PDA

View Full Version : Why Didn't Ron Paul Explain Things When He Spoke?




Knightskye
09-17-2008, 02:21 PM
Here's a quote of him at a debate:

"They think we live in an age of relative ethics, is what they have come to the conclusion of."

Uhh... what the heck does that mean?

And don't you think that was the reaction of a majority of people watching the debate?

Here's another:

"That's where you get your business cycles..."

People don't know about business cycles.

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:25 PM
Here's a quote of him at a debate:

"They think we live in an age of relative ethics, is what they have come to the conclusion of."

Uhh... what the heck does that mean?

And don't you think that was the reaction of a majority of people watching the debate?

Here's another:

"That's where you get your business cycles..."

People don't know about business cycles.


So you think he should dumb down everything he says to the standards of the MSM?

He performed perfectly in the debates. He won every single debate. He got 100,000's of fans and activists from what he said in the debates.

The problem is very few people watch the primary debates. But those who do watch them are usually smart enough to understand when he talks about slightly abstract concepts such as "guns and butter."

I personally loved when he asked McCain about the ppt. At the time I even had no clue what he was talking about, but it made me go research it.

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:28 PM
Here's a good article about relative vs absolute ethics.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/3393/ethics.html

SamuraisWisdom
09-17-2008, 02:28 PM
So you think he should dumb down everything he says to the standards of the MSM?

He performed perfectly in the debates. He won every single debate. He got 100,000's of fans and activists from what he said in the debates.

The problem is very few people watch the primary debates. But those who do watch them are usually smart enough to understand when he talks about slightly abstract concepts such as "guns and butter."

To be honest, yes, he should have dumbed it down, or at least after saying something intelligent about monetary policy explain it in a way that everybody could understand. The fact is, people are too lazy to look up what all this stuff means and if he's sitting there going on and on about things that are over people's heads, no matter how smart and correct it is, people aren't going to pay attention. I think that was one of his major problems during the debates, he would constantly start on a particular topic and either cut his thought short or not explain what he was talking about in a way that made sense to everyone.

Truth Warrior
09-17-2008, 02:29 PM
Maybe because Ron just figured that he was speaking to intelligent folks. ;)

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:30 PM
To be honest, yes, he should have dumbed it down, or at least after saying something intelligent about monetary policy explain it in a way that everybody could understand. The fact is, people are too lazy to look up what all this stuff means and if he's sitting there going on and on about things that are over people's heads, no matter how smart and correct it is, people aren't going to pay attention. I think that was one of his major problems during the debates, he would constantly start on a particular topic and either cut his thought short or not explain what he was talking about in a way that made sense to everyone.

Then why did he win every debate?? :confused:

Honestly, if he dumbed down everything he said he would have never stood out to me in the first place, and I would have never spent a million hours campaigning for him.

Knightskye
09-17-2008, 02:32 PM
So you think he should dumb down everything he says to the standards of the MSM?

No. To the standards of the American people.


He performed perfectly in the debates. He won every single debate. He got 100,000's of fans and activists from what he said in the debates.

He didn't win.


The problem is very few people watch the primary debates.

Source?

And even if it was very few, the people who watched it wrote him off because they couldn't understand what he was saying.

cska80
09-17-2008, 02:34 PM
The average every day person is not viewing Cavuto on the Fox Business channel. I'm sure 90% of the people who ever see Ron Paul on these business shows know exactly what he's talking about.

LibertyEagle
09-17-2008, 02:35 PM
As much as I love Ron Paul, I do believe it would have been better if he explained himself a little better. If people do not understand the message, they will not be able to "hear it".

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:36 PM
He didn't win.


HANNITY??? Iz dat yoo????

SamuraisWisdom
09-17-2008, 02:38 PM
Then why did he win every debate?? :confused:

Honestly, if he dumbed down everything he said he would have never stood out to me in the first place, and I would have never spent a million hours campaigning for him.

Did he win every debate? According to what...internet polls? Text message polls? Everybody knows that Ron Paul supporters own the internet and dominated text message polls and would crash them. And I'm willing to bet you would have still supported him if he changed his wording to make it more understandable.

Knightskye
09-17-2008, 02:40 PM
The average every day person is not viewing Cavuto on the Fox Business channel. I'm sure 90% of the people who ever see Ron Paul on these business shows know exactly what he's talking about.

I'm not talking about today's interview. I'm talking about all the debates Ron Paul was in.

By the way, even though I dislike both channels, Cavuto was on FOX News today.

tropicangela
09-17-2008, 02:41 PM
Aaron Russo Freedom to Fascism does a pretty good job of dumbing it down and investigating for the American ppl. Even Paul directed them to watch it to get schooled in the debate. Just keep making that movie go viral... maybe it will catch on one of these days. ???

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:41 PM
Did he win every debate? According to what

According to the polls that they took after every debate!

Omphfullas Zamboni
09-17-2008, 02:47 PM
Hi,

A good example of an interview where more explanation would have been helpful is here, from today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcfaORVl0Zg

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I'm not sure exactly what he was trying to say. Confusion starts when he begins to repeat, "derivatives".

dannno
09-17-2008, 02:50 PM
Here's a quote of him at a debate:

"They think we live in an age of relative ethics, is what they have come to the conclusion of."

Uhh... what the heck does that mean?

And don't you think that was the reaction of a majority of people watching the debate?

Here's another:

"That's where you get your business cycles..."

People don't know about business cycles.

First of all these quotes need context to make sense out of them.

Second of all, everybody knows about the business cycle.. they are just taught that it is natural, rather than something that is directly caused by the central banking system.

ItsTime
09-17-2008, 02:52 PM
explain yourself in a debate that goes like this "Congressman Paul you have 30 seconds to respond" 5 seconds later "time"

SamuraisWisdom
09-17-2008, 02:52 PM
According to the polls that they took after every debate!

Wow did you even read the rest of my post...

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:55 PM
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I'm not sure exactly what he was trying to say. Confusion starts when he begins to repeat, "derivatives".

The thing is, that's your fault not his.

They dont bring RP on national television so he can teach investing 101. The people watching the program are supposed to already have an understanding of basic concepts such as derivatives.

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:58 PM
Wow did you even read the rest of my post...

Sure I did, it's just complete nonsense.

If Ron Paul supporters dominate the post debate poll, then that means he won! right? I mean, I really don't follow your logic here. What other criteria do you have for who won the debates? Do you think the Frank Luntz focus groups are more accurate then the text message polls that only allowed one vote per phone number?

brandon
09-17-2008, 02:59 PM
Di Everybody knows that Ron Paul supporters own the internet and dominated text message polls and would crash them.

What does this even mean? "Crash them"???? Is that like an anti-euphemism for "win them"?

dannno
09-17-2008, 03:05 PM
Hi,

A good example of an interview where more explanation would have been helpful is here, from today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcfaORVl0Zg

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I'm not sure exactly what he was trying to say. Confusion starts when he begins to repeat, "derivatives".

Well he said Warren Buffet admitted he doesn't understand them, so you're probably ok ;)

My understanding is that financial institutions take debt and turn them into investment vehicles, which are assets. A company's value is based on their Assets and Liabilities. If your company owns $10 million in real estate and only owes $1 million in debt, then you have a very liquid company. They could potentially sell 10% of their real estate and pay off all of their debts and still have plenty left over.

Debts are liabilities. By selling these derivatives they are creating a situation where you are essentially eliminating the debt of the financial institution and turning it into an asset for somebody else. It just doesn't make any sense at all. That is why Ron Paul was saying that all this wealth is fake, a charade. People can then use these "assets" to leverage MORE debt and that just increases the money supply and causes inflation. When the original "asset" that was used to leverage the debt becomes worthless, then the financial institution who lended the money gets into trouble, and that is how I believe this disease is spreading from one institution to another.

In a free market, an intelligent institution who correctly recognized these faulty investment vehicles as debt and not assets would not leverage debt based on them and would not get into trouble. That's another reason why the free market works.

Ron Paul Vermont
09-17-2008, 03:14 PM
HANNITY??? Iz dat yoo????

Ahahahahahahaha!

raystone
09-17-2008, 03:14 PM
OP - I hear ya. Ron Paul would be the best president we've had in 80 years. However, he isn't the best to win the presidency, not in age of voter ignorance, apathy and soundbites. He wasn't able to bring the point home to the masses.

SamuraisWisdom
09-17-2008, 03:14 PM
Sure I did, it's just complete nonsense.

If Ron Paul supporters dominate the post debate poll, then that means he won! right? I mean, I really don't follow your logic here. What other criteria do you have for who won the debates? Do you think the Frank Luntz focus groups are more accurate then the text message polls that only allowed one vote per phone number?

Personally, I think you can gauge who's doing well in the debates by how much average people are talking about them. See, on this forum, we have the advantage of youtube to go back and constantly watch the debates as much as we like to really see what was going on, but most people don't do that. Most people tune in for some or all of the debate then wait until the next one and they might not catch every detail.

As for your next post about "Crashing" polls...Well, Ron Paul supporters had something that no other candidate had. We had organized grassroots support and most of that was centered around internet communication. When someone got wind of a presidential preference poll or a debate "winner" poll, we were all informed within minutes. So many more of our people were able to vote in these polls compared to other candidate's supporters. Also, and this is very important, I think that Ron Paul supporters felt more of an urgency in Paul winning polls. It made him look like he had more support than he did and also got a little bit of media attention. There was more of an incentive for us to vote.

Truth Warrior
09-17-2008, 03:17 PM
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136269.html)

Carole
09-17-2008, 03:19 PM
Here's a quote of him at a debate:

"They think we live in an age of relative ethics, is what they have come to the conclusion of."

Uhh... what the heck does that mean?

And don't you think that was the reaction of a majority of people watching the debate?

Here's another:

"That's where you get your business cycles..."

People don't know about business cycles.
I understood it, but it would help to hear it in context with the whole comment.

brandon
09-17-2008, 03:22 PM
As for your next post about "Crashing" polls...Well, Ron Paul supporters had something that no other candidate had. We had organized grassroots support and most of that was centered around internet communication. When someone got wind of a presidential preference poll or a debate "winner" poll, we were all informed within minutes. So many more of our people were able to vote in these polls compared to other candidate's supporters. Also, and this is very important, I think that Ron Paul supporters felt more of an urgency in Paul winning polls. It made him look like he had more support than he did and also got a little bit of media attention. There was more of an incentive for us to vote.

OK, I see what you're saying - but I still don't agree.

Remember the first debate - the one in May where Guiliani laughed at him about blowback. Paul had virtually no grassroots at that point in time. His support base was about equal with Brownback or Hunter. This forum didn't even exist at the time.

Yet he won the post debate poll with >30% of the vote (split between like 10 candidates). How do you explain this?

Every time that they had a similar poll after this he would win also. Every time.

SamuraisWisdom
09-17-2008, 03:31 PM
OK, I see what you're saying - but I still don't agree.

Remember the first debate - the one in May where Guiliani laughed at him about blowback. Paul had virtually no grassroots at that point in time. His support base was about equal with Brownback or Hunter. This forum didn't even exist at the time.

Yet he won the post debate poll with >30% of the vote (split between like 10 candidates). How do you explain this?

Every time that they had a similar poll after this he would win also. Every time.

I'll be honest and say that I didn't start paying attention to the Primary race until the mid-summer so I don't really know much about it, and I didn't know much about Paul until October-ish. So I don't know what was happening with his support base at that time.

Truth Warrior
09-17-2008, 03:42 PM
The skills necessary to win an election have NOTHING to do with the ability to govern.<IMHO>

nunaem
09-17-2008, 03:56 PM
OK, I see what you're saying - but I still don't agree.

Remember the first debate - the one in May where Guiliani laughed at him about blowback. Paul had virtually no grassroots at that point in time. His support base was about equal with Brownback or Hunter. This forum didn't even exist at the time.

Yet he won the post debate poll with >30% of the vote (split between like 10 candidates). How do you explain this?

Every time that they had a similar poll after this he would win also. Every time.

Define win. If winning the debates means getting enough of the audience with cell phones to text message their vote then he won. If winning means getting enough republican primary voters for him to win the primaries.. you see what I mean.

Don't forget that not everyone who watched the debates were republicans, I'm sure many were republican-hating democrats. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

And who do you think owns more cell phones per capita, republicans or democrats?

Knightskye
09-17-2008, 04:05 PM
First of all these quotes need context to make sense out of them.

First quote:

REP. PAUL: The president asks a very important question, and we should all come together and we shouldn't have that many disagreements because we should be bound down by the Constitution.

But the people in this country think we live in an age of relative ethics, is what they've kind of come to the conclusion of. Sure, profess to believe in the Constitution, but why have we gone to war since World War II without a declaration of war? Why do we have a monetary system that is not designed by the Constitution? Why do we have a welfare state running out of control not designed by the Constitution? You can't pay lip service to the Constitution without obeying it.

And we should have peace and prosperity -- that should be our goal. We in foreign policy ought to have a golden rule: We ought to treat others as we would want others to treat us, and we don't treat others so fairly. We treat them like we're the bully, that we're the policeman of the world, and we're going to tell them to behave. If we don't -- if they don't listen to us, we bomb them. If they listen to us, we give them more money. And it's bankrupting this country because we don't live up to our principles. The principles are embedded in our Constitution.

I'm having a little trouble finding the debate where he said the second quote, though.


Second of all, everybody knows about the business cycle.. they are just taught that it is natural, rather than something that is directly caused by the central banking system.

Well, I doubt many people are going to automatically think of what they learned in their high school economics class.

brandon
09-17-2008, 05:08 PM
Define win. If winning the debates means getting enough of the audience with cell phones to text message their vote then he won.

Objectively, winning the debates means that a plurality of the population of people who watched the debate agree that he won.
Subjectively, the person who one thinks has the best logic and arguments wins the debate.

In either case, Ron Paul won the debates.

If winning means getting enough republican primary voters for him to win the primaries.. you see what I mean.

If the only people who voted in the primaries and caucuses were the people who watched the debates, Ron Paul would have won the primaries.

Unfortunately, the majority of voters are uneducated about the candidates and their positions, have an IQ of 100, and rely on the MSM for their information. The MSM bias is why RP's debate victories never translated into primary victories.



And who do you think owns more cell phones per capita, republicans or democrats?

I have no clue. You really think there is a statistically significant difference?

And why would a democrat vote for the most conservative candidate anyway? It makes no sense...

nunaem
09-17-2008, 05:34 PM
Objectively, winning the debates means that a plurality of the population of people who watched the debate agree that he won.
Subjectively, the person who one thinks has the best logic and arguments wins the debate.

In either case, Ron Paul won the debates.


If the only people who voted in the primaries and caucuses were the people who watched the debates, Ron Paul would have won the primaries.
That assumes that each viewer had a cell phone and enough enthusiasm to text message a vote for the candidate they agreed with.

If only the most tech-savvy, intelligent and enthusiastic viewers of the debates voted in the primaries, he would have won.


Unfortunately, the majority of voters are uneducated about the candidates and their positions, have an IQ of 100, and rely on the MSM for their information. The MSM bias is why RP's debate victories never translated into primary victories.
I still can't get over the fact that most of the anti-war republican primary voters voted for McCain(according to the MSM polls), all because the MSM portrayed him as a maverick. Its pathetic really..


And why would a democrat vote for the most conservative candidate anyway? It makes no sense...
Republicans don't even know what a real conservative is, democrats know less. The democrats who promote RP usually do so because they agree with his stance on the war, or they think he causes divisiveness in the republican party.

dannno
09-17-2008, 05:45 PM
Define win. If winning the debates means getting enough of the audience with cell phones to text message their vote then he won. If winning means getting enough republican primary voters for him to win the primaries.. you see what I mean.

Don't forget that not everyone who watched the debates were republicans.


Don't forget only like 5% of the country watched the debates.. that's just an estimate by the way, but I have a hard time believing it was higher than 5%

If everybody was forced to sit down and listen to Ron Paul talk for an hour or so he would be winning in a land slide.

Knightskye
09-18-2008, 01:06 AM
So whoever we rally behind in 2012, we have to make sure they're good at explaining things to the American people.

Knightskye
09-19-2008, 12:09 AM
Bump.