A view of Ron Paul forums

[vechorik]

We're organizing delegates for our state on a closed Facebook page. I was mentioning other Facebook pages to join and since I felt the members were true-blue RP supporters (else they wouldn't be training to become delegates) I mentioned RP Forums.

Here's the conversation:

Anonymous: i think the main issue with ron paul forums is how brutal they can be to newbies. for instance if a 912er went to rpf and commented about something positive that glenn beck said they would be lambasted. its not a place for those we are trying to convert. it's a place for diehards.
3 minutes ago · Like

Me: Ron Paul forums have strict posting rules that should be read. Some topic titles are Tweeted for the general public and some titles are damaging. Trolls often go there to cause trouble, so newbies had better be doubly-careful until they are known. Once you're accepted as legitimate, you have more leeway in what you post. I use it mostly for news (you won't hear in the media) and for opposition points against other candidates. Sounds like you had a bad experience there. Guess I'm a Ron Paul diehard.

--------------------
The point of this post is: It's hard sometimes for RP supporters to survive at this forum.

[sailingaway]

I agree that someone should be able to say something nice about someone we don't like and we should show tolerance over differences the same way we do over other kinds of differences. If they are interested in Ron, we should make it tolerable to be here, if we are able.

[freeforall]

When recommending this site I have pointed out that this forum is made up of real people that genuinely have strong feelings regarding politics. The plus side, is that nothing happens without it being discussed here so it is hard to be uninformed if you are here.

[wstrucke]

Once you're accepted as legitimate, you have more leeway in what you post.

Is it 2000 votes before the mods stop censoring you? This place is a little ridiculous. "Forum" is a stretch of the imagination -- it's more like a huge editorial run by the mods.

[bluesc]

It's hard to be a new member and not be accused of being a troll lately.

Personally I'm more concerned about the people who have been around for 1+ years who constantly troll and are apparently immune from the ban hammer.

[ryanmkeisling]

:rolleyes:

In threads like this it becomes clear who are the conformists and nonconformists.

Which one is Ron Paul? Isn't he considered the fringe in political thought? People who are so easily scared away by insults against Glenn Beck probably belong on facebook. Look how many new members have been banned in the past weeks?

For the most part, people who represent and believe in freedom and liberty are welcomes here. IMHO.

[69360]

It's hard to be a new member and not be accused of being a troll lately.

Personally I'm more concerned about the people who have been around for 1+ years who constantly troll and are apparently immune from the ban hammer.

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best.

I've donated $1000 to Ron's campaign, volunteered to be a delegate, signed nomination petitions, gone to see him speak, have stickers on the car and signs in the yard. Still I think his chances of the GOP nomination are very, very slim. I don't buy into this delegate strategy at all either, it's mathematically impossible.

[bluesc]

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not even talking about you "realists", although you guys could do me a favor and stay out of GRC too.

[69360]

WTF are you talking about? I'm not even talking about you "realists", although you guys could do me a favor and stay out of GRC too.

I encourage everyone to do what's right and vote for Ron. I know I will, I just don't see the numbers needed to win. I do see a lot of people setting themselves up for major depression. Oh well.

[bluesc]

I've donated $1000 to Ron's campaign, volunteered to be a delegate, signed nomination petitions, gone to see him speak, have stickers on the car and signs in the yard. Still I think his chances of the GOP nomination are very, very slim. I don't buy into this delegate strategy at all either, it's mathematically impossible.

Dude, I wasn't even talking about you. But you have just demonstrated why you "realists" are borderline trolls too. There was absolutely NO mention of Ron winning, Ron's chances, delegates, or anything else, and you STILL come in the thread and try to remind everyone of Ron's chances.

That is why you are constantly accused of being a troll.

[bluesc]

I encourage everyone to do what's right and vote for Ron. I know I will, I just don't see the numbers needed to win. I do see a lot of people setting themselves up for major depression. Oh well.

This thread had nothing to do with Ron's chances or being "realistic". Once again, you come in a thread, derail it, and make it about Ron's chances even though the topic had nothing to do with it.

[Jeffster]

Is it 2000 votes before the mods stop censoring you? This place is a little ridiculous. "Forum" is a stretch of the imagination -- it's more like a huge editorial run by the mods.

You're kidding, right? This is one of the least censored boards I've ever seen. People are allowed to post all sorts of vulgar insults of people, not to mention diverting topics into obscure policy discussions that have nothing to do with the Ron Paul campaign. I don't envy the job of moderators here, as it's a lot like Tom from the Tom and Jerry cartoons trying to catch all the pots and pans falling before they hit the ground.

[MelissaWV]

The "anonymous" mentioned in the OP must not have a whole lot of experience with the internet, and particularly with political sites/forums/chatrooms. I have seen many far more brutal and editorial sites, and few that (over time) are as fair and forgiving. There is an appeals process very few people seem to make use of. Instead, we see thread after thread popping up once someone is banned, or once certain topics wind up in "Off Topic." If everyone who joined read all the rules, considered them, and then realized they are "signing" the terms of use once they make an approved account... things would run more smoothly.

I am sure I know what they are talking about, though. To be very plain, if someone gets on and goes "OMG Glenn Beck is a defender of freedom and did you hear where he said this and this and this and it's awesome!" they are going to get a reply along the lines of "Glenn Beck is a shill and COINTELPRO and I hear he wears mismatched socks." Now, here's the rub. This is a movement that generally believes in private property, individual responsibility, and so on. If someone answers "Glenn Beck is a shill" and you disagree, you are free to make your counterpoint. You are also free to inform the moderators that someone is being a jerk in your post, though I doubt that would necessarily be a banworthy level of jerkhood. You are also free to ignore someone saying that, and be somewhat grateful for the thread bump. You are also free to flee in terror at the unfairness that someone on the internet is mean and doesn't like Glenn Beck.

[wgadget]

List of forums I've been banned from:

Hannity
craigslist
RedState

And this was for MILD Ron Paul plugging.

[phill4paul]

It is what it is. And that there is what it is.

[LibertasPraesidium]

This is why I do not post as often as I could. I little forethought on posts generally helps with this. However, being new in this place would be problematic if you took everything everyone said personally and as an attack against you... Two examples. First the hot blonde? This could have pushed her away, and may have but the fact that even though it was slighted as being about appearances it was not meant maliciously, but as a compliment. Taken the wrong way it could push the image of the forums as a bunch of rabid, young at heart men looking for a piece of...

Second example, the one posted, a 912er that comes in here and talks about Glenn Beck will immediately be informed on the positions of those posters who feel very strongly about those in the media, the real crazy people, and why it is generally a bad idea to bring the name up. However, to be discourages simply because someone does not like Glenn Beck is hardly a reason not to feel welcomed. Arguing in this forum is plentiful and welcoming inandofitself simply due to the objective approaches everyone takes at "NEWS" and things of that sort. We are all a bit disenfranchised in different ways, and this forum represents a very small portion of the diversity within the RP supporters camp, and due to that fact some of us may not get along. But being insecure in posting again after someone LAMBASTES you for talking of Glenn Beck is about as mean as telling them Sarah Palin is a raging lunatic. It is either a matter of opinion or can be supported with facts. (too often when it comes to people in our society that have "put themselves out there" they end up being exposed as a fact, that they are indeed crazy and should not be on TV telling the rest of societies wonderful sheep what to think.

[sailingaway]

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best.

I've donated $1000 to Ron's campaign, volunteered to be a delegate, signed nomination petitions, gone to see him speak, have stickers on the car and signs in the yard. Still I think his chances of the GOP nomination are very, very slim. I don't buy into this delegate strategy at all either, it's mathematically impossible.

actually, the one thing it ISN'T is mathematically impossible. We may have to reconsider that after Super Tuesday depending on how we do,but Ron has only just reached his best states. There was no way I expected a win before Minnesota (absent about a week prior to Iowa when his numbers elevated and during which he was pilloried relentlessly). Minnesota I did hope for before Gingrich utterly cratered and Santorum surged there. Before that time, the numbers Ron got would have WON Minnesota. Maine was a possibility. I HOPED for a win before Washington and Super Tuesday so he'd have momentum, but we are getting to his favorable states now, and he isn't getting the money to respond properly to Santorum's and Romney's ads there.

[vechorik]

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best...............

There's a difference between:
a realist and a pessimist
hope and hopelessness
positivity and negativity

So what motivates you?

Going a bit off topic here, but it's worth it to make a point:
This is a LONG TERM effort. I work hard, not because I think Ron Paul will become president, but to gain a foothold in this crazy political system. Everything I do is dedicated to the long-term goal of changing American politics. I'm proud of every tiny thing I do and it pushes me to do greater things. Every new supporter makes the movement stronger and each of them will push one inch. I work within the GOP because that's where I think change will come from.

Do you think we're all stupid? Do you feel superior by spouting negativity about what we're doing? Are you saying we can't do it? You're only making our task more difficult. Go away with your bragging of what you have done to support Ron Paul while at the same time discouraging the greater movement of liberty. Your negativity, combined with the positive things you've done equal 0 in the long run....and absolute neutral. Perhaps you can work with negativity, but most people have a hard time with that burden you place on them. It's unfair of you to place it on them. Keep it to yourself and learn to deal with it.

[VegasPatriot]

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best.

You don't think everyone on this forum realizes it's a long shot for Ron to win? We understand the odds are against us, but most of us try to keep a positive attitude. When a baseball player goes to bat chances are he is not going to get a hit... if his batting average is .333 he is doing great. Do you think that baseball player is thinking I'm going to strike out every time he goes to bat? Of course not... most successful people don't envision the worst, they envision hitting a home run. That is what brings success. Positive thinking combined with hard work - that is what we are about (or that is what we should be about).


I've donated $1000 to Ron's campaign, volunteered to be a delegate, signed nomination petitions, gone to see him speak, have stickers on the car and signs in the yard. Still I think his chances of the GOP nomination are very, very slim. I don't buy into this delegate strategy at all either, it's mathematically impossible.

It sounds like when you go to bat you are sure you are going to strike out. Good luck with that. I know that the delegate strategy is the only way to win... and when it comes to the RNC I'm thinking home run not strike out.

[Hospitaller]

When i started out i posted little and read alot.

Now i still post little and still read alot.

I have been divulging liberty philosophy everyday since the day i joined up here in july. The ways and thinking of the liberty minded people on this forums have been tried and proven, there is little space for discussion in our eyes anymore. This is why we so swiftly blast people who support Glenn Beck and the rest of the neocons, they stand bare in the desert to us. The newbies that join this forum should use it as a information tool and be treated by the average RPFer as an average voter that needs awakening and education, Point them to online liberty resources.

Perhaps a "Getting started" non-forum section that is super easy to use with all the resources a new liberty brushfire requires to become an inferno.

[Endthefednow]

yup, I was also told I was a Troll for asking what a Troll was :) so I had to do some searching on the term and found either I was a
figure from a fantasy Sci-Fi book or I was a real live Troll in the forum typing stuff against Ron Paul or in favor of some other person who dos not like Ron or us RonBots ;)

[bbwarfield]

Dude, I wasn't even talking about you. But you have just demonstrated why you "realists" are borderline trolls too. There was absolutely NO mention of Ron winning, Ron's chances, delegates, or anything else, and you STILL come in the thread and try to remind everyone of Ron's chances.

That is why you are constantly accused of being a troll.

I think this is what he is referring too..... most people I know think "troll" means somone who is not actually with you but trying to make you go spastic or look stupid.... "debbie downer" is more of what you want to call a over doing it realist. I agree .... lets be realistic. There are moments that I suspend realism (usually while votes are coming in) but I know in my heart the reality. Come on.... I had my fingers crossed for Florida.....FLORIDA.... no one expected a win.... or second.... most were hoping for 3rd but truly expected 4th. I think all of us are realists... but some of us let down the hopes sooner than others. I stayed up three nights for Nevada... i truly believed we would get 3rd... but I was hoping for 2nd.....

Im not troll..... or a debbie downer.... but I hate it when "realists" get called trolls. There not. They tend to be the people who just dont put up with people who stay unrealistic too long (wich if they dont agree with the delegate strategy tends to be rather grating right now.... i think it could work... but i dont bring it up anymore cause I think it just puts some falso hope of overturning a non brokered convention)

[dan5430]

I've read all of Ron's books and been following since 2007, but since I'm not "known" on the forums, I'm a troll, an idiot, politician worshipping tool???


This place can be over the top when people are lambasted for creating a discussion....some ppl need to lighten up in here no doubt...

[bbwarfield]

I've read all of Ron's books and been following since 2007, but since I'm not "known" on the forums, I'm a troll, an idiot, politician worshipping tool???


This place can be over the top when people are lambasted for creating a discussion....some ppl need to lighten up in here no doubt...

I don't think anyone trusts people under 500 posts..... once bitten twice shy.... Im on the chats alot so I think most people know im not trolling... but sometimes I wonder.

Ive seen a couple trolls run rampant in my short time here... and its not pretty. One time the mods were mad at people for flaming the troll.... but then the trolling became more and more and more obvious.... but this person got 6 or 7 terrible tweeted things on grassroots before we caught him.... they sounded like good newbie questions.... then you realized the way he worded them would not be someone even considering Ron.... then you realize they turn off people considering Ron (an attempt to explain the newsletters with mostly wrong info.... while somewhat debunking true information?) so..... alot of people are very over sensitive about potential trolling

[bbwarfield]

Im more worried about creating trolls.... we get alot of young people here. Young people tend to join>learn>commit .... we get them in the joining stage and they dont really know a whole lot.... so we call them trolls and they just go "pfffff lets see if Mitts people are nicer" gotta get them through learning stage first folks.... all of them look like trolls till theyve learned. Cause guess what? there the same thing till they have learned..... trolls are not apostates of the faith of Ron......... they are uneducated about his real policies. If they learned then they may change from a troller to a follower

[Narmical]

This is one of two forums on the internet where people don't totally treat me like crap. I can't relate to the "people here are mean" meme

[ryanmkeisling]

This is one of two forums on the internet where people don't totally treat me like crap. I can't relate to the "people here are mean" meme

Because they aren't.

[LibertyEagle]

We're organizing delegates for our state on a closed Facebook page. I was mentioning other Facebook pages to join and since I felt the members were true-blue RP supporters (else they wouldn't be training to become delegates) I mentioned RP Forums.

Here's the conversation:

Anonymous: i think the main issue with ron paul forums is how brutal they can be to newbies. for instance if a 912er went to rpf and commented about something positive that glenn beck said they would be lambasted. its not a place for those we are trying to convert. it's a place for diehards.
3 minutes ago · Like



I unfortunately totally agree with what this person said.

It's almost like if someone is not 100% pure "libertarian" they are considered trolls, or the enemy. It's not exactly welcoming and the funny thing is is that there is no requirement that anyone consider themselves even a 1% libertarian to be a Ron Paul supporter. I've often said that newbies are jumped in here, similar to what they do in gangs. There isn't a litmus test to be a Ron Paul supporter/voter. We should welcome all.

If thread titles being tweeted are a major problem, then maybe newbies under 100 posts shouldn't be allowed to start a thread in Grassroots Central, or maybe the tweeting aspect should be removed altogether.

Hundreds of thousands of likely Republican voters were recommended this site to find out more about Ron Paul, via the Super Brochures. For those who took the suggestion and read here, I wonder if it ended up being a net positive or a net negative as far as their likelihood of voting for Ron Paul goes.

[Liberty74]

You don't think everyone on this forum realizes it's a long shot for Ron to win?

Uh no, not everyone believes that.

There are too many people posting misinformation, not understanding polls and how to read into them, not understanding voting demographics, not understanding how to win in a Republican primary, hoping for the "bad weather" myth, thinking we can increase youth vote 400%, and just many other outrageous stuff. It doesn't do the board and the readers any good spreading such nonsense.

We all want Paul to win. Some and others keep mentioning they are in this for the "long term." Guess what folks? We don't have another 4 or 8 or 12 years left to educate the masses. The shit in government is moving extremely fast and it's against YOU and the movement. America is practically over. It's 2012 and the time is now. Yes, Ron and the campaign need to put themselves into fifth gear. Attack attack attack (candidates, establishment, call the fake conservatives out, etc.) show some emotion like the awesome NH second place speech, make the news and herd herd herd...

[Liberty74]

There isn't a litmus test to be a Ron Paul supporter/voter. We should welcome all.

And that is what is great about Ron's freedom philosophy - there is something for everyone!

[Wooden Indian]

From a noob's perspective.
I only recently became a member of this forum, and haven't posted much. However, I've read countless threads over this span... most of which were quite civil. Ate some bad Cuban food a few days ago, so I've been confined to my iPad and the toilet... LOL, what ive noticed is this forum is one of the friendliest, best managed BBs on the net.

Trolls are going to happen. It's how you do deal with them that matters... and this forum, IMO, deals with them quite well.

[trey4sports]

why don't the noobs get the sand out of their vagina and realize this is a fucking internet forum?

We don't come here to play ring-around-the-rosy. We're here to discuss politics and dumb answers will be, rightfully, lambasted. That is how people learn not to say dumb things.

And lastly, if you're a noob you should probably realize that some people have been at this a lot longer than yourself and that you don't know everything.

[Wooden Indian]

why don't the noobs get the sand out of their vagina and realize this is a fucking internet forum?

We don't come here to play ring-around-the-rosy. We're here to discuss politics and dumb answers will be, rightfully, lambasted. That is how people learn not to say dumb things.

And lastly, if you're a noob you should probably realize that some people have been at this a lot longer than yourself and that you don't know everything.

Troll.
;)

[wstrucke]

This thread had nothing to do with Ron's chances or being "realistic". Once again, you come in a thread, derail it, and make it about Ron's chances even though the topic had nothing to do with it.

*sigh*. You call everyone "trolls" and I call you the "sunshine crew". Realism is not "trolling". Here are some great examples of trolling, for those of you who are grammatically challenged:

One (http://i.imgur.com/U2ZB2.png) Two (http://i.imgur.com/zm8Id.jpg) Three (http://i.imgur.com/fzfo8.png) Four (http://i.imgur.com/A1xBk.jpg)

[wstrucke]

You're kidding, right? This is one of the least censored boards I've ever seen. People are allowed to post all sorts of vulgar insults of people, not to mention diverting topics into obscure policy discussions that have nothing to do with the Ron Paul campaign. I don't envy the job of moderators here, as it's a lot like Tom from the Tom and Jerry cartoons trying to catch all the pots and pans falling before they hit the ground.

For someone who joined last month I think we can all agree you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Paulatized]

I unfortunately totally agree with what this person said.

It's almost like if someone is not 100% pure "libertarian" they are considered trolls, or the enemy. It's not exactly welcoming and the funny thing is is that there is no requirement that anyone consider themselves even a 1% libertarian to be a Ron Paul supporter. I've often said that newbies are jumped in here, similar to what they do in gangs. There isn't a litmus test to be a Ron Paul supporter/voter. We should welcome all.

If thread titles being tweeted are a major problem, then maybe newbies under 100 posts shouldn't be allowed to start a thread in Grassroots Central, or maybe the tweeting aspect should be removed altogether.

Hundreds of thousands of likely Republican voters were recommended this site to find out more about Ron Paul, via the Super Brochures. For those who took the suggestion and read here, I wonder if it ended up being a net positive or a net negative as far as their likelihood of voting for Ron Paul goes.

I think this was more to the point of the person who the OP was referring, I know the person personally (a recent, last couple of years,true, although relatively new, supporter of liberty).

It's an issue of purity, not saying something that would get them banned, but by some on this site being dismissive and unhelpful. When people are referred to RP forums to find out more about Ron Paul and they are seeking information and are for the moment considering Ron Paul or want to find out more about his stance on issues and are still looking in the rabbit hole, I don't think this will be the site that will win them over. It can be brutal (maybe harsh is a better word) to those who are new to the concept of freedom.

Instead of patiently explaining the reasoning for their wrong thinking they are chastised for not already being a purist on the issue. I've always wished there was a Ron Paul 101 forum, for people who are open to Ron Paul and are interested in liberty, where those new to the concept of liberty could go to to ask questions and make comments and be given the chance to be convinced of the error of their thinking with out being made to feel inferior to those who have been on the freedom train for many years.

I am a daily reader of the forums but admit it is not a site to further Ron Paul public relations or win over the leaning past sheeple.

Therefore, considering the forum from this prespective, I would agree it would not be a place to refer those you are trying to win over.

[Jeffster]

why don't the noobs get the sand out of their vagina and realize this is a fucking internet forum?

We don't come here to play ring-around-the-rosy. We're here to discuss politics and dumb answers will be, rightfully, lambasted. That is how people learn not to say dumb things.

And lastly, if you're a noob you should probably realize that some people have been at this a lot longer than yourself and that you don't know everything.

So, the fact that it's an internet forum means that civil discussion is impossible? The only way we can communicate is like vulgar jerks with no consideration for anyone else's standards of behavior? Sorry, but just because a lot of people act like jerks on the internet does not mean it should be expected, especially on a forum that (I think) has a purpose of trying to organize efforts to help Ron Paul get elected, not for people to have virtual fights over who's a purer libertarian or who can come up with the most obscene insults of the other candidates or anything else of that sort.

[jay_dub]

I'm new here and have had a good experience so far. One thing I DO like is that EVERYTHING Ron Paul is here and sometimes I will post about some things I find here on other forums. I've been beating the RP drum for a while now on other forums and am happy to have found this place.

One thing I've noticed here that I don't really like is the amount of cursing. Now, I'm no prude and use salty language, too, but not around people I don't know. It just seems to be basic good manners to me. I think, in an effort to put our best foot forward, maybe a little self-censoring is in order. Like it or not, this a Ron Paul forum and it is a reflection on Ron, even though I'm aware it's not HIS forum. Just a suggestion...take it for what it's worth.

[Jeffster]

For someone who joined last month I think we can all agree you have no idea what you're talking about.

Has the forum completely changed in the last month? How many months must one be a member to have an idea what he is talking about? Please enlighten me so I will know when to check back in with my appropriately aged valid opinion.

[MelissaWV]

So, the fact that it's an internet forum means that civil discussion is impossible? The only way we can communicate is like vulgar jerks with no consideration for anyone else's standards of behavior? Sorry, but just because a lot of people act like jerks on the internet does not mean it should be expected, especially on a forum that (I think) has a purpose of trying to organize efforts to help Ron Paul get elected, not for people to have virtual fights over who's a purer libertarian or who can come up with the most obscene insults of the other candidates or anything else of that sort.

Yet everything you point out in your post is, to some extent, used by other politicians with only slight modifications... in order to get elected. Who's more conservative? When should supporters stick to their guns, or when should they go for the lesser evil? Insulting others... try going to another candidate's forums and even mention Ron ;)

It really is the internet. Take what you can from it, do your best to improve it via your own behavior, and help those who appear to genuinely want it. That's my $0.02, at least.

[speciallyblend]

When recommending this site I have pointed out that this forum is made up of real people that genuinely have strong feelings regarding politics. The plus side, is that nothing happens without it being discussed here so it is hard to be uninformed if you are here.

exactly, I do warn folks i know that come here that people are passionate. Newbies shouldn't feel threatened. Forums can be harsh. I find ignoring the trolls is better and it has worked pretty good. use ignore button, I find campaign paul trolls can be worse then the santorum or romney trolls. I guess i am a anti-beck troll, since beck is one of those fool me once but not twice kinda of people! I have 0 tolerance for status quo.

[brushfire]

RPF has been nothing short of hospitable, IMO. Its rare that I see a "new guy" with a gray rep icon. Everyone usually goes out of their way to welcome the new folks, and reward them with rep right away.
Make no mistake though, there are some folks who are very proud of their tenure. They've got a right to be, but sometimes they may not realise that they tend to alienate some.

I'm active on quite a few forums, and I can say with certainty that RPF is one of the friendliest, and most diverse, forums out there.
..only an a$$hole would disagree. <-- humor

[Paulatized]

Yet everything you point out in your post is, to some extent, used by other politicians with only slight modifications... in order to get elected. Who's more conservative? When should supporters stick to their guns, or when should they go for the lesser evil? Insulting others... try going to another candidate's forums and even mention Ron ;)

It really is the internet. Take what you can from it, do your best to improve it via your own behavior, and help those who appear to genuinely want it. That's my $0.02, at least.

You are correct, it is the internet and people who use this site to get into deep discussions can and will, and should, speak as they wish. But the point is that is not necessarily going to win new Ron Paul converts. So why refer them to this site?

[belian78]

Has the forum completely changed in the last month? How many months must one be a member to have an idea what he is talking about? Please enlighten me so I will know when to check back in with my appropriately aged valid opinion.
I think, in light of the thread subject matter, it's pretty safe to say that this was a sarcastic response. LOL :toady::p

[affa]

There's a difference between:
a realist and a pessimist
hope and hopelessness
positivity and negativity

So what motivates you?

Going a bit off topic here, but it's worth it to make a point:
This is a LONG TERM effort. I work hard, not because I think Ron Paul will become president, but to gain a foothold in this crazy political system. Everything I do is dedicated to the long-term goal of changing American politics. I'm proud of every tiny thing I do and it pushes me to do greater things. Every new supporter makes the movement stronger and each of them will push one inch. I work within the GOP because that's where I think change will come from.

Do you think we're all stupid? Do you feel superior by spouting negativity about what we're doing? Are you saying we can't do it? You're only making our task more difficult. Go away with your bragging of what you have done to support Ron Paul while at the same time discouraging the greater movement of liberty. Your negativity, combined with the positive things you've done equal 0 in the long run....and absolute neutral. Perhaps you can work with negativity, but most people have a hard time with that burden you place on them. It's unfair of you to place it on them. Keep it to yourself and learn to deal with it.

Exactly.

Has anyone noticed that no optimist goes around claiming 'I'm only being a realist' every chance they get? That's the badge of negativity, a statement that tries to force positive people into the doldrums, because 'obviously' that's the only 'realistic' place to be.

Taking every chance to 'remind' us we're facing an uphill battle (no sh*t) isn't dropping some profound wisdom on us. Anybody paying attention knows we're engaged in a massive ideological battle with the Establishment. But there is a difference between the little pissant soldier telling everyone around him in the front lines 'we're all gonna die!' and the rest who defiantly reply 'what? do you want to live forever?'

This all becomes most evident in debate threads where some people love to claim Ron Paul 'just lost the election' every time he answers a question, even when everyone else is screaming 'home run!'. Another gem? The people that claim 'we need to stop donating to the campaign' until the campaign does [fill in the blank].

There is only one way to win this. And that is to fight long and hard, at every level - winning people over, breaking through the media, capturing delegates. Nobody said it was going to be easy -- heck, anyone paying attention knows we're up against an entrenched Establishment that will fight tooth and nail for their trillion dollar war profiteering.

So people, suck it up. This election is a fork in the road of time, and almost certainly the best chance for liberty we'll see in our lives. A critical moment in time where we can end the wars, break the banksters backs, and restore our civil liberties, all in one fell swoop. We just need to reach out and grab it. It's that, or tyranny and more war.

So let's do this.

[Boss]

Couple things.

1) I think RPF are incredible.

2) Its understandable that people won't post here if their views are pretty much universally opposed. But rarely have I seen everyone coalesce around any singular idea here (with the obvious exception that I think we all agree RP would be a great president).

3) If 912ers (or any other sub groups) feel shunned here, what should be done about it? I say nothing should be done about it; let people be free to feel how they feel, and free to make arguments that are presented respectfully.

4) I think there is one minor flaw with these forums--I think they are moderated too rigidly sometimes. I was banned for a week because I argued that there was nothing wrong with people providing negative book reviews on amazon.com of the book written by a certain popular-radio-show-host-that-hates-RP. A few moments after I wrote my post, I was locked out of the forums and hit with a ban notice. The reason for my ban=I was "inciting" people and I was "trolling." I'm not expecting due process lol, but I was annoyed and turned off by that. If I could change one thing, it would be allowing people to have an opinion--so long as it is well formulated, even if unpopular--without fear of being banned.

[Orwell]

Honestly, this is probably the most pro-'newbie' forum on the internet--at least of the ones I visit. Considering it's the internet, the majority of posters are unbelievably respectful.

[wstrucke]

Has the forum completely changed in the last month? How many months must one be a member to have an idea what he is talking about? Please enlighten me so I will know when to check back in with my appropriately aged valid opinion.

If you spend enough time here you will see things change or get deleted, not necessarily your own. It's subtle, but when you start to notice the content of your previous posts is not what you actually wrote or entire posts and threads go missing then you'll be qualified to discuss the ongoing censorship.

[bluesc]

Honestly, this is probably the most pro-'newbie' forum on the internet--at least of the ones I visit. Considering it's the internet, the majority of posters are unbelievably respectful.

There is an elitist mindset among many '07/'08ers. It's almost as bad as it is with academics.

[nayjevin]

If you spend enough time here you will see things change or get deleted, not necessarily your own. It's subtle, but when you start to notice the content of your previous posts is not what you actually wrote or entire posts and threads go missing then you'll be qualified to discuss the ongoing censorship.

Report a post with a complaint or contact mods directly. Stirring up drama is not the right way to go about it if you have a problem.

Mods need specifics to take action, and it would be foolish for us to tolerate generalized negativity towards us as you have consistently displayed in this thread.

[MelissaWV]

There is an elitist mindset among many '07/'08ers. It's almost as bad as it is with academics.

And even there, there are subsets.

I do have an elitist mindset in the opinion of some, when it comes to the issue of delegates and peripheral projects. The problem is that a lot of us who were around last time remember certain things that went terribly wrong. There's a fine line between educating others, and coming off as sounding like an arrogant snobby knowitall :( Some of us just don't want to see history repeat, when Ron has very limited chances to try this again and get it right. I'm fairly sure most of us don't think it's feasible for him to run in 2016.

[nayjevin]

One way to take down this forum would be to bash newbies and spread the idea we aren't welcoming. Couple that with the real human condition wherein being wrong hurts, and words that show you that you're wrong often are perceived more negatively than they are delivered.

I believe ill-intending trolls ramp up the noob-bashing to facilitate the spread of the 'unwelcome at RPF' meme.

Please report posts where folks are being rude to anyone - including the newbies.

[Narmical]

If thread titles being tweeted are a major problem, then maybe newbies under 100 posts shouldn't be allowed to start a thread in Grassroots Central, or maybe the tweeting aspect should be removed altogether.


QFT. stop tweeting thread titles. Also who reads tweeted thread titles anyhow?

[nayjevin]

Honestly, this is probably the most pro-'newbie' forum on the internet--at least of the ones I visit. Considering it's the internet, the majority of posters are unbelievably respectful.

Definitely... there are some totally uncensored boards out there - and this is nothing.

But we get lots of cross traffic from places like those. And fact is the youngest generation is not phased by what the older generations are. It's an interesting phenomena - and it doesn't appear to me that it's causing desensitization - but rather tough, open minds.

[ForLiberty2012]

The title of this thread should be renamed to, "come here and whine about something." Go outside and go for a run or something... Release the negativity people!

[wstrucke]

Report a post with a complaint or contact mods directly. Stirring up drama is not the right way to go about it if you have a problem.

Mods need specifics to take action, and it would be foolish for us to tolerate generalized negativity towards us as you have consistently displayed in this thread.

I don't even know where to begin with this, but frankly this is the exact issue I have with this place. We should be able to have an adult discussion on politics. I don't disagree that the owners of this site can do what they want -- if they want to edit and manage all of the content that's their prerogative, and it is exactly how this site is run. If you want to sit on your high horse and delete everything i have to say I can't stop you. If you want to ban me, well, I think that would be a loss for the community but it's almost preferable to the way you treat people around here who have alternative opinions. You can quote the TOS or whatever you want, but if our efforts are going to be successful -- to continue to spread Ron Paul's message and hopefully get him elected, our meeting places like this board have to reflect the movement.

If you're going to run this site like it's your personal newspaper than we're going to lose. Our diversity makes us stronger not weaker. If we do not have the opportunity to see the opinions of people who come here to post but can't bother to do anything else than there's no way we can convince them to change their minds. If you remove content that shows the true feelings of the real people struggling with this campaign then we truly have no chance make it better.

I've put my money where my mouth is for five years now and I've learned a lot about politics and people along the way -- this site is a great resource in this effort we're all participating in for our rights and freedoms, but it the way it's run doesn't reflect the basic thing we're fighting for. You can quote personal property all you want, which is what this always comes down to -- but as we have no way of getting everyone together in a public place where we really can have an honest discussion, censoring and editing the content of those who chose to dissent is exactly the reason we very well may not win this battle. Healthy arguments make us stronger. Of course I would encourage anyone running a site like this to remove content that is actually trolling -- actual spreading misinformation or just being mean -- but that's now what happens here and it pains me to watch it.

"General negativity" is a term like the "war on terror" and I fail to understand how anyone can not see that. If you're more concerned with your own image than the success of the movement than this definitely isn't the center of the grassroots effort.

[bluesc]

And even there, there are subsets.

I do have an elitist mindset in the opinion of some, when it comes to the issue of delegates and peripheral projects. The problem is that a lot of us who were around last time remember certain things that went terribly wrong. There's a fine line between educating others, and coming off as sounding like an arrogant snobby knowitall :( Some of us just don't want to see history repeat, when Ron has very limited chances to try this again and get it right. I'm fairly sure most of us don't think it's feasible for him to run in 2016.

There is indeed a very fine line.

Many from 2008 are working against the campaign by trying to kill enthusiasm in newer supporters though. They sometimes get pissed when the the enthusiasm remains.

The best anyone can do is work hard in their respective states. Florida was a great example. The grassroots there kicked ass despite the lack of campaign presence. I don't think any enthusiasm at the state level should be lowered.

[wstrucke]

The title of this thread should be renamed to, "come here and whine about something." Go outside and go for a run or something... Release the negativity people!

So this would be a good example of something I would expect the moderators to remove, since it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion in the thread and is basically throwing insults around. Instead this type of post is frequently made and left alone while things like "Gee, Ron Paul isn't doing well in such and such area and while X is claiming we're doing great, there are really only four supporters. Maybe we should do something about that?" has a great shot of being deleted.

[MelissaWV]

So this would be a good example of something I would expect the moderators to remove, since it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion in the thread and is basically throwing insults around. Instead this type of post is frequently made and left alone while things like "Gee, Ron Paul isn't doing well in such and such area and while X is claiming we're doing great, there are really only four supporters. Maybe we should do something about that?" has a great shot of being deleted.

Did you flag it?

[ForLiberty2012]

So this would be a good example of something I would expect the moderators to remove, since it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion in the thread and is basically throwing insults around. Instead this type of post is frequently made and left alone while things like "Gee, Ron Paul isn't doing well in such and such area and while X is claiming we're doing great, there are really only four supporters. Maybe we should do something about that?" has a great shot of being deleted.

The negativity disgusts me. Just voicing my opinion. That should be deleted? Glad youre not a mod.

[wstrucke]

There is indeed a very fine line.

Many from 2008 are working against the campaign by trying to kill enthusiasm in newer supporters though. They sometimes get pissed when the the enthusiasm remains.

For my part it's frustrating when I try to make a logical argument and the only response is that I must be a jerk or a troll because I don't see the cup half full at all times. I don't see it half empty, I just see a cup and I'd like to find how how we can better fill it up. Does that make sense?

Think of it this way -- if you're trying to talk strategy and work towards improving the movement but all someone else wants to do is tell you to go away because you sound vaguely negative -- would you call that a benefit or a distraction?


The best anyone can do is work hard in their respective states. Florida was a great example. The grassroots there kicked ass despite the lack of campaign presence. I don't think any enthusiasm at the state level should be lowered.

Absolutely true -- you can be enthusiastic though without blind enthusiasm. The people I work with in the Ohio grassroots are great examples of how to do this correctly. They know and believe Ron Paul can win, but they play the game with the establishment players -- since that's the only way we can. They know what the numbers are and what we have to do to succeed. There are others, however, who chose the blind route instead -- where all we have to do is go wave signs on a street corner and talk about corruption to the same group of five people and we'll definitely win. Spreading that mindset is more damaging in my opinion, then saying "Well, the way I look at things we're not doing that great." -- since at least the latter has a chance of getting some hope and making a change.

[wstrucke]

Did you flag it?

No, since I don't subscribe to the theory that anything remotely offensive to anyone deserves censorship. Did you?

If the post had said "go #$$$ yourself" then sure, I would flag it. My comment was in reference to the point nayjevin and other mods have made over the years -- that the moderating and censorship is for our benefit. My point is that what's really moderated appears to be dissent and that's not going to help us. Of course context needs to be taken into consideration, but my experiences here have obviously tainted my view a bit. :\

[LibertyEagle]

"General negativity" is a term like the "war on terror" and I fail to understand how anyone can not see that. If you're more concerned with your own image than the success of the movement than this definitely isn't the center of the grassroots effort.

The goal right now is to get Ron Paul elected.

[MelissaWV]

No, since I don't subscribe to the theory that anything remotely offensive to anyone deserves censorship. Did you?

If the post had said "go #$$$ yourself" then sure, I would flag it. My comment was in reference to the point nayjevin and other mods have made over the years -- that the moderating and censorship is for our benefit. My point is that what's really moderated appears to be dissent and that's not going to help us. Of course context needs to be taken into consideration, but my experiences here have obviously tainted my view a bit. :\

You were saying that the post deserves attention. What is moderated often depends on what is seen by the moderators. Consider it a "community watch." Flagging something is not demanding it be removed, edited, or that the person who posted it be banned. It is drawing mod attention to a potential issue. They cannot read every post on these forums. They depend greatly on knowing where there is a potential problem. Even a thread title is no help, because the thread might be entitled "Best cookies ever!" and have devolved into a thread where ad homs are being flung at Christians or where vulgar photos of a sexual nature were being posted. Without flagging, you are depending upon the mods having an interest and time to read a thread they presume to be about cookies.

I don't see dissent being moderated. I see the way people are dissenting --- against the TOS, I might add --- being moderated quite often. These are moderated forums. If you would like to try to run a totally unmoderated forum, be my guest. Some of us remember what Yahoo chat was like when it was all the rage. :p

[bluesc]

For my part it's frustrating when I try to make a logical argument and the only response is that I must be a jerk or a troll because I don't see the cup half full at all times. I don't see it half empty, I just see a cup and I'd like to find how how we can better fill it up. Does that make sense?

Think of it this way -- if you're trying to talk strategy and work towards improving the movement but all someone else wants to do is tell you to go away because you sound vaguely negative -- would you call that a benefit or a distraction?

Experienced members giving advice and sharing their experience is invaluable. It's a huge way we can improve from 2008.

2008 members discouraging activity or criticizing new ideas without an explanation or adding anything new is a big problem. That problem isn't only limited to members from 2008 though.



Absolutely true -- you can be enthusiastic though without blind enthusiasm. The people I work with in the Ohio grassroots are great examples of how to do this correctly. They know and believe Ron Paul can win, but they play the game with the establishment players -- since that's the only way we can. They know what the numbers are and what we have to do to succeed. There are others, however, who chose the blind route instead -- where all we have to do is go wave signs on a street corner and talk about corruption to the same group of five people and we'll definitely win. Spreading that mindset is more damaging in my opinion, then saying "Well, the way I look at things we're not doing that great." -- since at least the latter has a chance of getting some hope and making a change.

I agree. A self organized and knowledgeable grassroots is something that no campaign war chest can buy.

I wouldn't mind hiring some of the Florida grassroots to go to different states and help out though :p

[wstrucke]

I wouldn't mind hiring some of the Florida grassroots to go to different states and help out though :p

We have one of the guys from Rand's KY campaign! My primary frustration is that the times I'm available do not typically line up with the scheduled meetings and events.

[nayjevin]

We should be able to have an adult discussion on politics.

Please source with details in a message to moderators or report a post where you have been unable to have an adult discussion on politics.


If you want to sit on your high horse and delete everything i have to say I can't stop you.

Please report a post or message moderators with details of where I or anyone has deleted everything you have to say.


If you want to ban me, well, I think that would be a loss for the community but it's almost preferable to the way you treat people around here who have alternative opinions.

Please cite and contact moderators via email, private messages, or through the 'report post' feature.


If you're going to run this site like it's your personal newspaper than we're going to lose.

Please source or report any posts where anyone has run this site like a personal newspaper in a manner you consider inappropriate with reasoning. It will be considered by reasonable people.


If you remove content that shows the true feelings of the real people struggling with this campaign then we truly have no chance make it better.

Please report a post or contact a moderator with specifics any time content is removed that you believe shows the true feelings of a real person.


this site is a great resource in this effort we're all participating in for our rights and freedoms, but it the way it's run doesn't reflect the basic thing we're fighting for.

Whenever the way this site is run in a way that doesn't reflect your opinion of the basic thing we're fighting for, please cite a post or moderator action and contact the moderators for review.


You can quote personal property all you want, which is what this always comes down to

That is the fatal blow to the argument that this forum ought to be run like a government. Study up on the Civil Rights Act.


but as we have no way of getting everyone together in a public place where we really can have an honest discussion,

Please look into facebook. Also, try out 'email'


censoring and editing the content of those who chose to dissent

Please source and cite examples in a message to moderators or by reporting a post where a moderator action has displeased you. The action will be reviewed by sensible people.


Healthy arguments make us stronger.

Define healthy.


Of course I would encourage anyone running a site like this to remove content that is actually trolling -- actual spreading misinformation or just being mean -- but that's now what happens here and it pains me to watch it.

Source... pm mods


If you're more concerned with your own image than the success of the movement than this definitely isn't the center of the grassroots effort.

source

[wstrucke]

You were saying that the post deserves attention. What is moderated often depends on what is seen by the moderators. Consider it a "community watch." Flagging something is not demanding it be removed, edited, or that the person who posted it be banned. ... Without flagging, you are depending upon the mods having an interest and time to read a thread they presume to be about cookies.

I don't see dissent being moderated. I see the way people are dissenting --- against the TOS, I might add --- being moderated quite often. These are moderated forums. If you would like to try to run a totally unmoderated forum, be my guest. Some of us remember what Yahoo chat was like when it was all the rage. :p

I'm aware of how it works, as I'm sure many people are. This wasn't even the point at all, I was using his note as an example.

Are you implying I don't remember Yahoo or ... yikes, AOL, CompuServe or IRC chat? I've run forums myself so I'm not what you would call uninformed and I do not envy the task at hand in running this site, from all aspects. My point is that there is zero accountability on the moderators when they remove or edit content. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind as much if they at least flagged things that were edited or deleted.

I appreciate the procedure that has popped up recently where thread titles are edited with a note "mod: No, this is false" or something to that effect. If that method was maintained when the content of threads was edited I personally would not mind as much. As it stands right now I half expect to come back to things I've written previously and not recognize the content, because words or sentences were silently changed.

[RedOurBack]

Thread Title: Input: A view of wstrucke's previously unshared criticisms

fixed

[wstrucke]

Please source with details in a message to moderators or report a post where you have been unable to have an adult discussion on politics.



Please report a post or message moderators with details of where I or anyone has deleted everything you have to say.



Please cite and contact moderators via email, private messages, or through the 'report post' feature.



Please source or report any posts where anyone has run this site like a personal newspaper in a manner you consider inappropriate with reasoning. It will be considered by reasonable people.



Please report a post or contact a moderator with specifics any time content is removed that you believe shows the true feelings of a real person.



Whenever the way this site is run in a way that doesn't reflect your opinion of the basic thing we're fighting for, please cite a post or moderator action and contact the moderators for review.



That is the fatal blow to the argument that this forum ought to be run like a government. Study up on the Civil Rights Act.



Please look into facebook. Also, try out 'email'



Please source and cite examples in a message to moderators or by reporting a post where a moderator action has displeased you. The action will be reviewed by sensible people.



Define healthy.



Source... pm mods



source

... okay. This is getting absurd and I have better things to do than continue to argue the point. You and I both know how this site is run and I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Asking me to provide an example of an edited post is like asking the Maine caucus voters to provide evidence that their votes were changed when they were privately counted. Peace out.

[bluesc]

We have one of the guys from Rand's KY campaign! My primary frustration is that the times I'm available do not typically line up with the scheduled meetings and events.

You mean the guy that McConnell sent to help Rand?

That is one area of massive improvement over 2008. The staff. Doug Wead and others were a great get by the campaign.

It's good that you guys are playing the game with the establishment. The IA and NV grassroots did that, and they now control the IA and NV GOP :p.

[enoch150]

As someone who has never been banned, warned, or had their post content altered, I still object to that kind of stuff. And it looks like people are voting with their feet. Er... mouses.

http://i44.tinypic.com/f4ljrb.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/34owqb4.jpg

[MelissaWV]

Incidentally, this thread really IS an excellent example... because I would expect that it would be moved. At this point, this whole thing belongs squarely in forum feedback and ideas.

If it IS moved, people will still carp about censorship.

ETA:

Oh and the graph above is cute. I'm sure it's meant to imply that DP is growing by leaps and bounds while RPF is being shunned. Except it isn't. What I see are wild up and down swings with DP, and a pretty steady line with RPF. To each his own, and I don't think that's ever changed.

What I see is DP's graph starting at 185k or so, and ending up at 160k, while RPF's graph starts at 19k or so, and ends up at 45k.

That graph: I do not think it means what you think it means :p

[nayjevin]

... okay. This is getting absurd and I have better things to do than continue to argue the point. You and I both know how this site is run and I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about. Asking me to provide an example of an edited post is like asking the Maine caucus voters to provide evidence that their votes were changed when they were privately counted. Peace out.

I am unaware of any specific edited post that is causing your complaints in this thread. Edits I have seen have varied from 'thanks for doing that before I got to it' and 'not sure I get that, but oh well.' That is my opinion. If some specific post editing has got you upset, you should have reported it with the details of your complaint - and you still can.

[enoch150]

Incidentally, this thread really IS an excellent example... because I would expect that it would be moved. At this point, this whole thing belongs squarely in forum feedback and ideas.

If it IS moved, people will still carp about censorship.

ETA:

Oh and the graph above is cute. I'm sure it's meant to imply that DP is growing by leaps and bounds while RPF is being shunned. Except it isn't. What I see are wild up and down swings with DP, and a pretty steady line with RPF. To each his own, and I don't think that's ever changed.

What I see is DP's graph starting at 185k or so, and ending up at 160k, while RPF's graph starts at 19k or so, and ends up at 45k.

That graph: I do not think it means what you think it means :p

I was looking more at the recent trend, from the Ames straw poll forward. If you want to go back further... both sites started in late spring of 2007 and Dailypaul is significantly larger. I could post those graphs, if you want.

Back in 2007 I lurked here and posted on DP. I made the switch here because this is a better format for projects and such. I can't think of good reason why people would leave here for DP, except for the reasons stated in previous posts.

[bluesc]

I was looking more at the recent trend, from the Ames straw poll forward. If you want to go back further... both sites started in late spring of 2007 and Dailypaul is significantly larger. I could post those graphs, if you want.

Back in 2007 I lurked here and posted on DP. I made the switch here because this is a better format for projects and such. I can't think of good reason why people would leave here for DP, except for the reasons stated in previous posts.

RPF and the DP are not comparable. One is essentially a news aggregate site and the other is a discussion forum. One requires more commitment than the other.

While we're on the subject of censorship though, have a look what happened when anyone opposed the superbrochure project on the Daily Paul.

[MelissaWV]

RPF and the DP are not comparable. One is essentially a news aggregate site and the other is a discussion forum. One requires more commitment than the other.

While we're on the subject of censorship though, have a look what happened when anyone opposed the superbrochure project on the Daily Paul.

This, and also where DP shows up on Google searches. The sites are different.

What you look for in lines like that are trends. DP switches wildly with the news, then those people do not stick around and come back to the site. Here, the people that do show up and get approved are not leaving en masse.

[enoch150]

RPF and the DP are not comparable. One is essentially a news aggregate site and the other is a discussion forum. One requires more commitment than the other.

While we're on the subject of censorship though, have a look what happened when anyone opposed the superbrochure project on the Daily Paul.

I rarely go to the Dailypaul anymore, but I'll take your word for it that they were also banned. Two wrongs don't make a right.

People on here were banned for things as minor as saying that they would donate to the campaign on Nov. 5th.

[nasaal]

I notice more strife here related to Rand than Ron. Those who like Rand and those who don't seem to consider each other trolls.

[eduardo89]

If you didn't join RPF in 2007, you're a troll and need to get the f*** out of here.


*Looks at join date* Dammit!!!

[bluesc]

If you didn't join RPF in 2007, you're a troll and need to get the f*** out of here.


*Look at join date* Dammit!!!

Listen up, newb, you don--

Oh :(

[badger4RP]

(See join date) lurker here. Rpf is for hardcore paulites. Noobs and negative nancies beware. And to that kid whos as self conscious as santorum in a debate... as far as we know rp is winning delegates whats not to buy? If the math doesnt work then it doenst work for anyone. This is how nominations happen.

[Miss Annie]

I have been here since October. For the most part my experience has been great...... but I am stubborn! I actually stomped my feet and demanded and begged for people to explain things.
One definitely has to toss the sensitivity out the door.
I have posted several times, reminders that WE need to be more "patient and tolerant" of the learners and more aware of the lurkers.
But at the same time, there needs to be an awareness on the part of the learners and lurkers that this is a PUBLIC forum. Just as any public place, anyone can enter the door and participate. It's like my mama said, there are A$$holes everywhere you go! :)

[MissyS]

ITT: people who praised Rev9 in the ban thread a few days ago now agree with the OP that new members are unfairly treated like crap unless they walk on eggshells.

[Birdlady]

This place isn't for the sensitive types. If you can't stand to be insulted because of your age, sex, religion or whatever else people have decided to take issue with, then stay away. Very little recourse will be taken because liberty minded forums don't believe in "censoring opinion" and everything should be left as is. I know a mod will just say to report people, but it isn't worth my time. I have voiced my opinion a few times on here for various comments and usually the whistleblowers just get ridiculed, demonized and attacked even more.

I would never recommend this forum to the average Republican voter. Never ever. There's a very noticeable clique on the board and it is very tough to mesh in with a handful of them. I just stay away from it all. I'm not in high school again and this is from an 07'er for whatever that is worth. :cool:

[MozoVote]

People that understand "netiquette" won't have trouble assimilating into RPF. Newbies who start out dipping their toes in and just asking questions don't get flamed. But offer an opinion, and it WILL be assessed and replied to. Perhaps brutally if it's unpopular.

I'm in my 40s and go back to the days of 300 baud modems and dial-up BBSs. But when I register on any forum on some specialty topic, I still wade in carefully to adapt to the "culture and conventions" of the forum. It's just how things are done.

[Paulatized]

[QUOTE=Birdlady;4194436]I would never recommend this forum to the average Republican voter. Never ever. =/QUOTE]

So you would agree with "Anonymous" in the original post, Ron Paul forums is not a site you would recommend to try and win new Ron Paul Supporters?

I would say we need a thread on good sites to recommend.

[camp_steveo]

I'm still very new, and i think this place is great.

[MozoVote]

RPF shouldn't be the first stop for people learning about Paul. But because RPF ranks high on Google it's kinda hard to prevent newbies from wandering in and playing with fire. Fortunately, RPF is "open" and registration isn't needed to get a grasp of how things work around here. People can lurk and study the last 5 years of posts quietly, if they want.

What RPF is good at, is functioning as a grassroots "nerve center". The bullshit gets debunked pretty fast, and you can get a sense of the gestalt of the movement, as events unfold. I feel like Daily Paul is too much of a rumor mill and base for brainstorming conspiracy chatter. I rarely visit it anymore.

[Birdlady]

So you would agree with "Anonymous" in the original post, Ron Paul forums is not a site you would recommend to try and win new Ron Paul Supporters?

I would say we need a thread on good sites to recommend.

Yes I do agree with "Anonymous". This forum is not about bringing in new supporters because if it were, then the main forums would be just that, converting new supporters. It is about giving those who are already RP supporters a place to socialize, organize events and discuss ideas. Nothing is wrong with that!. However to suggest this forum is for converting Republican voters to the ways of liberty makes me laugh. We need to be more honest with ourselves here. The chaos and unstructured nature of this forum is exactly why many Republican voters are afraid of us.

[SCOTUSman]

I agree. This is the most new member unfriendly forum I have ever been apart of on any group I have ever seen online.

[Paulatized]

_+ rep to you, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Very insightful

QUOTE=MozoVote;4194575]RPF shouldn't be the first stop for people learning about Paul. But because RPF ranks high on Google it's kinda hard to prevent newbies from wandering in and playing with fire. Fortunately, RPF is "open" and registration isn't needed to get a grasp of how things work around here. People can lurk and study the last 5 years of posts quietly, if they want.

What RPF is good at, is functioning as a grassroots "nerve center". The bullshit gets debunked pretty fast, and you can get a sense of the gestalt of the movement, as events unfold. I feel like Daily Paul is too much of a rumor mill and base for brainstorming conspiracy chatter. I rarely visit it anymore.[/QUOTE]

[camp_steveo]

I was banned at at forum that rhymes with 'fleathepublic' for supporting liberty.

[Paulatized]

Good analysis, I agree, + rep to you!


Yes I do agree with "Anonymous". This forum is not about bringing in new supporters because if it were, then the main forums would be just that, converting new supporters. It is about giving those who are already RP supporters a place to socialize, organize events and discuss ideas. Nothing is wrong with that!. However to suggest this forum is for converting Republican voters to the ways of liberty makes me laugh. We need to be more honest with ourselves here. The chaos and unstructured nature of this forum is exactly why many Republican voters are afraid of us.

[PolicyReader]

People that understand "netiquette" won't have trouble assimilating into RPF. Newbies who start out dipping their toes in and just asking questions don't get flamed. But offer an opinion, and it WILL be assessed and replied to. Perhaps brutally if it's unpopular.

I'm in my 40s and go back to the days of 300 baud modems and dial-up BBSs. But when I register on any forum on some specialty topic, I still wade in carefully to adapt to the "culture and conventions" of the forum. It's just how things are done.

This pretty much sums up my experience here. When questioning 'what the culture of the RPF' is more than one question is being asked and while freedom is popular and I honestly believe liberty has something for everyone it takes having a skin that is at least thick enough to cope with others holding very different opinions about how to get things done (and sometimes *what* should get done in the first place).

I'm pretty new to the RPF but not new to the net, to forums in general (I've done some modding) or to Ron Paul (around since '07 does that mean I have more status or make me an "elitist"? :p ). My experience here is a positive one but I still wouldn't recommend this forum as a starting point for people who want to learn politics or Ron Paul unless they have a very thick skin and/or are comfortable with other net forums. But that's more because I wouldn't recommend a forum as the place to 'get to know' something from the start, it's a better format for depth not introduction in my experience.

2c

ps ~ I'm not a fan of putting people into groups, sure sometimes saying something like "Romney's supporters" is factually needed for communication but making statements about the quality of a group of people is almost always factually wrong "newbs are ___", "Christians are ___" "Whites are ___" "Liberals are ___" "Women are ___" "X age group is ____" <--- all examples of statements that by their nature are likely to be false the majority of the time (by virtue of being to general to be accurate). That having been said let me point out the single most negative aspect of this board in my experience, the war between the excessively optimistic (yes there are some) and the dis-functionally cynical (who often self describe as "realists").
The delegates strategy is a great example, it is a chance to win but I frequently hear the former set cheering "we're in the lead" while the latter set chants "there's no way that can work" neither one is factually accurate. Less than 10% of the national delegates have been chosen, much less bound and even among those that have the pool is divided among the candidates. The race is neither won or lost at this stage, sure is is an uphill battle it's also the best shot we've had thus far and likely a far better shot then we'll have for quite some time to come (unless we win this one ;) ).
My personal method of assessment isn't how a post rates on the cheerful/bitter scale it is how constructive that posts content is.
Posts in GRC should be constructive or they should be made in another area of the forums IMO. If you think that this race is over (regardless of what you think the outcome is) then you're not contributing to the 2012 grassroots effort here and now and I would request that you excuse yourself from this sub-forum. (If you don't think that applies to you then it doesn't so no one should feel slighted)

[Jeffster]

This place isn't for the sensitive types. If you can't stand to be insulted because of your age, sex, religion or whatever else people have decided to take issue with, then stay away. Very little recourse will be taken because liberty minded forums don't believe in "censoring opinion" and everything should be left as is. I know a mod will just say to report people, but it isn't worth my time. I have voiced my opinion a few times on here for various comments and usually the whistleblowers just get ridiculed, demonized and attacked even more.

I would never recommend this forum to the average Republican voter. Never ever. There's a very noticeable clique on the board and it is very tough to mesh in with a handful of them. I just stay away from it all. I'm not in high school again and this is from an 07'er for whatever that is worth. :cool:

But shouldn't it be? Shouldn't it be a site where people CAN learn about Ron Paul and possibly join the cause without being insulted? How hard would that be? How hard is it to just NOT insult people? How hard is it to state disagreement in a civil manner? How hard is it to call people by their names instead of vulgar nicknames? How hard is it to focus on the overall goals and not constantly seek to divide the people that are trying to be on the same team? How hard is it to think before one posts something? To even read what you've typed before it's posted and think about what the effect is?

It seems to me there are way too many sections of this board, but at least if there's going to be that many, and there are sections designated for debates about issues, venting about other candidates, etc, then use those sections for that, but leave the sections about trying to help elect Ron Paul president to discussion about that purpose!

I maintain that it isn't that hard. Insults, vulgarity, and sidetracking aren't that hard to avoid posting. Just don't do it here. If thats what somebody wants to do, open up a word processor and type messages to yourself, because it helps no one.

"What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good.”

[affa]

I feel like some of you forget we're on the internet, where the comment sections of most mainstream news sources are vile pits of insults, slanderous remarks, racism, and general hatred of anyone who actually spent the time to read the article being commented on.

Here? It's practically paradise comparatively.

That said, when you dig into the liberty movement (in all of its forms, not just Ron Paul, libertarianism, etc) you're going to find a large contingent of people that live, breath, and eat socio-political discussion and have done so their entire lives. That means, for example, when -isms get brought up, many here have a finely tuned understanding of the theoretical differences between, say, various low- and no-state constructs. Concepts like fiat money, ignored by most, are required learning if you want to hold your own in a discussion of fiscal responsibility. Where else are you going to get into a discussion of the pros, cons, and constitutionality (or lack thereof) of a 'standing army'? Where else will mention of the commerce clause evoke hisses from the peanut gallery?

This isn't joining a forum on the ins and outs of sticker collecting, where the big debate is which is better: holographic or scratch 'n' sniff? So yes, for someone new to the movement that is still learning the ropes, there is a learning curve. We aren't talking points. But do you know what else requires a learning curve for most people? Understanding Ron Paul.

The one thing that is guaranteed to piss people off? Posters that insist on being overtly negative in any and every thread. We see it all the time: Ron Paul gets a big endorsement, and by the third post someone is talking about how this is going to turn off all the people that hate xyz. Negativity gets old, fast.

[gregb]

....... However to suggest this forum is for converting Republican voters to the ways of liberty makes me laugh. We need to be more honest with ourselves here.

Agreed, what I see going on though is that some of the moderators insist on doing their job with the notion that the forum exists to convert Republicans, and the net effect is that enthusiasm is destroyed. A lot of the people with 1000s of posts got them by bumping threads and posting nonsense in "Hold ...." type threads, or on money bomb days exhort people to donate - dozens of times in 24 hours.

Personally, I have what, 150 or so posts? I also have my name in the "For Liberty" credits, I was at least partially responsible for the "Revolution, a Manifesto" effort at getting the book on the best seller lists, I did all of the web work for numerous grassroots efforts including the "Liberty Riders" one, I helped with the Black This Out money bomb, donated money where I can ($1000s) - including lots of times where I notice someone is broke and so I send them money, I have helped at least 50 other Paul supporters with their websites and probably pay for 100 websites hosting, etc. I also read almost every post on this forum, probably I check out posts for 4 hours every day, and I'm a fast reader.

I'm 60 years old, been a moderator on heavily trafficked forums, and a political junkie for nearly 50 years. Recently I have to remind myself that the bigger project of trying to get Ron elected is greater than what I think of how the forum is being run, or rather, moderated - if I'm in a bad mood then I start to imagine that I'll devote my efforts against Ron Paul, since I start to imagine that the same people moderating and censoring this forum will end up being influential if the movement succeeds.

I'm not against banning or censoring with a purpose, but the minor things that some people were being banned or minor things that were being censored weren't really necessary. If it had been me I would have put the whole "frothy" thing down right from the start. It is about as Beavis and Butthead as you can get and isn't cool, isn't funny, referring to people with words that have disgusting connotations sticks more to the person using the words and not the person being referred to. If this forum were my private property and my moderators had let that go for the last 6 months while stupidly imagining that they were making this into a place that Republicans could be converted to Ron Paul by coming down on what they came down on I'd have gotten rid of them months ago.

[MozoVote]

I agree that the number of posts is not representative of the gravitas of the poster.

Although the Frothy reference is crude, this is RPF after all and not "Good Morning America". Things will be a little wild and wooly while people are typing in their tricorn hats! :D If things became too sanitized I think some of the energy and enthusiasm that is here, would migrate elsewhere.

[ironj221]

People do need to be nicer.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen "lol join date jan 2012 gtfo". It doesn't matter when you started liking Ron Paul; just that you do.

[bluesc]

People do need to be nicer.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen "lol join date jan 2012 gtfo". It doesn't matter when you started liking Ron Paul; just that you do.

Lol join date 2008.

[vechorik]

People do need to be nicer.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen "lol join date jan 2012 gtfo". It doesn't matter when you started liking Ron Paul; just that you do.

I agree the "join date" is often used to bash others. What would RPF be like if no "join dates" were posted? Only moderators could see them?

[ironj221]

Lol join date 2008.

I know, right? Should be 1987...then again it'd be hard to think much about anything since I was born that year :)

[FlatIron]

I agree with Anonymous, from the OP. The new member's get picked on for the stupidest reasons. Golden Rule Broken

[Tal]

I dunno, being a little harsh to newbies who dont know the liberty message well can egg them on also since it is like playing hard to get, it creates this notion that being a libertarian is an exclusive club, a club where you need to understand the basic message in order to be given admission.

I post on another forum and me and another anarcho-capitalist were being a little dismissive to an Israeli guy who was interested in libertarian thinking since neither of us thought he really had understood what it was about, this only ended up egging him on further and to read more since he wanted to be one of the cool kids.

Edit: Although I dunno whether you could consider it to be mean, it was just like ''dude, you dont really get it''.

[MelissaWV]

Let's just give everyone a trophy for joining and close this thread -.-

[cheapseats]

. . . being a libertarian is an exclusive club . . .


If it IS, it will also be a BIT PLAYER until such time as it has BIG BUCKS, like other exclusive clubs with secret handshakes and friends in high places.

You wanna be a PLAYER Player, you gotta have a lotta NUMBERS . . . either in the bank, or on the ground.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

It's hard to be a new member and not be accused of being a troll lately.

Personally I'm more concerned about the people who have been around for 1+ years who constantly troll and are apparently immune from the ban hammer.

People who are realistic about Ron's chances aren't trolls. It might blow some of your minds, but it's possible to agree with everything Ron says and support him but understand this is a long shot at best.

I've donated $1000 to Ron's campaign, volunteered to be a delegate, signed nomination petitions, gone to see him speak, have stickers on the car and signs in the yard. Still I think his chances of the GOP nomination are very, very slim. I don't buy into this delegate strategy at all either, it's mathematically impossible.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not even talking about you "realists", although you guys could do me a favor and stay out of GRC too.

I encourage everyone to do what's right and vote for Ron. I know I will, I just don't see the numbers needed to win. I do see a lot of people setting themselves up for major depression. Oh well.

Dude, I wasn't even talking about you. But you have just demonstrated why you "realists" are borderline trolls too. There was absolutely NO mention of Ron winning, Ron's chances, delegates, or anything else, and you STILL come in the thread and try to remind everyone of Ron's chances.

That is why you are constantly accused of being a troll.

:D
:D:D
:D:D:D

Aaaaaaaand............the troll identifies himself!


This thread had nothing to do with Ron's chances or being "realistic". Once again, you come in a thread, derail it, and make it about Ron's chances even though the topic had nothing to do with it.


actually, the one thing it ISN'T is mathematically impossible. We may have to reconsider that after Super Tuesday depending on how we do,but Ron has only just reached his best states. There was no way I expected a win before Minnesota (absent about a week prior to Iowa when his numbers elevated and during which he was pilloried relentlessly). Minnesota I did hope for before Gingrich utterly cratered and Santorum surged there. Before that time, the numbers Ron got would have WON Minnesota. Maine was a possibility. I HOPED for a win before Washington and Super Tuesday so he'd have momentum, but we are getting to his favorable states now, and he isn't getting the money to respond properly to Santorum's and Romney's ads there.


There's a difference between:
a realist and a pessimist
hope and hopelessness
positivity and negativity

So what motivates you?

Going a bit off topic here, but it's worth it to make a point:
This is a LONG TERM effort. I work hard, not because I think Ron Paul will become president, but to gain a foothold in this crazy political system. Everything I do is dedicated to the long-term goal of changing American politics. I'm proud of every tiny thing I do and it pushes me to do greater things. Every new supporter makes the movement stronger and each of them will push one inch. I work within the GOP because that's where I think change will come from.

Do you think we're all stupid? Do you feel superior by spouting negativity about what we're doing? Are you saying we can't do it? You're only making our task more difficult. Go away with your bragging of what you have done to support Ron Paul while at the same time discouraging the greater movement of liberty. Your negativity, combined with the positive things you've done equal 0 in the long run....and absolute neutral. Perhaps you can work with negativity, but most people have a hard time with that burden you place on them. It's unfair of you to place it on them. Keep it to yourself and learn to deal with it.


You don't think everyone on this forum realizes it's a long shot for Ron to win? We understand the odds are against us, but most of us try to keep a positive attitude. When a baseball player goes to bat chances are he is not going to get a hit... if his batting average is .333 he is doing great. Do you think that baseball player is thinking I'm going to strike out every time he goes to bat? Of course not... most successful people don't envision the worst, they envision hitting a home run. That is what brings success. Positive thinking combined with hard work - that is what we are about (or that is what we should be about).

It sounds like when you go to bat you are sure you are going to strike out. Good luck with that. I know that the delegate strategy is the only way to win... and when it comes to the RNC I'm thinking home run not strike out.

This is thing with these people, almost every time they someone half cheerful & go like
"hey, we're doing good, we might win this thing!"

And these trolls will be sure to jump on it & go like
"no, Ron Paul can't win......it's 'statistically impossible'..........delegate strategy will fail.........we're last.....we haven't won a state & won't.........we're gonna lose........now, our only chance is to lick Romney's boots.......Paul & Romney have something going on........& we can hope for Romney/Paul.......& then we'll have real liberty......VP is not a useless post......Romney will bring in troops, close Fed, repeal NDAA & Patriot Act & so on......he's a very nice guy.....he'll keep his word even though he never has thus far.......Go Romney! Go Romney! Go Romney!"

And I find it really amazing that as it is becoming more & more obvious that nobody can win without Paul & his immovable base, the more I'm seeing these Romney-bots & telling us how it's "impossible" to win for Paul & that's why Romney/Paul is our best chance at liberty & Romeny is better than Obama, & so on

Obviously such people are poison to the movement, when they spread their negativity & make even the cheerful & dedicated supporters to lose hope when the fact is that we should just pushing all the way in EVERY state & let the results take care of themselves, & imagine the impact it has on new supporters or those who looking into Paul, they'll believe that & go for Romney or someone else because they think "Paul can't win" :(

end rant/

[vechorik]

Nice rant.

I'm not Libertarian and I've survived here awhile. Guess there is a place for conservative Republicans here (hope so anyway).

[bluesc]

Nice rant.

I'm not Libertarian and I've survived here awhile. Guess there is a place for conservative Republicans here (hope so anyway).

What specifically about the libertarian philosophy do you disagree with? Not looking for a debate, just curious what the common differences are among RP supporters.

[phill4paul]

Let's just give everyone a trophy for joining and close this thread -.-

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZI8jIwoGW9EzAxRzpt5jUsElXH70X4 tb8oC4nRxfYk9o0YPlq

:D

[eleganz]

Not here to talk about glen beck. Only winning for ron

[Paul Or Nothing II]

snip

lol join date jan 2012 gtfo :D

And cancha spell? It's supposed to be PaulicyReader, not PolicyReader :D


Posts in GRC should be constructive or they should be made in another area of the forums IMO. If you think that this race is over (regardless of what you think the outcome is) then you're not contributing to the 2012 grassroots effort here and now and I would request that you excuse yourself from this sub-forum. (If you don't think that applies to you then it doesn't so no one should feel slighted)

Yes, may be GRC should be lower on the forums-page & I agree if someone thinks the race is over then they shouldn't go around posting it everywhere & bringing everyone down when the fact is that the race is simply NOT over :D, & just restrict themselves to other forums which don't directly relate to the race & it's not like there's any shortage of sub-forums :cool:


I feel like some of you forget we're on the internet, where the comment sections of most mainstream news sources are vile pits of insults, slanderous remarks, racism, and general hatred of anyone who actually spent the time to read the article being commented on.

Here? It's practically paradise comparatively.

That said, when you dig into the liberty movement (in all of its forms, not just Ron Paul, libertarianism, etc) you're going to find a large contingent of people that live, breath, and eat socio-political discussion and have done so their entire lives. That means, for example, when -isms get brought up, many here have a finely tuned understanding of the theoretical differences between, say, various low- and no-state constructs. Concepts like fiat money, ignored by most, are required learning if you want to hold your own in a discussion of fiscal responsibility. Where else are you going to get into a discussion of the pros, cons, and constitutionality (or lack thereof) of a 'standing army'? Where else will mention of the commerce clause evoke hisses from the peanut gallery?

This isn't joining a forum on the ins and outs of sticker collecting, where the big debate is which is better: holographic or scratch 'n' sniff? So yes, for someone new to the movement that is still learning the ropes, there is a learning curve. We aren't talking points. But do you know what else requires a learning curve for most people? Understanding Ron Paul.

The one thing that is guaranteed to piss people off? Posters that insist on being overtly negative in any and every thread. We see it all the time: Ron Paul gets a big endorsement, and by the third post someone is talking about how this is going to turn off all the people that hate xyz. Negativity gets old, fast.

I agree, this forum WAY better than most, if one considers the kind of stuff that flies elsewhere :eek: I think people might be little sensitive at times with certain issues but I think anyone who's been "out there" on the Internet certainly won't baffled by what goes on but still I agree it mayn't the best place to "convert" people who are NOT already a supporter


I agree the "join date" is often used to bash others. What would RPF be like if no "join dates" were posted? Only moderators could see them?

That's like saying if we ban drugs, they won't be used (or something like that :D)

But I think it's good that we CAN see the join date & post-counts & may be some of us can take that into account when we're replying to someone; of course, not everyone all the time will do that but then just taking off the join date will only take away that tool, so it's a double-edged sword so I'd say leave it as it is

Well, how about a "New Members Forum" & it should like you MUST post your first post there & give some basic details about why you're here, are you Repub/Indie/Dem or whatever & there could be some sort of big "hover" thing that's easily visible on the posts of New Members or something like that.........I don't know may be I'm just rambling :D

[JohnM]

I know I'm late, but I've just skimmed through this thread.

I think that the basic problem with Ron Paul Forums is that we've got a lot of human beings posting here. If we restricted it to vulcans (or angels) it would be improved a lot.

;)

Seriously, I've got a very pretty respectable join date, and I think that Jeffster makes some good points. Some people on the forums do not put a sufficiently high value on civility.

Rudeness is not cool (except, occasionally, between close friends); it's crass.

[economics102]

I think the problem is just in how people make their views heard. Imagine this exchange with a newbie:


I was just listening to Glenn Beck -- he's the only one on the radio talking sense! -- and he said XYZ about the Federal Reserve and...


Glenn Beck is a slimeball who leads around half-awake sheep.

So, this is upsetting to the newbie not because the RPFer has trashed Glenn Beck but because the newbie suddenly feels like now everybody on the forum must think he is a know-nothing sheep, and on top of that, the RPFer has not explained why they hate Glenn Beck and the newbie didn't come here expecting to have to defend his radio hero against unfair attacks.

I don't think it's the right approach to say we shouldn't be attacking people like Glenn Beck. This is a forum of good people who worship truth and fight viciously against the dishonest people like Beck who oppose our cause. That's who we are and that's a good thing.

But a better response to the newbie might have been this:


You're absolutely right about the Fed. You should check out this Peter Schiff speech on XYZ, very informative. By the way, hate to be the bearer of bad news since you like Beck, but you should know that although he often says a lot of stuff that's dead-on, he has also shown himself in the past to be very two-faced re: Ron Paul (link to video of Beck fear-mongering about RP). You'll find most on this forum have much disdain for Beck because of that. But welcome to the forums, and please don't take it as anything personal about you if people attack Glenn Beck. A lot of us here used to like him before we heard some of the anti-RP stuff he's said.

[ClydeCoulter]

I think that in almost any "cause" there is a tendency for some to jump to the conclusion that once they have "seen the light" that it's obvious that everyone should "see the light" now, it's right there! Some of the harshest "anti-smokers" are "ex-smokers", and some of the most obnoxious christians are some of the "just born again"s, or worst "anti-religionists" used to be hard core christians.

Perhaps there is some mentoring that could be done to help others see that not everyone sees some given thing at the same time, even though this is obvious, it's not always obvious.

There are external views to how Paulites are seen, perhaps these views could help us to see how we might welcome others instead of alienate them. Paulites are portrayed as streadfast but rude and sometimes crude, if you pay attention to the MSM. Not that we pay attention to the MSM, but others do, and others are who we need to join the cause.

After all, we can't do this by ourselves, although we will if we must, we do need to grow the cause as well as support the cause. It's easy to justitfy our positions, but perhaps sometimes a gentle hand is called for. Do we need to justify ourselves to ourselves? I think "economics102" gives a good example of the better way to approach the "Beck supporter".

[vechorik]

I was a Beck fan, until he went nuts with the Israel-thing ("We're all Jews now"). Beck taught me how the voters are sleeping, about UN Agenda 21, about ways the US is trashing the Constitution. In those days, Beck claimed the Constitution was the answer. Beck led me to Ron Paul.

I blogged at The Blaze and battled people who wouldn't know a progressive if they were bit by one and noticed several other "constitutionalists" posting as well. I saw people change their minds about candidates, I saw people "wake up" and I saw people come to Ron Paul's side. Most of Beck's fans are still sleeping and Beck is as off-the-chart as ever ("We're all Cathoics now" is Beck's latest thing), but the Constitutionalists/Ron Paul people still post, still try to educate and are still making progress.

The world is gray, people -- not black and white.
You get more flies with honey.
However you want to say it -- we're all in this together.
I don't see it as a war, nor as a battle, where people are destroyed.
I see it as EDUCATIONAL mission, where people are treated with respect (especially when they're wrong).

[Nathan Hale]

//

[Paulitics 2011]

It's hard to be a new member and not be accused of being a troll lately.

Acknowledging reality = troll

You either have to be blissfully optimistic or a defeatist pessimist here.

[bluesc]

Acknowledging reality = troll

You either have to be blissfully optimistic or a defeatist pessimist here.

Acknowledging "reality" when it is unwarranted repeatedly and trying to discourage people with completely false statements = troll.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I was a Beck fan, until he went nuts with the Israel-thing ("We're all Jews now"). Beck taught me how the voters are sleeping, about UN Agenda 21, about ways the US is trashing the Constitution. In those days, Beck claimed the Constitution was the answer. Beck led me to Ron Paul.

I blogged at The Blaze and battled people who wouldn't know a progressive if they were bit by one and noticed several other "constitutionalists" posting as well. I saw people change their minds about candidates, I saw people "wake up" and I saw people come to Ron Paul's side. Most of Beck's fans are still sleeping and Beck is as off-the-chart as ever ("We're all Cathoics now" is Beck's latest thing), but the Constitutionalists/Ron Paul people still post, still try to educate and are still making progress.

The world is gray, people -- not black and white.
You get more flies with honey.
However you want to say it -- we're all in this together.
I don't see it as a war, nor as a battle, where people are destroyed.
I see it as EDUCATIONAL mission, where people are treated with respect (especially when they're wrong).

+1


Acknowledging "reality" when it is unwarranted repeatedly and trying to discourage people with completely false statements = troll.

+1

These are obvious trolls, if they think Ron can't win or delegate-strategy won't work or the chances are "statistically impossible", etc etc then why do they come here? And if they come here only to constantly tell everyone that he can't win then that's obviously trolling :mad:

[69360]

These are obvious trolls, if they think Ron can't win or delegate-strategy won't work or the chances are "statistically impossible", etc etc then why do they come here? And if they come here only to constantly tell everyone that he can't win then that's obviously trolling :mad:

Sticking your head in the sand and calling everyone trolls doesn't change reality.

Lots of people support Ron, agree with everything he says, intend to vote for him and encourage others to vote for him, like to discuss politics, policy and the election, but live in the real world where he isn't getting enough votes to be president.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Sticking your head in the sand and calling everyone trolls doesn't change reality.

Lots of people support Ron, agree with everything he says, intend to vote for him and encourage others to vote for him, like to discuss politics, policy and the election, but live in the real world where he isn't getting enough votes to be president.

Then go to Romney forums or whatever, why troll here? You're obviously a Romney-troll, that's why you're so hell-bent on diluting the liberty-movement & trying to feed everyone Bombney/Paul BS!

As I've said before, an unprincipled & compromising electorate will beget an unprincipled & compromising government, there are no two ways about that

If liberty-movement is to get somewhere in the long-run then the goal should be to show the strength of the liberty-movement & let the GOP know that we don't mind making sacrifices in the short-run to gain leverage in the long-run, be it at the cost of re-electing Obama, otherwise they've no reason to move towards liberty or accept liberty-candidates

[69360]

Then go to Romney forums or whatever, why troll here? You're obviously a Romney-troll, that's why you're so hell-bent on diluting the liberty-movement & trying to feed everyone Bombney/Paul BS!

As I've said before, an unprincipled & compromising electorate will beget an unprincipled & compromising government, there are no two ways about that

If liberty-movement is to get somewhere in the long-run then the goal should be to show the strength of the liberty-movement & let the GOP know that we don't mind making sacrifices in the short-run to gain leverage in the long-run, be it at the cost of re-electing Obama, otherwise they've no reason to move towards liberty or accept liberty-candidates

Are there even people that care enough about Romney to have a Romney forum? I doubt it. I don't like Romney more than anyone else, but Ron and Romney might have something cooking, all signs point to it. Calling everyone a troll isn't going to get you anywhere.

[bluesc]

Sticking your head in the sand and calling everyone trolls doesn't change reality.

Lots of people support Ron, agree with everything he says, intend to vote for him and encourage others to vote for him, like to discuss politics, policy and the election, but live in the real world where he isn't getting enough votes to be president.

Says the "realist" who thinks Ron could win as a third party candidate. I'm not sure what your version of the real world is.

[Highstreet]

Liberty is what brings us together. Not agreement on all the issues, or speculation on Paul's choices with regard to Romney.

[69360]

Says the "realist" who thinks Ron could win as a third party candidate. I'm not sure what your version of the real world is.

With Santorum as the GOP candidate and economic collapse and an unpopular Iran war he could. Scary but that might come to pass.