Got Caught Off Guard By a Romney Supporter

[AndrewD]

So I was going to town on this Romney (and Romneycare!) supporter about 2012. Things were going well until the wild card was drawn. This lady tells me she will never vote for Paul because he "supports telemarketing". She further reveals that he apparently voted against the government banning telemarketing and that she will not allow someone to support her family being harrassed. Hows that for spin?

As for me, I was caught off guard. I didn't know anything about this. I didn't tell her that though. She asks me why Paul would vote that way. I lectured her on Paul's voting record, and really the only thing I could think of off the top of my head as a rebuttal is that the government intervening on telemarketing is most likely unconstitutional. I told her to quit relying on her nanny state. Things started going downhill, and in a matter of minutes it got personal. Oh well.

Got a few mistakes to learn from, and some reading to do on this telemarketing wild card. But to be honest, if someone is ignorant/foolish enough to be a Romney or even Palin supporter, i'll press on and leave them to their own demise.

[jrskblx125]

Telemarketing. Its a dirty job but someones gotta do it.

[libertybrewcity]

there shouldn't be a federal ban on telemarketing. it should be left up to the states just like a lot of things Dr RP doesn't agree with. You should explain what the role of the federal government is compared to what the role of the state or local community is. Tell her to read the constitution and article 1 section 8. IMO voting against a telemarketing bill is a pathetic reason not to vote for someone.

[TIMB0B]

Forced to pay for national healthcare (Romneycare) is okay. Having the option to make your number "unlisted" to avoid telemarketers, not okay.

[RPIdeaMan08]

since the president has oh so much authority over telemarketing... I would leave that to the state or county.

[sarahdeez]

Most things you are unsure of about RP can be answered with "leave it to the state or local government." It's a good go-to answer. Although we obviously want to be educated about our freedom and candidate in everyway possible. He may have also had a funding issue with the bill as it may have required $ for enforcement.

[UCFGavin]

Its funny how issues like telemarketing become peoples crutches against a candidate they agree with philosophically but try to find reasons to discredit them.

[Sweman]

Got a few mistakes to learn from, and some reading to do on this telemarketing wild card.

The telemarketing wild card. How can we use that to our advantage?:confused::)

[speciallyblend]

weird since all she has to do is go join the state and national no call list and opt out!

[georgiaboy]

a common answer for laws regarding issue X can usually be "if you want government to start shrinking instead of growing, you gotta keep these kinds of issues local, not federal"

[Chester Copperpot]

Almost positive the telemarketing do not call list thing was part of the patriot act.

[rockandrollsouls]

Like.

Alot of you here won't want to hear this, but a ton of Paul supporters try to win support by "out-smarting," or being more "intellectual" or "Constitutionally correct" then any other candidates supporters.

You guys can't do that. You make more enemies by coming off as smart-ass know it alls.

There's a better way to go about it than saying "Ron does this, X does this, Ron is better than your guy."

Try something like, "Here is why I think you would like Ron Paul." Remember, you are representing our man when you try to change minds, and if you come off wrong you can influence people to not represent our guy just because of how you're portraying yourself. Ie, "That guy was a jerk to me, I'm definitely not voting for Ron Paul now!"

Get smart, please. If worst comes to worst, I say "You might not agree with him on everything, but there's a lot you do agree on and he's always stuck to his guns, so you know he's authentic."


a common answer for laws regarding issue X can usually be "if you want government to start shrinking instead of growing, you gotta keep these kinds of issues local, not federal"

[PFrazee]

I agree with rockandrollsouls, and I would add that you're speaking to a person whose top complaint against Paul is that he didn't stop the telemarketers. I would also like to add that you're speaking to a person whose top complaint against Paul is that he didn't stop the telemarketers.

You can sometimes, if you're really up a creek, try the bold move of, "Yeah, and there's going to be a lot of other things he does that you don't agree with, and that's just how it goes, because there are 200 million different interests in America, and he can't represent them all. That said, I think he does represent you better than the other guys, and here's why." If that doesn't work, then do a barrel roll.

[BlackTerrel]

Seriously? Wow.

I've heard of one issue voters before but this is something else. With all that is going on in the world the idea that telemarketing would be someones biggest concern is mind blowing. This woman must have no other problems in her life.

Your response should have been "I cannot support Mitt Romney because he voted against Arbor Day being a national holiday and I am a huge proponent of Arbor Day". Makes about as much sense.

[BlackTerrel]

Like.

Alot of you here won't want to here this, but a ton of Paul supporters try to win support by "out-smarting," or being more "intellectual" or "Constitutionally correct" then any other candidates supporters.

You guys can't do that. You make more enemies by coming off as smart-ass know it alls.

There's a better way to go about it than saying "Ron does this, X does this, Ron is better than your guy."

Try something like, "Here is why I think you would like Ron Paul." Remember, you are representing our man when you try to change minds, and if you come off wrong you can influence people to not represent our guy just because of how you're portraying yourself. Ie, "That guy was a jerk to me, I'm definitely not voting for Ron Paul now!"

Get smart, please. If worst comes to worst, I say "You might not agree with him on everything, but there's a lot you do agree on and he's always stuck to his guns, so you know he's authentic."

+1. I agree with everything you said.

[devil21]

weird since all she has to do is go join the state and national no call list and opt out!

I could be wrong but I think that's what the bill was about. The "Do Not Call" list. Im sure RP's vote against wasn't because he supports telemarketers but becaise the FCC is unconstitutional and therere an FCC regulated Do Not Call list is unconstitutional as well. It is a state-by-state issue per the 10th Amendment, though the feds use the interstate commerce clause to wrestle control. Sure, most people won't buy that that look at the issue from an emotional standpoint but it's the truth.

One thing I don't see Paul supporters doing is dumbing it down for uneducated voters. I understand the appeal of it but to most Im sure it feels like compromising principles. I don't even know how to dumb myself down.

Fwiw, a voter that uses that as the reason she won't vote for RP is already a lost cause. Move on the ones with open minds.

[rockandrollsouls]

Disagree. A voter that maintains this as the primary issue is one small step away from potentially supporting Ron. Of all the things he could offend her on, that's the largest and you say "move on?" Hell, you probably could have swayed her by talking about Ron's plans to responsibly phase out Medicare and Social Security while fully funding the governments liabilities in those areas. That's like CANDY to the older crowd.

Could it be more apparent why we don't ever win? You guys are jerks to anyone you don't agree with. Like I said, one-upping someone doesn't sway their opinion...

[anaconda]

Maybe that's what Mitt was referring to by "doubling Guantanamo." To make extra room for telemarketers.

[bb_dg]

Like.

Alot of you here won't want to hear this, but a ton of Paul supporters try to win support by "out-smarting," or being more "intellectual" or "Constitutionally correct" then any other candidates supporters.

You guys can't do that. You make more enemies by coming off as smart-ass know it alls.

There's a better way to go about it than saying "Ron does this, X does this, Ron is better than your guy."

Try something like, "Here is why I think you would like Ron Paul." Remember, you are representing our man when you try to change minds, and if you come off wrong you can influence people to not represent our guy just because of how you're portraying yourself. Ie, "That guy was a jerk to me, I'm definitely not voting for Ron Paul now!"

Get smart, please. If worst comes to worst, I say "You might not agree with him on everything, but there's a lot you do agree on and he's always stuck to his guns, so you know he's authentic."

Agreed.

A mean convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

It might feel good to completely destroy someone in an argument, but that is not how you gain supporters. You don't convince people to vote for Ron Paul by arguing with them. I know a lot of supporters do like to debate, but all that does is antagonizes the person you are speaking with and they won't vote for him regardless if you "win" the argument or not. You catch more flies with honey and vinegar, there is a great video somewhere here on the forums that tell you the steps of how to truly gain supporters rather than boosting your own ego and arguing with people.

[bkreigh]

If telemarketing is your do or die issue then i want to live in your fucking world because you obviously have nothing else to worry about.

[Dustancostine]

If telemarketing is your do or die issue then i want to live in your fucking world because you obviously have nothing else to worry about.

This is exactly what I was thinking. If someone told me that they wouldn't vote for RP because of a telemarketing vote I think my head might explode.

[kazmlsj]

THAT is all that bothers her??????? Oh my...her family will be harrassed in much worse ways than by telemarketers if this government continues on the path it is on.

taxing mileage: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

all cell phones to have terrorism alert: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/10/national-emergency-alert-system-set-to-launch-in-nyc/

tsa pat-down of baby: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/05/12/security-screening-gone-wild-tsa-pats-down-a-baby/

Big Brother will be everywhere.

[PaulConventionWV]

Like.

Alot of you here won't want to hear this, but a ton of Paul supporters try to win support by "out-smarting," or being more "intellectual" or "Constitutionally correct" then any other candidates supporters.

You guys can't do that. You make more enemies by coming off as smart-ass know it alls.

There's a better way to go about it than saying "Ron does this, X does this, Ron is better than your guy."

Try something like, "Here is why I think you would like Ron Paul." Remember, you are representing our man when you try to change minds, and if you come off wrong you can influence people to not represent our guy just because of how you're portraying yourself. Ie, "That guy was a jerk to me, I'm definitely not voting for Ron Paul now!"

Get smart, please. If worst comes to worst, I say "You might not agree with him on everything, but there's a lot you do agree on and he's always stuck to his guns, so you know he's authentic."

+rep

I am likely going to be joining a telemarketing company this summer, so I would have asked her if she wanted to put me out of a job! But seriously, having telemarketing as a main issue is just idiotic. You probably could have handled it better, but next time just keep in mind "the states can handle it" and you can build off of that. Just say it's the role of the states to do that, not the federal government, then move on to the freedoms that Paul WOULD protect. It's a tricky one when you run into people who don't know what the hell you're talking about, so the effort probably would have been wasted on her anyway. I'm not saying don't try, but if someone doesn't understand, it takes too much time and energy that could be spent elsewhere converting that one stubborn person. It's not worth it, IMO. You'll have to use your own judgment to know when it's time to move on.

Also, just try to tell them about things you think they would be pleased with. This lowers the chance of rejection. Good luck!

[aclove]

Agree with the sentiments in this thread. I think one of our big handicaps is that there are way, way too many Ron Paul supporters who, let's be quite honest, have a great deal of contempt for most other voters/people. We pat ourselves on the back for being "awake" and quietly (and too often, not so quietly) sneer at people who haven't had the "lightbulb" moment where they suddenly realize how all issues are connected by the fundamental thread of liberty, and how any issue can be seen as either growing or shrinking government.

People can smell contempt from another person a mile away, and too many of us reek of it. I'm just as guilty as anyone, and believe me, I understand how incredibly frustrating it can be to try to talk to someone who is adamantly clinging to views which are so obviously contradictory, but seem perfectly natural to someone outside of our movement. We should all endeavor not to give in to the frustration and the anger and use our insight to embarass these folks and shove their misunderstandings back in their face.

That doesn't win Ron Paul votes, and that is, after all, the point of all of this.

[Elwar]

You might have told her that she should like Ron Paul's stance on leaving things to the states. Just like Mitt Romney was able to pass a socialist health care bill in his state while opposing it at the national level.

Tell them that leaving it to the states allows people who don't agree with the policy to leave the state as opposed to having to leave the country. Just as many people flee Massachusetts after Romney ruined it.