acmegeek
02-13-2008, 07:34 PM
I posted this in another thread, but I think it needs its own thread after I wrote it all out...
I think that there are just two main reasons why people didn't vote for Ron Paul when presented the choice.
The first is they simply didn't know who he was. You know how when you vote and you just don't recognize a name? Like in a local election for a sheriff, councilman, etc. In the absence of a pre-picked candidate, you tend to vote for the name that is most familiar. All those opposed to Ron Paul and his message have waged a fairly successful campaign of ignorance. They have succeeded in excluding him from their reporting enough that Ron Paul isn't a 100% nationwide household name.
The second is that when he has been reported, with few exceptions, there has either been ridicule, defamation, or otherwise negative bias. They have done a good job associating his name with terms that are either flat out negative or that generally connote a negative or a weakness.
The bottom line to both of these campaigned waged against RP is that the American people have not been told the plain and honest truth about Ron or any of the other candidates either.
They haven't been very honest about Ron's accomplishments, his excellent, peer-acknowledged record, or his very clear and proven understanding of the problems we face as well as his very effective solutions.
Likewise, they have been overly generous to the other candidates, glossing over character flaws, questionable or illegal actions, verified lies, etc.
So, these both simply boil down to bias. We all know this. They don't want Ron to win because what he stands for threatens their plans.
So I say all this to give you my suggestion for how we can take them all down.
USE THEIR OWN WORDS AGAINST THEM!!!
Let me explain, each of the remaining candidates has said and done many things over the years which flat out betray the positions and character they claim to have today.
We simply need to gather and wildly promote their own words. Not our commentary or other's commentary, but just their own words.
As an example, the video here: http://www.SonOfCain.com contrasts McCain against himself. This is very powerful. Don't underestimate the power of being able to short circuit a supporter's faith in their candidate should they hear that their candidate was verified to have said something significantly opposed to what they currently stand for.
For example... McCain's words about getting out of Somalia:
Quote:
It's in our interest to see people being able to survive throughout the world. It's in our interest to see peace and order. But what we have to recognize is the United States cannot do those things and the United States has to be very careful when it gets involved militarily. Otherwise, we will not only not help the situation, but perhaps, over time, worsen the situation, with the consequent expenditure of American lives and treasure.
from here: http://www.cdi.org/adm/713/transcript.html
How does this fit in with his recent 100, 1,000, 10,000 years???
So imagine hypothetically if we were to find an old recording or footage of RP talking for raising taxes, restricting civil liberties, or something that would just destroy his credibility? I'm sure some if not many of us would then question him more and lose some of our passion.
Fortunately, Ron Paul has said the same thing for decades... that is his hallmark. He is consistent, principled, and honest no matter what the cost. Period.
So, what we do is write articles, press releases, blogs, etc, and flood the internet and real life discussions with real verified quotes from the other candidates that reveal their true character.
One thing I'm working on is an online game that would select 10 random quotes, out of hundreds from the candidates, and have the player guess who said the quote. I think most people would be shocked to find out what their candidate has really said.
Not everyone would be affected by this as too many people fail to hold our leaders to the much higher standard they merit. While our leaders may be human, they must be an example of admitting mistakes and taking the repercussions or consequences as they come.
But if we could get 10%, 25% of people who had once genuinely believed in their candidate to begin to question and then find out more about the other choices, then we'll be on our way to overcoming the bias we fight against.
Ideas? Comments?
I think that there are just two main reasons why people didn't vote for Ron Paul when presented the choice.
The first is they simply didn't know who he was. You know how when you vote and you just don't recognize a name? Like in a local election for a sheriff, councilman, etc. In the absence of a pre-picked candidate, you tend to vote for the name that is most familiar. All those opposed to Ron Paul and his message have waged a fairly successful campaign of ignorance. They have succeeded in excluding him from their reporting enough that Ron Paul isn't a 100% nationwide household name.
The second is that when he has been reported, with few exceptions, there has either been ridicule, defamation, or otherwise negative bias. They have done a good job associating his name with terms that are either flat out negative or that generally connote a negative or a weakness.
The bottom line to both of these campaigned waged against RP is that the American people have not been told the plain and honest truth about Ron or any of the other candidates either.
They haven't been very honest about Ron's accomplishments, his excellent, peer-acknowledged record, or his very clear and proven understanding of the problems we face as well as his very effective solutions.
Likewise, they have been overly generous to the other candidates, glossing over character flaws, questionable or illegal actions, verified lies, etc.
So, these both simply boil down to bias. We all know this. They don't want Ron to win because what he stands for threatens their plans.
So I say all this to give you my suggestion for how we can take them all down.
USE THEIR OWN WORDS AGAINST THEM!!!
Let me explain, each of the remaining candidates has said and done many things over the years which flat out betray the positions and character they claim to have today.
We simply need to gather and wildly promote their own words. Not our commentary or other's commentary, but just their own words.
As an example, the video here: http://www.SonOfCain.com contrasts McCain against himself. This is very powerful. Don't underestimate the power of being able to short circuit a supporter's faith in their candidate should they hear that their candidate was verified to have said something significantly opposed to what they currently stand for.
For example... McCain's words about getting out of Somalia:
Quote:
It's in our interest to see people being able to survive throughout the world. It's in our interest to see peace and order. But what we have to recognize is the United States cannot do those things and the United States has to be very careful when it gets involved militarily. Otherwise, we will not only not help the situation, but perhaps, over time, worsen the situation, with the consequent expenditure of American lives and treasure.
from here: http://www.cdi.org/adm/713/transcript.html
How does this fit in with his recent 100, 1,000, 10,000 years???
So imagine hypothetically if we were to find an old recording or footage of RP talking for raising taxes, restricting civil liberties, or something that would just destroy his credibility? I'm sure some if not many of us would then question him more and lose some of our passion.
Fortunately, Ron Paul has said the same thing for decades... that is his hallmark. He is consistent, principled, and honest no matter what the cost. Period.
So, what we do is write articles, press releases, blogs, etc, and flood the internet and real life discussions with real verified quotes from the other candidates that reveal their true character.
One thing I'm working on is an online game that would select 10 random quotes, out of hundreds from the candidates, and have the player guess who said the quote. I think most people would be shocked to find out what their candidate has really said.
Not everyone would be affected by this as too many people fail to hold our leaders to the much higher standard they merit. While our leaders may be human, they must be an example of admitting mistakes and taking the repercussions or consequences as they come.
But if we could get 10%, 25% of people who had once genuinely believed in their candidate to begin to question and then find out more about the other choices, then we'll be on our way to overcoming the bias we fight against.
Ideas? Comments?