I think we should stop being so aggressive about Ron Paul

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A lot of people are turned off by him because how much of a jerk we can be, whether it's justified or not.

[Fillbaxter]

I think it would be wise to read "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. In the meantime take look at this wikipedia page and read over the major points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

You will see that a lot of us have be doing the wrong things. I was guilty of this as well, but just by applying the fundamentals in this book people are less inclined to fight with you and more inclined to agree. Trust me these techniques work, not only will you be getting your views across but you will become a more likable person in all aspects of you life.

[Cleaner44]

I think we should be more aggresive and not be jerks.

[ronpaulblogsdotcom]

Most of this aggressiveness was a media fabrication or anger from being excluded all the time.

90% of them just look like enthusiastic supporters.

[bubbleboy]

People who accuse supporters of being jerks would not fit our base. They are weak minded and easily swade.

[tommy7154]

The sheep don't realize that we do this not for Ron Paul but for the message of freedom, our rights, and our country. Make them understand that and they will at least be able to understand the emotion and the passion.

I ask people to ask themselves what it is they want out of this. For me it's freedom and an end to these wars of greed. I just want my country back and for it to once again prosper and earn back the respect that it deserves. For those things the best (only...) candidate is Ron Paul. Ask them what it is they want out of this.

[ambiguousscion]

You win some, you loose some.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I know right? Same thing went wrong with the civil rights protesters in the 60's; Marching in the streets, disturbing the business in restaurants, sitting on the wrong end of the bus, making the police pull out their water canons. Its not Dr. King, its his nutty supporters. They are a turn off.

. . . oh wait

[FrankRep]

I think it would be wise to read "How To Win Friends And Influence People" by Dale Carnegie. In the meantime take look at this wikipedia page and read over the major points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

You will see that a lot of us have be doing the wrong things. I was guilty of this as well, but just by applying the fundamentals in this book people are less inclined to fight with you and more inclined to agree. Trust me these techniques work, not only will you be getting your views across but you will become a more likable person in all aspects of you life.


Awesome book.

[Redcard]

I know right? Same thing went wrong with the civil rights protesters in the 60's; Marching in the streets, disturbing the business in restaurants, sitting on the wrong end of the bus, making the police pull out their water canons. Its not Dr. King, its his nutty supporters. They are a turn off.

. . . oh wait

There's a difference.

That non-violent, non-confrontational protesting. They didn't DO anything aggressive. They walked down the street. They walked into restaurants and sat down at the lunch counters. They sat in the front of the bus. They did all these things silently and non-aggressively. They made other people get aggressive, and that's how they won.

In the end, they won because they knew that nonviolence would ALWAYS win hearts and minds over violence.. that non-aggression will always be the higher road.. that actions speak louder than words.

I've seen Ron Paul supporters in person as they shouted down other candidates, took down signs, made fun of people, and called people names. Comparing this movement to the civil rights movement is a joke. We're not even close to the level of non-violence and civil disobedience they managed. They planned a lot of this stuff out, including Rosa Parks, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and other such peace movements, marches, etc. If you want to use them as a comparison , then perhaps you should learn from them.

[Ira Aten]

I think we should stop being so aggressive about Ron Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people are turned off by him because how much of a jerk we can be, whether it's justified or not.



Oh yeah, all the coverage that we and Ron Paul are getting in the MSM, is really what is hurting him.

Why, just a few minutes ago on television, I saw ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about Ron Paul, his support, or the fact that he is even alive, on ALL MAJOR networks and cable channels.

Yes, we should try to be a little quieter than silence. Being quieter than silence works wonders.

[Laja]

be convincing, not aggressive.

[Redcard]

Well, we rigged their polls, gamed their system, yelled about it, and then didn't show up at the polls on our voting days thus far.

And you wonder why they just decided to ignore us?

I think today is going to be a wakeup call for a lot of people here.

[Fillbaxter]

When discussing issues, don't criticize someone, don't flat out call someone WRONG or a neocon, it just sounds bad. When you begin criticize someone they stop listening an start hating you. Praise the good parts of them, tell them you really like how open minded they are about things, even if they are not say it sincerely this will make them think that they are and puts them in position to hear what you have to say. Get them to talk about the issues that they like not what interests you, if they are pro-life discuss that and not the Iraq war. Never argue, show respect for their opinions. Remember that we all love this country, we may think McCain will ruin it but the people who like him don't. If you asked them why they like McCain they won't say "because he will ruin this country" they may say " because he is a strong leader" at that time explain how Dr. Paul will lead. We need to inform not attack. Like I said before Please read "How To Win Friends And Influence Other People" check out the wikipedia page below it will get you started. Thanks for your time.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

[tomveil]

As time goes by, we get more desperate.

We know what's at stake in this election.

If it were held a year or two years from now, Ron Paul would win in a landslide.

[Goldwater Conservative]

I've seen Ron Paul supporters in person as they shouted down other candidates, took down signs, made fun of people, and called people names. Comparing this movement to the civil rights movement is a joke. We're not even close to the level of non-violence and civil disobedience they managed. They planned a lot of this stuff out, including Rosa Parks, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and other such peace movements, marches, etc. If you want to use them as a comparison , then perhaps you should learn from them.

That's the minority of behavior, and I'm sure some of that also existed during the civil rights movement. We remember what 99% of the civil rights activists were doing, but the media only covers what 1% of Paul supporters are doing. Stop judging the many by the actions of the few. It's disgusting and typical of everything we're fighting against as believers in individualism over collectivism.

[asgardshill]

As time goes by, we get more desperate.

We know what's at stake in this election.

Truth. I foresee a lot of rats abandoning ship by the end of this day.

[Redcard]

That's the minority of behavior, and I'm sure some of that also existed during the civil rights movement. We remember what 99% of the civil rights activists were doing, but the media only covers what 1% of Paul supporters are doing. Stop judging the many by the actions of the few. It's disgusting and typical of everything we're fighting against as believers in individualism over collectivism.

What makes you think the many and the few aren't the same here?

Look, we told the media on these polls online that there were TONS of us. Just EVERYWHERE. Then we come out and act the fool on TV with Hannity and others.. and we don't get anything above 10% except for a state where NOBODY came out.

You wonder where the media went? In every election back to the 60s, it has been a static fact that the more tv time you buy, the more mainstream press attention you get. When you buy Ad time, you get people talking about you, and that gets you into MSM shows.

HOW many RP commercials have you seen on TV? How many times have you heard a story here about some radio hosts WANTING to talk to Ron Paul, but not getting their phone calls returned?

Understand this. We paid $4,000,000 for MAILERS.

Mailers that, I don't know about you, but if I don't know who they are, I throw them AWAY. Political studies/sciences classes have shown that it's one of the least effective methods.

TV = MSM coverage.

[Goldwater Conservative]

What makes you think the many and the few aren't the same here?

I base it on personal experience (I know a few dozen Paul supporters, none engage in that behavior), what people are like even here (supporters who post on forums are the most "fanatical," and polls here have shown that the vast majority of even us don't engage in that behavior), and just plain common sense. Honestly, do you really think of the 1 million or more people likely to have voted for Paul by the end of this process that more than 10,000 are doing these stupid things? What about more than 100,000?


Then we come out and act the fool on TV with Hannity and others..

"We"? Were you there? I wasn't. It was about a dozen people, maybe more if you count some of those just tagging alone while the others yelled and a handful threw snowballs. That is not an outrageous controversy, no matter how much the media spins it as such. Yes, we should avoid that behavior, but you can never eliminate all bad behavior from society and it's no different in a political campaign, especially considering that politics attracts the passionate. Even if there were only a few hundred people doing these things, if the media chose to cover it, whether because of a grand conspiracy or merely because they're sensationalists who love a juicy drama (I think it's the latter), it would become the public perception of reality.


and we don't get anything above 10% except for a state where NOBODY came out.

I thought the polls were understating Paul's support, like they did for Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes, and they were by a few points in the caucus states, but I guess it just didn't happen. Still, we WOULD have done much better if he not only got more TV coverage, but if it was fair coverage. Sorry, no matter how many mistakes the campaign has made in spending its money, no amount of ad buys will get the talking heads who control the debate start talking about Paul or talking fairly about him. They live off the polls, but they also shape the very opinions that feed back into the polls.

[Redcard]

Well, even H Ross Perot got where he got , and got the press he got ,because he bought TV time.

It wasn't a lot, but.. seriously, I'm tired of flipping on the TV and seeing twenty political ads for everything from President to Dog Catcher and not seeing a single Ron Paul ad.