Debate with a Liberal about Ron Paul

[GreenBulldog]

Had one today. It was 4 against one.

I live in SF Bay Area, so it's a pretty liberal place. Naturally, I'm outnumbered.

I had on my RP hoodie and the liberals didn't like it.

I told them what government is: Force! Government is about forcing you to do things at a barrel end of gun. If you don't believe me, say you want to opt out of social security and not pay. There were some more things I said about the evils of government, but that was the main point.

On Ron Paul, they said that he's a racist due to the newsletter.

Of course, I countered that argument saying that he didn't write them and disavowed them. When they weren't quite convinced, I told them that he wants to end the drug war and the death penalty because minorities are victims of those far more in proportion.

He didn't have a rebuttal and I didn't push for one (I believe not pushing is important).

I said, he was the publisher of the newsletter and you can say that he wasn't a good publisher.

They said that, that raised competency issue and possibly intelligence issue. Anyone who let that kind of things slip by raises competency issue to become president. To that, I countered that a MD who delivered +4,000 babies have an intelligence issue? About the competency issue, I asked what kind of mistakes a man can or cannot make to become president?

He didn't have a rebuttal and I didn't push for one (again, I think that's important).

The point I want to make here is that, if you're winning/won the argument, don't push it. Let them come to their own conclusion that they're wrong. Don't make them admit that their wrong or gloat. Don't get in their faces. That only hurt their prides and make them resent you instead. Just make your case and let them come to you. They will eventually if they know you're right. Hurting their egos make that process harder. Worse, it'll create blowback.

He also said that my support for Ron Paul is offensive and that I probably think that his views are offensive. I said I don't. I'm a libertarian and as a libertarian, we respect that people can do what they want as long as they don't violate rights, liberty, and properties of others, so by philosophy, it makes us tolerant of others.

You would think that, that would make someone think about how small of a person and a mind he has, but it didn't seem like it. If anything, it seems like he was rather proud that he was offended. What a sad existence if I'm correct.

[Chowder]

Good idea! That's the same thing I do when I argue with my relatives. When I get them to be silent because they can't refute anything I never rub it in or continue I just let those bits of information sink in.

[Ironhide]

Very wise Bulldog, just plant the seed and let it grow.

[JJ2]

I didn't realize Paul is against the death penalty. I finally found something that I truly disagree with him on. :)

[rblgenius]

I didn't realize Paul is against the death penalty. I finally found something that I truly disagree with him on. :)

I disagree with him on abortion. Pro-life anti-death penalty probably makes the most sense though

[unknown]

Youre right about not pushing, it takes practice and discipline.

Heres some ammo but you seem to have it down. TBH, if we can understand a few basic positions, its not difficult to argue for Ron Paul.

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/)


The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

[GreenBulldog]

What's sad about all this is how they're all brainwashed, as I once was, to believe in government.

I'm going off on a tangent, but that's why I support and donate to Ron Paul despite knowing the odds: Because he opened my eyes to the truth. He changed my life and my support for him is expression of my appreciation.

Government at best, is a necessary evil; therefore, it needs to be limited (by the constitution).

For the first time in my life, I'm genuinely proud to be an American because I believe and fight for the principles this country was founded on.

I now know about foreign policy, domestic policy, monetary and fiscal policies; and I know how to protect myself and others (to a degree) from them. I have the knowledge a see a hazy view of the future.

I know real history. I can see through propaganda. I know who to listen to for wisdom. I'm an student of Austrian Economics; I have (some) understanding of the business cycle.

I'm no longer a sheeple who thinks I'm going to get saved, but actually waiting to get slaughtered...Well, I may still get slaughtered, but at least I see the truth.

[LiveForHonortune]

http://thefreedomsearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Shout-Racist.jpg

[HigherVision]

That's funny.

In response to the topic, I think that the main logical fallacy that people on the political left make is that private property is somehow more coercive than government. They believe that property is the 'them' and democratic (majoritarian ruled) government is 'us'. I think this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html) by Murray Rothbard about the true nature of government does a good job of disputing this notion. It'd be a good one to draw from in debates with 'progressives'. But if people are aware of these realities and support statism anyway and seek to continue to force it on you, I think you have to see them for what they are and move on.

[Dsylexic]

I didn't realize Paul is against the death penalty. I finally found something that I truly disagree with him on. :)

perhaps you didnt know WHY ron paul is against the death penalty. ron was actually pro death penalty for a long time.he changed his mind when he learnt that modern technology and forensics have shown on multiple occasions that the innocent person was put to death in the past.so there is a decent possibility that the person getting killed is fully innocent.and that should be enough for everyone who knows what protecting 'individual liberty' is all about.you can say this is possibly the only position on which ron paul has 'flip flopped'.actually that is a wrong statemnt.he changed his position because there was new evidence.he is truth seeker.

[Eric21ND]

I didn't realize Paul is against the death penalty. I finally found something that I truly disagree with him on. :)
Watch the documentary Paradise Lost and look at all the people being released from prison or death row on DNA evidence.

[Forty Twice]

I used to be for the death penalty and then I read the New Testament. Haven't really adopted Christianity, but I got the impression that execution by man was not something Jesus approved of. Also learned Jesus and his friends drank a lot, which is not what they taught me at the Baptist church when I was a kid. Have had a much clearer conscience since reading the New Testament. I recommend it, but it takes a long time. You definitely pick up a different impression than by listening to a pastor elaborate for half an hour over 2 or 3 obscure verses. Haven't been to church in 15 years and don't plan on going again.

I agree with Ron Paul on nearly everything. I would be nicer to the illegal aliens than he proposes. But of course, he's talking to Republicans who'd just as soon water-board them prior to deportation.

Being from Texas, I know how things are in the South. What his black patient said about Texas in the 70s is true. Of course nobody was really racist because they all liked Charlie Pride, you know. If Ron Paul were such a racist, I'd expect him to poll better in states like S. Carolina than in New Hampshire and Iowa.

[anewvoice]

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.


This is why Ron Paul gets attacked from all sides in the media, he holds everyone as equals and equally accountable. An action by Reagan and Obama, counter to liberty, is equally branded as such by Ron Paul. This doesn't fly in the bi-partisan hack-n-slash culture that is D.C.

Edit - It's also why I support him!!!

[tremendoustie]

I didn't realize Paul is against the death penalty. I finally found something that I truly disagree with him on. :)

There ya go =). I agree with him on that but disagree with him on immigration.

To hear the MSM talk about it, though, you'd think we're all clones or something.

[acptulsa]

You did a nice job, Bulldog. But I wish we'd be more willing to unbend a bit on our anti-government principles when talking to these folks and admit to them that a vote for Ron Paul won't stop them from setting up, supporting and receiving services from local governments. The presidency is, after all, a federal office, and the Tenth Amendment guarantees that Ron Paul won't interfere with local government actions. We don't just want their respect, we want their votes, and there's no reason why we shouldn't have them. The federal government is doing the wars and giving trillions to banksters. The federal government is everyone's bad guy. Why not admit that local governments aren't so bad as all that? It's true.

The example I like to use is this: If the federal government takes over your local fire department, and there's a problem with your local firehouse, you have to convince twenty million people or so that your local firehouse is more important than gay marriage, abortion, and everyone else's local firehouse combined. That's hard to do. Yet with the PATRIOT Act and DHS grants, I'll just bet your local fire department has more than half a dozen federal grant proposal writers on staff right now...

[Paulitics 2011]

When they say he was an incompetent manager, mention to them the fact that the majority of the rest of the GOP didn't even get on the ballot in all 50 states. And you can choose from about 1,000 Obama mistakes, pick your choice.