weather fan," we all know what to do--laugh!

[mkeller]

Isn't it awful? Several of my friends don't mind Paul too much (except they think the War in Iraq is a good thing), but they wouldn't ever vote for him because "he hasn't a prayer for the presidency." :mad: