New campaign; Don't repeat history, be nice & civil.

[eleganz]

Liberty movement of the past was labeled rambunctious, rude, uncivilized, abrasive, extreme.

http://i.giphy.com/vLASJ6hzSBRBu.gif

I know, I ain't perfect either~ :toady:

We got into arguments with whoever didn't agree with our positions, we knew the truth and thought everybody had to know it too.

This is a new campaign, an inclusive campaign, Rand is not out there to make enemies, he is out there to make friends and if we want the campaign to succeed, we need to mirror his campaign.

When I talk to Republicans, I try to be nice and understanding. Let them know where I stand and try to be complimentary of their candidate. If you want you can say their candidate is your second or third choice and the love will reciprocate. If the candidate is out of luck, they may take a look at Rand and remember your conversation and passion, but most importantly, your civility and kindness and all of the commonality between you.

Good luck to all of us.

http://i.giphy.com/AaosjRHKjEcXm.gif

[adelina]

While I will most definitely be civil to supporters of other candidates and be respectful of their candidate, I won't be telling anyone that their candidate is my second choice. Because that suggests to them that their candidate is actually more well liked by voters than they really are. And that if Rand only just steps aside, their candidate will gain quite a few more supporters.

[sam1952]

I think this post has merit. I always disliked the way Ron was rammed down people throats. It turns people off.

[CaptUSA]

Great thread and important. I've been trying to spread this message since 2012. To me, this was the most important lesson of all.

If someone has a favorite candidate, don't try to sway them away. Allow them to maintain their hope for that guy, but make sure Rand is a viable alternative. Develop a camaraderie with them over mutual issues. Don't argue. A salesman who argues with you just pushes you away faster.

Don't try to make Rand their number 1 choice if they don't want it - just allow him to be acceptable to them. First of all, it's an easier sell for you. Second of all, it's more useful. You may have to delay your gratification a little, but that's a small price to pay for liberty. The payoff in the end will be much larger than that temporary feeling you get of "being right".

In 2012, the mob went from one candidate to the next, but never landed on Ron Paul because they deemed him unacceptable. They'd go to anyone but him. Hell, they even settled for Romney even though most of them didn't want him. Romney was an acceptable (albeit, unsatisfactory) alternative. We can blame the media for a lot of what happened to Ron Paul, but we have to share some of the blame. We tried too hard and pushed a lot of people away telling them how stupid they were for supporting another candidate. In fact, we attacked their favorite candidates relentlessly. So, do you want to feel self-righteous, or do you want to win?

[Warlord]

This falls into the cajun/AF narrative that "they" don't want us. Although there is no evidence of that.

[acptulsa]

Generally, I tell people where my line in the sand is and the cognitive dissonance gets them yelling first. Everything they were taught to stand for as Republicans they wind up turning away from, and they really don't like being reminded of it.

That's the tricky business.

I think one thing we can do is trash Fox, not them personally. 'Yeah, Fox likes that guy, but Fox keeps telling us who they think is electable and those guys keep losing. I say we vote for the only fiscally responsible peace-loving Christian Republican in the race and show Fox what electable looks like.'

And if they start blathering about terrists, say, 'Iran is no threat to this nation. We'd kick their asses if they tried anything, assuming we got the right target. Nineteen Saudis attacked us, so we took over Iraq and gave it over to the bad guys. And still it's no more of a threat to this nation than Jamaica is. What's a threat to this nation is we used to have the rich, the middle class and the poor, and now we have the rich, the poor and the homeless. We need someone who can take care of business. Especially small business.

[staerker]

Generally, I tell people where my line in the sand is and the cognitive dissonance gets them yelling first. Everything they were taught to stand for as Republicans they wind up turning away from, and they really don't like being reminded of it.

That's the tricky business.

I think one thing we can do is trash Fox, not them personally. 'Yeah, Fox likes that guy, but Fox keeps telling us who they think is electable and those guys keep losing. I say we vote for the only fiscally responsible peace-loving Christian Republican in the race and show Fox what electable looks like.'

And if they start blathering about terrists, say, 'Iran is no threat to this nation. We'd kick their asses if they tried anything, assuming we got the right target. Nineteen Saudis attacked us, so we took over Iraq and gave it over to the bad guys. And still it's no more of a threat to this nation than Jamaica is. What's a threat to this nation is we used to have the rich, the middle class and the poor, and now we have the rich, the poor and the homeless. We need someone who can take care of business. Especially small business.

I think that's the kicker. Be civil, of course, but in general that is not our problem.

Years of propaganda and compromise make people completely FLIP once the cognitive dissonance hits.

[Mr.NoSmile]

And when the other side rips your signs away, throws you out of a caucus, replaces you with 'alternative' delegates...kindly show them the other cheek.

[RonZeplin]

'08 and '12 taught us that the biggest jerk with the most offensive supporters gets the GOP nomination, McCain and Romney respectively. No more Mr. Nice Guy!

[jllundqu]

Well I don't know about y'all, but my second choice is Lindsay Graham.

[liveandletlive]

so no brochures?

[jbauer]

Is the "Frothy" nickname being banned?

[jbauer]

And when the other side rips your signs away, throws you out of a caucus, replaces you with 'alternative' delegates...kindly show them the other cheek.
Its actually more effective to moon them with both your cheeks.

[jbauer]

Well I don't know about y'all, but my second choice is Lindsay Graham.

I want that guy in the debates SOOOOO bad. At least we'll see what America is really about.

[CaptUSA]

And when the other side rips your signs away, throws you out of a caucus, replaces you with 'alternative' delegates...kindly show them the other cheek.If you view them as "the other side", you are already losing. They are individuals and each one of them is an opportunity; not an adversary. You have to know when to fight and when to make friends. There will be time for fighting - now is not that time.

[jmdrake]

'08 and '12 taught us that the biggest jerk with the most offensive supporters gets the GOP nomination, McCain and Romney respectively. No more Mr. Nice Guy!

McCain's already kicking below the belt. Yes be civil to supporters of other candidates. No to being civil to these other candidates themselves when they are jerks. Rand apologized for telling the truth about John McCain taking photo ops with terrorists and John McCain has repaid the favor by calling Rand weak on defending America? Go to hell John McCain! Same to you Lindsey Graham! Every time we see them say some of their garbage or one of the stupid hateful neocon bloggers does the same we need to be out in front with our own attack pieces. No mercy. NO mercy!

[jmdrake]

//

[jmdrake]

Well I don't know about y'all, but my second choice is Lindsay Graham.

And here I was thinking you were straight. ;)

[Mr.NoSmile]

If you view them as "the other side", you are already losing. They are individuals and each one of them is an opportunity; not an adversary. You have to know when to fight and when to make friends. There will be time for fighting - now is not that time.

When your side is viewed as 'fringe,' 'lunatics,' seen as only showing up when it benefits your candidate...you obviously can see how people would feel burned trying to build bridges with the very people who will pull out any and every stop just to burn those bridges. I hardly doubt they see us as adversaries. As much as Ron Paul talked about becoming the tent, the higher-ups of the GOP aren't set on that happening. Not now, anyway.

[lakerssuck92]

Amen to the OP. Rand is a 2nd or 3rd choice for a lot of voters lets keep it that way....

[jmdrake]

And when the other side rips your signs away, throws you out of a caucus, replaces you with 'alternative' delegates...kindly show them the other cheek.


If you view them as "the other side", you are already losing. They are individuals and each one of them is an opportunity; not an adversary. You have to know when to fight and when to make friends. There will be time for fighting - now is not that time.

Now is the time to fight. The question is who to fight and how to fight. Ripping up someone else's road signs is bad form and does nothing to help our cause. But responding to bad press by blogging ourselves and pulling no punches is the way to go. I don't think we should attack candidates that have not specifically attacked us. Not unless it gets down to the case where someone is about to run away with the whole thing like Mitt Romney. But candidates like McCain and Graham? Oh it's on like donkey kong!

[CTRattlesnake]

I remember the backlash on here went I suggest strategic voting in 2012 to achieve a brokered convention

[Millennial Conservatarian]

I agree to an extent. It needs to be a positive campaign with a positive message. BUT we all know how low, how underhanded, how despicable and shameless the attacks and lies are going to be and we can't lay over and take it either. We need to be clever, ironic, and facetious more than argumentative and confrontational.

Rand's already given us a good amount of ammunition to take the NeoCons' very words and positions and spin the barrel of the gun right back around at them. We have to take advantage.

[acptulsa]

I remember the backlash on here went I suggest strategic voting in 2012 to achieve a brokered convention

I remember the backlash on here when I suggested strategic voting in 2008 to achieve a brokered convention. Then a few months later, the board was full of suggestions we vote for McCain as a strategic vote in the general election, when it's too damned late for strategic votes.

Trolls gonna troll. Hard. What we need to do is recognize a good idea in spite of--maybe even because of--the energy of the naysayers.

[jmdrake]

LOL @ brokered conventions. LOL harder at "vote for McCain to stop Obama" or "vote for Obama to stop McCain." Advocate for what you want but I never bought the argument that the GOP machine that we were fighting so hard would somehow roll over and play when it came to backroom deals. But at least those pushing for "strategic voting" were honest about it and not saying "We're running a delegate strategy for a brokered convention" all the while purposefully not attacking Mitt Romney which would have been required to get to a brokered convention. Anyhoo, whatever floats people's boats.

[FSP-Rebel]

I agree with the OP about civility going forward. I was guilty as anyone about being nasty and irritable in past times during the media's reporting/online social media folks portrayals of Ron's campaign but have learned my lesson. It's tough but it's for the best.

[HVACTech]

I promised my friends today, (who made contributions)

no snowballs for Hannity!

yeah, they looked at me funny when I added that....