Useful debating tactic to win over skeptics

[Zydeco]

I've noticed a pattern my discussions follow when I'm trying to convince people that Ron Paul / libertarianism are what America needs right now. I thought it might be useful for others here to use in their own debates.

Often I find I'm discussing RP with someone who is somewhat sympathetic to RP's positions -- maybe they're an anti-war Democrat, or a small government Republican, or someone who's just not very well-defined politically. They like what RP has to say, but can't get over the psychological block of voting for someone who's libertarian.

Often this is a result of fixating on one or two hardcore libertarian opinions they find too radical (getting rid of the IRS, say) and concluding that they can't vote for RP because of that one opinion.

A convincing counterargument to this, which I've found to be pretty effective, is to say that just because you don't agree 100% with RP doesn't mean you can't vote for him; you just have to agree more with RP than with other candidates. After all, if they don't like the Iraq War, the coming Iran War, huge budget deficits, etc., then they probably have more in common with RP than with anyone else.

This seems obvious, but actually pointing it out appears to knock down the mental wall some people have against voting for RP. :cool:

[denvervoipguru]

I'm sure we'll all differ on this, but wanted to throw my own opinion in here...

I prefer a stronger, more "shock and awe" type approach...delivered in a calm, easy, confident and friendly tone.

Me: "Did you know that if you're a "Defender of the Constitution" you're considered a Domestic Terorist according to the Patriot Act?"

Them: :eek:

Me: Yep, it's true. (in a calm, rational voice), that's why Ron Paul voted against it...well, that, and the fact that Congress had not been given the bill to READ YET...

Me: Here's a card, check him out. He's a doctor who's delivered 4000 babies... a great American...

I understand your point about saying, "You don't have to agree with him on everything", but I think that's something people will talk themselves into more easily that we could...it's kind of a weak argument that one would not expect to hear from a strong advocate of a particular candidate...I think there are too many easy ways to sing Ron Paul's praises!

[Bluedevil]

how does the patriot act consider those who defend the constitution domesitc terrorists? Im interested.

[V-rod]

Best way to win over Republicans is to talk about Ron Paul's conservative views on our spending, pro life, and intelligence when it comes to Foreign Policy.

That, or you can use.. "Your only hope to defeat Hillary!"

[BuckeyeDad]

how does the patriot act consider those who defend the constitution domesitc terrorists? Im interested.

The Patriot Act defines a terrorist/terrorism as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal law" that "appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5815

Look at some of the paraphernalia that has come out:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Christians are a hate group? Making references to the Constitution?

[LibertyEagle]

With Republicans, it's best to leave off the "libertarian" line. Ron Paul's record is spot on with traditional conservative views. That's what I stress.

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

If they bring up the fact that he's a libertarian, I mention that he's been a 10 term REPUBLICAN congressman and also mention that Reagan referred to himself as a libertarian-conservative. The reality is that a "libertarian-conservative" is the definition of a traditional conservative.

Now is not the time to sell the Libertarian party or libertarianism. We want to focus on Dr. Paul, his principles and his record.

[CJLauderdale4]

Look at some of the paraphernalia that has come out:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

Christians are a hate group? Making references to the Constitution?


Holy crap!! Is this flyer from keepandbeararms legit?!?!!?
It's crap like this that Ron Paul should read at debates...


The main argument I get from neocons is the old addage: "We need to fight them over there so we don't end up fighting them over here."

Rebuttal: "We are fighting them over here: Fort Dix, JFK Airport Bomb Plot, %age of Other-than-Mexican immigrants caught crossing the border illegally...and on top of that, we're still in the Middle East!! We're fighting on multiple fronts and the only reason the enemy cites for fighting us with Jihad is because we're over there in their Holy Lands.

Their response: "Well, we're not really fighting here, we stopping them before they can hurt us."

My response: "At what cost? What converstaions or emails have you sent recently? I hope it wasn't with a foreigner. Becasue according to the President and Congress, if they even suspect that person is a threat, you're rights given by God and government-constrained by the Constitution are down the toilet, along with your entire life!! What if we just left the Middle East? Could it be any worse than it is now?"

[CJLauderdale4]

I think at the next debates, Ron should call the Rudy McRomney show on the whole fearmongering charade, and say:

"Look, we said the Iraqis had WMD and could give it to terrorists at any time. Look where we are with that fiasco. Now, you want to keep SCARING the American public? The truth is, they should be scared of candidates like you becoming President. As of today, we have a multi-front war going on, the government is listening to every conversation and email being sent, if you're suspected to even be acquainted to someone who is a so-called 'domestic terrorist', you have no right to habeas corpus, no judge, no jury, no lawyer, no right to confront the accuser, no appeal process, NO MORE LIFE! You are thrown down a rabbit hole never to be heard from again! AND, just who are these 'domestic terrorists' as defined by the post-9/11FBI: <read the FBI pamphlet from keepandbeararms>. So, WHO should the American people be scared of? Scared now? I am, and I'm disgusted. As President, I will end this disgrace once and for all!"

[hambone1982]

With Republicans, it's best to leave off the "libertarian" line. Ron Paul's record is spot on with traditional conservative views. That's what I stress.

- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

If they bring up the fact that he's a libertarian, I mention that he's been a 10 term REPUBLICAN congressman and also mention that Reagan referred to himself as a libertarian-conservative. The reality is that a "libertarian-conservative" is the definition of a traditional conservative.

Now is not the time to sell the Libertarian party or libertarianism. We want to focus on Dr. Paul, his principles and his record.

I'm in Southern California so illegal immigration is a HUGE issue with Republicans here. I usually start out telling them that Ron Paul is against amnesty and wants to secure our borders and our ports - something that this administration, which is supposed to be tough on terrorism, has failed to do.

Almost every Republican that I know has a big problem with how the Bush administration has grown the size of the Federal Government, but they don't want to admit that "their boy" (Bush) is wrong; and they don't want to admit that they were wrong in voting for him - (I was one of them, I voted for Bush in 2000).

You really have to point out the small government, reduced spending, secure borders, personal privacy issues in order to get them to detach themselves from the hip of the current administration.

[LibertyEagle]

Hambone...

Good ideas. I myself have had a hard time getting them to see the whole personal privacy thing. I just want to pull my hair out when they start chanting.... if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind if they're surveilling you.

[Estanislao]

The biggest hurdle about the IRS, is that people don't understand how the government can run itself without taxes.

The Constitution is against taxes on LABOR. Businesses and Corps create more than enough to run the government.

95+% of Taxes on labor only covers the interest from the Federal Reserve, which is an unConstitutional and illegal privately held corportation.

Basically, and sadly, we pay the Fed for inflation, for market bubbles, and for creating money out of thin air. We're paying criminals to constantly screw us year after year. It's so ridiculous people can't comprehend it.

Watch Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism w/ Ron Paul:
http://youneed2see.com/political/52/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism

[Estanislao]

Also, I use the phrase, "phase out" the IRS, Federal Reserve and fiat currency.

It won't happen overnight and it's more non-threatening.