"You're the big Ron Paul fan?"

[cswake]

Just got home last night from a long work trip and encountered another resident at my complex just as he got back from his work trip. Right after a friendly hello, he throws that question out. I said "yes, still am. don't agree with him on everything, but i trust the guy has our interest in mind". Then he goes right into "I was a Jeb Bush fan back in '07 and didn't listen to Paul, but I really like what Paul says."

Had a talk about debt, taxes, and legalizing pot. Pretty cordial...

[georgiaboy]

huh, that's good to hear in this neck of the woods. The blind support of big gov't GOP Saxby, Deal, and Isakson makes me sick every time I think about it.

Next time you see him, make sure he's registered and planning to vote in the primary. :)

I like your "don't agree with him on everything, but I trust the guy has our interest in mind" approach a lot. The first part can be said about all the candidates, the second part not so much.

[specsaregood]

I like your "don't agree with him on everything, but I trust the guy has our interest in mind" approach a lot. The first part can be said about all the candidates, the second part not so much.

I don't like it because exactly what you said in the 2nd sentence. Who says that about any other candidate? True, it could be said but I don't hear people saying it. It is a talking point used by those that want to dismiss him, I don't see why we should reinforce it.

[acptulsa]

I don't like it because exactly what you said in the 2nd sentence. Who says that about any other candidate? True, it could be said but I don't hear people saying it.

Perhaps. But saying that does do one important thing. It reassures the person you're talking to that you're not going to quote, chapter and verse, everything Ron Paul says, but rather that you're willing to talk about subjects that he or she wants to talk about. And that's important.

[specsaregood]

Perhaps. But saying that does do one important thing. It reassures the person you're talking to that you're not going to quote, chapter and verse, everything Ron Paul says, but rather that you're willing to talk about subjects that he or she wants to talk about. And that's important.

Maybe, but I've heard the media people say it so many times, that i can't help but assume that it is a net-negative. ie: it paints him as a crazy man that people should be ashamed to agree with whole heartedly but might have a few good ideas for other people to pursue. if it was a positive thing, then you would hear the same thing said about other candidates.

[georgiaboy]

I hear general dissatisfaction with all the candidates, so pointing this out makes perfect sense. Then it becomes a choice of given they all have warts, who will best serve our interests?

[acptulsa]

Maybe, but I've heard the media people say it so many times, that i can't help but assume that it is a net-negative. ie: it paints him as a crazy man that people should be ashamed to agree with whole heartedly but might have a few good ideas for other people to pursue. if it was a positive thing, then you would hear the same thing said about other candidates.

I think gb has his finger on it. Representing not the corporate interests, but instead the people, is the one idea Ron Paul has that people are very, very ready for. And his twenty-three year voting record is not mere lip service to this outstanding idea.

[Chieppa1]

I think we all watch too much media and not enough interaction with actual humans.

[specsaregood]

I think gb has his finger on it. Representing not the corporate interests, but instead the people, is the one idea Ron Paul has that people are very, very ready for. And his twenty-three year voting record is not mere lip service to this outstanding idea.

Yeah, perhaps. Maybe I'm biased because in all these years I can't really think of much of anything I do disagree with him. Even when I think I might think I disagree with him I rethink it based on a foundation of from the perspective of providing liberty and how to best accomplish it within the framework of the constitution and then our current system/state of government.

[georgiaboy]

good point, sg. Above all, one should be honest with oneself and others. If you 100% agree with Ron Paul on everything and are a real fanboy, then you should own that and talk to folks from that perspective. Realizing that others may not have this view, though, should inform the way you interact with them.

My comment on csw's approach wasn't intended to point out a 'method' for use in activism, but more a reflection on the reality of what the RP support community is and should be in the eyes of voters. One can support and vote for RP and not be an RPF 1000+ poster zealot (chagrin). Case in point -- all the GOP'ers who pulled the lever in 2008 for McAmnesty. Their shame still weighs heavy on many of them, I'll betcha. Reminding them that - hello - you don't have to agree 100% to vote for someone is
o.
k.

[acptulsa]

One way for someone who is very pro-Paul to avoid scaring someone who might be nervous that you're going to hit them with a spamlike conversation--without undercutting our man at all--is to say (and many of us can do this honestly) that you are very libertarian when it comes to the fedgov, but less so where state, county and municipal governments are concerned. This is no bad reflection on Ron Paul for the simple reason that he's running for a federal office.

[cswake]

My comment on csw's approach wasn't intended to point out a 'method' for use in activism, but more a reflection on the reality of what the RP support community is and should be in the eyes of voters. One can support and vote for RP and not be an RPF 1000+ poster zealot (chagrin). Case in point -- all the GOP'ers who pulled the lever in 2008 for McAmnesty. Their shame still weighs heavy on many of them, I'll betcha. Reminding them that - hello - you don't have to agree 100% to vote for someone is
o.
k.

Exactly. Most of the Republicans out there won't be 100% Paul, like my neighbor. He shot Paul down fast on legalizing the hard drugs, and I didn't argue it so that I could reinforce the positives. Just agreed with him that legalizing pot makes sense, which opened up the agreement on it as a good compromise rather than raising income/sales taxes. Had I argued the hard drugs, none of the important parts of the conversation would have happened.

I'm of the belief that a person has to come to his or her own decision to support Paul. Arguing and debating is not conducive to that goal so I just keep conversations positive and agreeable.