Top 2 issues that will resonate with voters

[Liberty]

1) Getting out of Iraq
2) Curtailing or eliminating the IRS and income tax

We are a well informed group and have a grasp of many issues. However, the general public doesn't. Many people still think Iraq carried out 911. Have you ever watched Jay Leno's street interviews? Unfortunately, many people don't know about the fed, the Patriot Act, foreign policy, etc. I believe most people are aware of the 2 issues listed above. Hopefully, we can educate them further.

[Noodles]

Agreed on the IRS. Every working person can relate to that issue. :mad:

[BLS]

If there is somebody out there who still thinks Iraq started 9/11, I don't think i can help them.

[LibertyBelle]

I wonder how many accountants would be for the dismantling of the IRS. Anyone think of that? How do you get them to vote for RP? :eek:

[Duckman]

So Ron Paul has amazing strength mainly due to his personality, character, and unquestionable anti-war credentials, but I think there are two big groups he needs to woo:

1) Republican voters who can't support Ron Paul because he is opposed to agressively fighting the War on Terror in the way it is currently being fought.
2) Liberal voters who think Ron Paul is going to hurt people by getting rid of government programs.

So I think Ron needs to have good arguments in place to back up his opinion on both of these targets. He's been doing a good job with it so far, but I think these are the two ways in which people opposed to Ron's message are going to try to hurt him.

I think it would be VERY SMART if Ron were to use TV ads to help his case on both of those two above points.

You need to convince Republican pro-war voters that the current strategy in the WoT is doomed to fail, destabilize the world, and wreck the economy. And make no mistake, the current WoT strategy is likely to do all of those things, so this should be an easy sell if you hone your message. In order to do that, I think you have to understand that the average WoT/Iraq War supporter wants revenge for 9/11, wants to appear 'tough', thinks terrorists are everywhere, and doesn't want to face that Americans may be dying in Iraq because of a mistake. If you can convince them in the utter wrongness of the WoT approach, and the fact that the people who designed it did so in error (which, at this point, shouldn't be hard to argue), and explain in detail the effects of the policy in a way which really damages it (and I think the Bill Moyers interview with Ron Paul which is floating around YouTube is EXACTLY on target here) then I think the usual talking points in support of the WoT (you're "blaming America," you're "not supporting the troops," you're inviting terrorist attacks) melt away.

Convincing liberal voters may be more of a challenge, because the idea that government should help people financially is now deeply ingrained in our culture, and the trend is to expand the notion (into healthcare) rather than shrink it. But I think if Ron talks about "quaint" American values of self-reliance and hard work, focuses on how welfare damages the economy (he is an expert on the economic ideas of Mises I believe) and, most importantly, emphasises that corruption causes government power goes to help big corporations (a big WINNER of an argument in my opinion), and emphasizes that reducing welfare is something which will be done gradually and that nobody will be left to starve, then I think you can defuse alot of this opposition.

If Ron Paul can convince the majority of these groups of the value of his ideas in these two areas, I think he will definitely be President Ron Paul!

[Noodles]

The same applies for defense contractors.:p

[titoleibowitz]

I think the issue of Iran could resonate with GOP voters if they'd step back and really think about what the other candidates are saying; it really blows my mind how everyone is nodding along with some of these talking points. Even ignoring the larger historic problems with an intervention in Iran, the main Republican candidates are refusing to rule out this:

An unprovoked nuclear attack on a country without the ability to strike back, for developing nuclear technologies we've condoned unconditionally in other countries regardless of those countries' tendencies to have militarist coups and civil wars, to lose track of nuclear weapons, and to involve themselves in 60-year-long wars with other nuclear powers. Oh, right, and this decision will be made by the President alone, that President being either one of the candidates currently under fire for not being able to make up their minds about far less important things, or maybe the candidate who doesn't read anything about the politics of the region, or maybe, if you're lucky, one of the candidates who will find a solution through prayer. Which is a great idea until you realize that's what the other side does, too.

The proper American public response ought to be "What?"

"We can't take that off the table?"

I think if they're reminded of the fact that the last nuclear strike we used saved millions of lives and ended the worst war in history, at the start of which a Congress of elected representatives voted to defend our country, and that that strike was and is controversial and harmful to our image abroad, maybe the average citizen can begin to reframe, in their own estimation, the current proposals. I think that even with the current hypernationalism, most conservative voters realize the US does not exist in a void, and has to have a responsible foreign policy - the move in most of the GOP towards staying in Iraq to "stabilize the region" shows that. If Ron pushes his noninterventionism, I really think he'll pick up a lot of votes.

Additionally, I heard the point made (it may well have been in one of the interviews) that "if Al Qaeda hates us for our freedom, why didn't they attack Switzerland?" and I think it's a much better sound byte than anyone gave it credit for. Ron Paul needs to get GOP voters to step away from the nationalism Bush's administration has imposed upon the country if he wants to get votes from security candidates like Giuliani, and I think just pointing out the facts will do the job.

Edit:


Convincing liberal voters may be more of a challenge, because the idea that government should help people financially is now deeply ingrained in our culture, and the trend is to expand the notion (into healthcare) rather than shrink it. But I think if Ron talks about "quaint" American values of self-reliance and hard work, focuses on how welfare damages the economy (he is an expert on the economic ideas of Mises I believe) and, most importantly, emphasises that corruption causes government power goes to help big corporations (a big WINNER of an argument in my opinion), and emphasizes that reducing welfare is something which will be done gradually and that nobody will be left to starve, then I think you can defuse alot of this opposition.

This is one way of answering liberals, but I think the simplest and best answer is Ron's, that getting out of the war in Iraq and scaling down the military to a level necessary for defense will make up most of the loss from the contraction of the IRS, and won't require cutting still-important government programs like Medicare. Is there anything more elegant than that?

[Hombre]

I wonder how many accountants would be for the dismantling of the IRS. Anyone think of that? How do you get them to vote for RP? :eek:

Don't worry -- we'll still need lots of acountants.

Hombre

[Bryan]

So Ron Paul has amazing strength mainly due to his personality, character, and unquestionable anti-war credentials, but I think there are two big groups he needs to woo:

1) Republican voters who can't support Ron Paul because he is opposed to agressively fighting the War on Terror in the way it is currently being fought.
2) Liberal voters who think Ron Paul is going to hurt people by getting rid of government programs.

So I think Ron needs to have good arguments in place to back up his opinion on both of these targets.

Here's a list of threads aimed to deal with there kinds of issue of arguments such as "Good Reply to accusations that Ron would be soft on terror" and the like:

Counter-point threads
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=2948



I agree the war and IRS are two top issues.

[Bryan]

I wonder how many accountants would be for the dismantling of the IRS. Anyone think of that? How do you get them to vote for RP? :eek:
Upton Sinclair once wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

But that doesn't make our task impossible, the focus needs to be on the big picture and how individuals who may "loose" out in some immediate area will overall be better off in the long run.

[Quantumystic]

The same applies for defense contractors.:p

That part is easy.

STRONGLY encourage a States' Council on Alternative Energy. An "Apollo" program for alternative renewable energy, that frees America from dependence on ALL forms of Foreign energy, and toxic energy sources. Except that it's a coordinated program among the States, as opposed to a Federal program.

The Defense companies have alot of top engineers and scientists working for them. So let the Market do what it does, when it's open and honest. Compete.

Let them turn to the market of Creation, rather than Destruction. Life instead of Death.

Nuclear Fussion by Laser Implosion of Heavy Water is a "Holy Grail" of Energy.

There's plenty for tech companies to do, and make money off of. They just neeed the Gravy Train of War Spending to end... to get motivated to switch market applications.

[osofaux]

1) Getting out of Iraq
2) Restoring integrity, dignity, and honesty to the political process, and thusly to the image of the United States both here and abroad

"Voters" often do not understand the complexities of issues that do not affect them directly, and depend on elected leaders to have more wisdom and insight than they do on those issues. On many things, candidates are sincere in that they want to do good, but actions undertaken with good intentions can have bad consequences. People are waking up to this.

People, despite the crushing demands of everyday life that often leave them no time to research the intricacies of so many issues in detail, can easily see that invading (or "liberating") Iraq has resulted in consequences that need to be addressed first and foremost by simply getting out of the conflict.

By now it must be readily apparent to almost everyone who can cast a vote that the United States has fallen from its long held image as the "good guys" of the world. I can't imagine the average voter, who rightly wants to take some pride in their nation, not being dismayed with this on some level. I can't imagine the average voter not being aware by this point that politicians say one thing, and then do another, and our quality of life, and good name as Americans suffers for it.

People are ready to hear the truth, even if it's difficult, and I have a strong sense, based on the growing popularity of Ron Paul, that voters know it when they hear it. My intuition is that people who do not agree with every one of his positions are ready to cast their vote for him, if for no other reason, because his actions are consistent with his message. It's hard not to respect a person like this, and I think Americans are finally ready for a President worthy of it.