KramerDSP
08-24-2010, 06:35 PM
We here at Ron Paul Forums are an eclectic mix, and wouldn't have it any other way. A poll done here earlier today suggested that before being exposed to the freedom message through Ron Paul, we came from all parts of the political spectrum at a relatively even spread, give or take several percentage points.
I think it's fair to say that most of us were drawn to Ron speaking truth to power at the debates and calling out everyone on the wars and the funny money. I really think that in order for Ron Paul to win, he has to go out guns blazing from day one.
I say this because his stance on the "Ground Zero Mosque" got the left talking about him on the comment board in ways that I haven't seen in three years (2007 primaries). I personally think that the disaffected left will be far easier to recruit than the disaffected right, especially the social conservatives who view Islam to be responsible for 9-11 and refuse to engage in rational discussions.
A few months ago, I had discussed this on the Daily Paul, and a poster replied with a list of persuasion points for convincing the left and independents who are left-leaning to cross over and register as a Republican for Ron Paul, given that Obama is the incumbent POTUS. Here are some of his points. I thought this was worthy of a new thread in light of the recent fervor the "left" is having over Paul again.
This post gave me an idea.
Submitted by N_G_J on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 03:26.
We should start talking to the Dems about this right away.
Here's how to present it for best results, in my opinion:
By helping us get Ron Paul the Republican nomination, the folks who would normally vote for a neo-con warmonger, would be forced to support a peace candidate for the first time in a LONG time.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, these people will be forced to listen--REALLY listen--to his message of peace and maybe, just maybe, they will see how insanely they've been thinking.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, maybe we can turn young neo-cons into libertarians and we can have a new two-party paradigm where war isn't one election away.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, your guy will be forced to bring troops home during the campaign or risk losing the election to someone who will. Even if Ron Paul beats your guy, the worst that could happen is the troops will be brought home immediately; all wars will cease on day 1 of his presidency. It's not like he'd be able to get any of his "kooky" plans passed Congress, right?
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, you can be certain of a fair election, since Ron Paul doesn't have any friends that make electronic voting machines.
Etc., etc., etc. I'm sure you all can think of more ways to sell this idea to the neo-libs.
The Dems think Obama would slaughter Ron Paul, I'm sure, so they may be willing to go along with this since they have nothing to lose and they'd be sticking it to the GOP establishment.
And even if Ron Paul loses, WE will have stuck it to the GOP establishment and will probably pick up a BUNCH of new Ron Paul supporters along the way from both sides, but mainly from amongst the neo-con voters and that's a win. Even one less neo-con and neo-lib in the world would be a good thing.
If we could come up with great talking points, and address things from that perspective, I think we would make far more in-roads in terms of crossover appeal. But the GOP would start screaming "Soros! Soros! He's funded by democrats and Soros!" all over again. Thoughts?
I think it's fair to say that most of us were drawn to Ron speaking truth to power at the debates and calling out everyone on the wars and the funny money. I really think that in order for Ron Paul to win, he has to go out guns blazing from day one.
I say this because his stance on the "Ground Zero Mosque" got the left talking about him on the comment board in ways that I haven't seen in three years (2007 primaries). I personally think that the disaffected left will be far easier to recruit than the disaffected right, especially the social conservatives who view Islam to be responsible for 9-11 and refuse to engage in rational discussions.
A few months ago, I had discussed this on the Daily Paul, and a poster replied with a list of persuasion points for convincing the left and independents who are left-leaning to cross over and register as a Republican for Ron Paul, given that Obama is the incumbent POTUS. Here are some of his points. I thought this was worthy of a new thread in light of the recent fervor the "left" is having over Paul again.
This post gave me an idea.
Submitted by N_G_J on Fri, 04/30/2010 - 03:26.
We should start talking to the Dems about this right away.
Here's how to present it for best results, in my opinion:
By helping us get Ron Paul the Republican nomination, the folks who would normally vote for a neo-con warmonger, would be forced to support a peace candidate for the first time in a LONG time.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, these people will be forced to listen--REALLY listen--to his message of peace and maybe, just maybe, they will see how insanely they've been thinking.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, maybe we can turn young neo-cons into libertarians and we can have a new two-party paradigm where war isn't one election away.
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, your guy will be forced to bring troops home during the campaign or risk losing the election to someone who will. Even if Ron Paul beats your guy, the worst that could happen is the troops will be brought home immediately; all wars will cease on day 1 of his presidency. It's not like he'd be able to get any of his "kooky" plans passed Congress, right?
By helping us get Ron Paul the nomination, you can be certain of a fair election, since Ron Paul doesn't have any friends that make electronic voting machines.
Etc., etc., etc. I'm sure you all can think of more ways to sell this idea to the neo-libs.
The Dems think Obama would slaughter Ron Paul, I'm sure, so they may be willing to go along with this since they have nothing to lose and they'd be sticking it to the GOP establishment.
And even if Ron Paul loses, WE will have stuck it to the GOP establishment and will probably pick up a BUNCH of new Ron Paul supporters along the way from both sides, but mainly from amongst the neo-con voters and that's a win. Even one less neo-con and neo-lib in the world would be a good thing.
If we could come up with great talking points, and address things from that perspective, I think we would make far more in-roads in terms of crossover appeal. But the GOP would start screaming "Soros! Soros! He's funded by democrats and Soros!" all over again. Thoughts?