How do I make Paul look good to someone who hates all republicans?

[Zeke]

I've been entering into treacherous waters casually debating with my girlfriends father about why I like Ron Paul so much. His rejection of Ron Paul as a good candidate is rooted in his generic hatred for all Republicans. I have a feeling he does admire the positions and political ideals of Paul, but feels very reluctant to support him because Paul chooses to affiliate himself with the Republican party instead of the Libertarian party or choosing to run as an Independent.

You can skip past this copy and pasting of the conversation that has taken place thus far if you'd like, but I just include it for reference. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of Democrats out there who will not support Ron Paul simply because he is running as a Republican. How can we remedy this?

----------------

The conversation starts by me linking him to a video I saw someone put up on YouTube talking about how Clinton and Carter both polled at 2% before winning the presidency. His reply was stern:


Flat statement: I will never vote for a Republican. Game, set and match. Case closed.

I replied:


Nor would I vote for a Republican, but I don't think of him as a Republican because he actually a Libertarian. He voted against the Patriot Act, the use of torture and the existence of Gitmo, opposes illegal wiretapping, amnesty and welfare for illegals, any form of government regulation of the Internet, military action against Iran, and is for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Being the self proclaimed "champion of the constitution", he's nothing like any other candidate out there (with partial exception to Kucinich and Gravel, since they are the only other two candidates who hold similar views, especially in regard to homeland security and the war).

This table (http://www.2decide.com/table.htm) is useful, but admittedly a little too simplified. For instance, Paul isn't necessarily opposed to stem cell research (being a doctor himself, he sees the potential number of lives that could be saved), but he is opposed to Federal funding of it, suggesting instead that the money be generated by states and private companies. Anyway, it's still worth giving it glance.

He replies:


Then he needs to find the guts to renounce the republican party and run as an independent or a libertarian. Of course, we all know he won't do that, because it would be the beginning of the end for his candidacy, since Americans have again and again proven that they refuse to support, in terms of support necessary to seriously consider carrying a national election, anyone who doesn't carry one of the two party labels. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way the game is played. So, if he engenders none of the principles currently held by the rank and file of the republican party, he labels himself as a whore who'll do anything to get elected.

Again, I have respect for many of his political stances, but my experiences with politics have taught me that republicans CANNOT be trusted under any circumstances, no matter who their candidate might be. You may not think of him as a republican, but If Ron Paul insists upon running as a republican, I cannot and will not give him my support.

My reply:


On the contrary, I think the "Republicans" who are part of the current administration claiming to be "traditional conservatives" are the true whores. Ron Paul talked about this during the first GOP debate, stating that past presidents like Eisenhower (voted in to get us out of the Korean War), Nixon (voted in get us out of Vietnam), and our current president, all ran on a non-intervention foreign policy/no nation building/no policing the world platforms, because those are traditional conservative values that Republicans repeatedly identify with and support. Values that are sometimes exploited and embraced disingenuously by some candidates to get votes (Nixon/Bush, but not Eisenhower or Ron Paul in my opinion).

If you can, please check this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8) out when you have about 15 minutes to spare. It's the highlights from the second GOP debate, where Rudy shot himself in the crotch (it's worth watching just for that, cause Rudy is a cross-dressing flip-flopper). I know you hate Republicans, and with the exception of one of them, I'm right in line with you. I misspoke when I said that he is an outright Libertarian. He is a 10 term Republican Senator from Texas (although Bush has been quoted saying, "He's no Texan") who maintains many Libertarian ideals in defense of the constitution. So I wouldn't call him a whore but instead, a hybrid.

His reply:


I'll forgive you your naiveté because you're too young to have actually lived the Nixon years and the Reagan years. My wife was in court reporting school when Reagan got elected, and one of his first acts was to cut off the money that she'd been using for her education and pull the rug out from underneath her. Besides, there is no such thing as a 'hybrid republican'. I'd no sooner trust him than a "true conservative" because he refuses to cast off the mantel of 'protection' afforded him by association with 'The Grand Old Party'. If he truly had the cajones to reject their sanction, then it would be a different story, but as long as he insists upon receiving the money and benefits of his association with them, he is no different than them in my eyes, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would ever provide anything except reasons for me to distrust him even more. If he truly believed 'his' party was wrong, he'd have already disassociated himself from them. Being a half-republican is like being half-pregnant-- a physical impossibility.

----------------

So, where should I go from here? What is the best way to talk with people of this disposition in the hopes of convincing them that Ron Paul is the best man for office?

[angelatc]

My wife was in court reporting school when Reagan got elected, and one of his first acts was to cut off the money that she'd been using for her education and pull the rug out from underneath her.

Oh well - my taxes went down as a result. I'd personally find better ways to spend my time, because he sounds like he wants big government. I was alive dutring the Ragan years and the out-of-control spending was one of the reasons he was elected.

I suppose you could point out that Newt personally headed up an effort to keep Paul from actually getting the Republican nomination ih his Texas district.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Concentrate on his social issues... decriminalization o drugs, gay rights / marriage, leaving abortion to states, against death penalty, against the war

[Bloody Holly]

this person is like someone I know, a party picker. No matter what you say, they don't care. It's team this and team that to them.

You can debate and debate with the person, you will notice they aren't budging. Theyg et more stubborn with each point you make.

The best way to deal with that is speak of your reasons for supporting. Keep it short sweet and to the point and then say "Now I wouldn't expect you vote for him because you've already chosen your team"

Then say this is just one of those times when I personally have to look at the person as an individual rather than what team he is on.

Try not to be too preachy. If you feel like you must convert all, well it's not going to happen. Probably not something you want to hear but try not to be pushy. Just express yourself as an individual. Point the person to a decent website and let it be their choice.

Have you ever experienced christians that would preach to you about christianity on the streets and hand you pamplets and try to belittle you? Try not to be like that.

You can't convert everyone! I'm sure you wouldn't like it if someone tried to convert you to Hillaryism non stop. That tends to drive people away if you push the issue too much. They'll start viewing you as Tom Cruise who pushes scientology or Madonna who tries to convert people to hollywood kaballah and hisses when they don't obey.

[Syren123]

That's a pretty intractible position he's got there. His bias is founded in bad experiences he's had and political events of the pretty distant past (the Nixon era is way gone. Almost irrelevent to what's happening today). He's clinging to beliefs formed back then and is unwilling to look at how they may not be true today because they back up his prejudices.

There's no winning these types of arguments because your girlfriend's father doesn't WANT to change his mind - because he would be 'wrong' and wouldn't have something to pin his anger on.

If he can't see or won't listen to how Ron Paul is NOT a Republican in what passes for Republican these days, there's nothing you can do about it. Just presenting his position and his history of integrity is all you can do. Sometimes it's enough, sometimes it's not. I see that sort of resistance A LOT especially with people of his generation. Boomer generation is pretty rigid in their views.

[dspectre]

It sounds like you are going to have a hard time with him. I really wouldn't force him, but I would give him all of the positions and just simply say, "Well, at least you can research him and think about it. I just pointed him out because I thought you might like him. He seems better then most of the other guys out there."

Basically, offer it in a sense that it is for his interest, but just show him who he is and let him think about it. He may come around.

[hells_unicorn]

Based on the general ignorance of his statements, I would probably recommend him seeing a doctor about a severe case of rectal cranial immersion. But since I am giving you advice I'll see what I can come up with.


Flat statement: I will never vote for a Republican. Game, set and match. Case closed.

Ask him why he believes this and insist upon a logical answer, he will not be able to provide one as it applies to Ron Paul.


Then he needs to find the guts to renounce the republican party and run as an independent or a libertarian. Of course, we all know he won't do that, because it would be the beginning of the end for his candidacy, since Americans have again and again proven that they refuse to support, in terms of support necessary to seriously consider carrying a national election, anyone who doesn't carry one of the two party labels. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way the game is played. So, if he engenders none of the principles currently held by the rank and file of the republican party, he labels himself as a whore who'll do anything to get elected.

Tell him that he is being a complete an utter hypocrite for saying that the game isn't right yet simultaneously states that he supports the game. If principles are not practical, why the hell should anyone have them? The problem is not that Ron Paul is doing something in order to get elected, the problem is that this individual thinks that he should run to lose on principle, which makes zero sense.


Again, I have respect for many of his political stances, but my experiences with politics have taught me that republicans CANNOT be trusted under any circumstances, no matter who their candidate might be. You may not think of him as a republican, but If Ron Paul insists upon running as a republican, I cannot and will not give him my support.

Ask him to get specific about his experiences and then ask him how any of these experiences apply to Ron Paul in any way, shape or form. Make him continue to blurt out nonsense like this until even he can't deny that he is simply full of himself.


I'll forgive you your naiveté because you're too young to have actually lived the Nixon years and the Reagan years. My wife was in court reporting school when Reagan got elected, and one of his first acts was to cut off the money that she'd been using for her education and pull the rug out from underneath her. Besides, there is no such thing as a 'hybrid republican'. I'd no sooner trust him than a "true conservative" because he refuses to cast off the mantel of 'protection' afforded him by association with 'The Grand Old Party'. If he truly had the cajones to reject their sanction, then it would be a different story, but as long as he insists upon receiving the money and benefits of his association with them, he is no different than them in my eyes, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would ever provide anything except reasons for me to distrust him even more. If he truly believed 'his' party was wrong, he'd have already disassociated himself from them. Being a half-republican is like being half-pregnant-- a physical impossibility.

Do some research on how Ron Paul voted on the specific measures that he is referring to, especially that thing about his wife's education. Also, ask him if he thinks that you owe his wife her education, because according to his philosophy, everyone who paid taxes while his wife was in school was flipping the bill for it.

[kalami]

I'd say pick your battles. This guy seems full of himself and closed minded.
But if you really want to slosh down that road, read this:
http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/archives/only_the_dull_a.phtml
It's easy for him to attack Paul for whatever he defines Republicanism. The guy is arguing for his own highly subjective interpretation, he won't concede a point because he'll never be wrong. Don't go down that path and put him on the defensive.

[quickmike]

Ask him how he can consider himself a Libertarian if he is offended by someone cutting government funds ( his wifes school funding) Maybe hes just a libertarian to the extent that hes in favor of cutting government programs as long as they arent programs he benefits from.


Maybe you could word it differently than I did since I come off as an A-hole sometimes.:D

[jblosser]

1. He had "the cajones" to run outside the GOP in 88. He did very well, came in 3rd... with one half of one percent of the vote. The game is broken, and unless someone finds another way to play it, we will never get out of the lesser of two evils model, with the lesser getting worse each time around. Did your gf's dad have the cajones to run in any capacity or do anything else to actually try to make things better?

2. It is quite easy to see that Paul *does not* compromise his principles, even while staying in the GOP. You have almost 20 years' worth of voting records. You have the GOP trying to destroy him time and time again. You can spew all the self-righteous rhetoric about never trusting a republican that you want. Paul doesn't ask you to just trust his talk, he doesn't need to.

So you have a candidate who has figured out, somehow, how to keep getting elected inside the system that gets him access, while never actually going along with them. He has made himself an untouchable, and done something no one in at least 100 years of American politics has pulled off. There's no rational reason to not go along with this. He's no hidden tyrant or back-room dealer, the history is clear.

[romeshomey]

I think you need to start by explaining to him how Ron Paul and a handful of others are the only true republicans in the party today, and how his own party has basically forced him to run as a 3rd party cantidate in the past by not giving him any support.

Explain to him how its a game thats been being played ever since the first American election when we had federalists running as anti-federalists and anti-federalists running as federalists just to get votes, and it's been a big game ever since.

Tell him to just remember, a cat is always a cat, and a dog will always be a dog, regardless whether someone names their cat Dog or their dog Cat.

Ron Paul is a republican running as a republican as to where most of the other humbugs are aren't really republicans, they just want all the republicans votes and will pass around the green colored spectacles until they are elected.

Thats a start...

[LibertyEagle]

You have far more patience than I do. I think I'd ask him if he'd prefer to stick to his self-righteous guns or, to save his country.

[Akus]

Zeke, I'd let go.
There are so many people that would instantly become Ron Paul supporters and aren't only because they don't know he exists. Stop wasting time on this guy.

[Jennifer Reynolds]

///

[AnotherAmerican]

Even if this person isn't converted, maybe he'll be talking to someone else who says that all Republicans are the same, and at least mention that Ron Paul exists... sometimes a "buzz" is born this way. Even dismissive stuff like "that crazy kid of mine was talking about this Ron Paul guy" plants a name-recognition seed.

After that, ya gotta let it go. My dad is similar - if his house burned down around him, he wouldn't believe it happened until he saw it on FOX News. He's all about Rudy! (who is singlehandedly and personally responsible for 8 million New Yorkers being "nicer these days," in case you didn't know that). At least my mom always votes for the other candidate so they cancel each other out.

[hells_unicorn]

If this guy did have a conversion, you would not see it happen until after the fact. People tend to discover as they go along that they have foolish viewpoints, yet have an innate desire to save face in front of others, so they are a bit slow to admit that they are being shortsighted.

You've done enough, he'll either change or he won't, it's pretty much out of your hands. If he doesn't change though, my statement about his condition of rectal cranial immersion stands, as is the case for anyone who votes for or against anybody based solely on party affiliation.

[Zeke]

I think, since this is my girlfriends dad (who I may decide to marry one day, because she's a true gem) that it would be best to not alienate myself from him. For now, I think I'll simply say, "I don't want to come across like a Jehovah's Witness knocking down your door" or something like that. But keep the input coming. I think, with the right kind of humor, and negative criticism of as many presidents as possible (to hopefully push through the fact that neither party is perfect, and sticking to one side out of spite doesn't help himself)...he might start loosening up. I've got a whole year to experiment and see if I can change his mind.

Who knows. Maybe he'll stumble across some more Youtube videos or something. I had thought of asking him who he is in favor of, but I'd rather not know at this time because I'd likely be tempted to attack his favorite candidates character or record. I think he mentioned Obama when we met for the first time. And I told him that I had donated to him once, now they won't stop calling me for more money... and I've reached the conclusion that Obama, while appealing to young people (because he's got that "freshness" about him) that it's also his weakness, as he's too young and inexperienced.

Anyway, keep the posts coming guys!

[Lord Xar]

I have found that once people reach a certain age, and IF they have a propensity to be closed minded, then changing them is as certain as getting water out of a rock. I have found it very hard to convince liberals/minorities and basically anybody else who see's the government as a white establishment meant to keep the people down, and the brave demoncrats will save them with showers of social services and kind words....

my 2 cents. Yes I generalized.... its okay.. :)

p.s. THat is NOT to say people aren't waking up, they are... for some, it is just REALLY hard to think outside "party lines"...

[Lord Xar]

I think, since this is my girlfriends dad (who I may decide to marry one day, because she's a true gem) that it would be best to not alienate myself from him. For now, I think I'll simply say, "I don't want to come across like a Jehovah's Witness knocking down your door" or something like that. But keep the input coming. I think, with the right kind of humor, and negative criticism of as many presidents as possible (to hopefully push through the fact that neither party is perfect, and sticking to one side out of spite doesn't help himself)...he might start loosening up. I've got a whole year to experiment and see if I can change his mind.

Who knows. Maybe he'll stumble across some more Youtube videos or something. I had thought of asking him who he is in favor of, but I'd rather not know at this time because I'd likely be tempted to attack his favorite candidates character or record. I think he mentioned Obama when we met for the first time. And I told him that I had donated to him once, now they won't stop calling me for more money... and I've reached the conclusion that Obama, while appealing to young people (because he's got that "freshness" about him) that it's also his weakness, as he's too young and inexperienced.

Anyway, keep the posts coming guys!

Why don't you just to to Ronpaul2008.com and download his reading materials and refer him to Ron Pauls' stances on issues: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I mean, Ron Paul is not gonna resonate with everyone. For some, Hillary or Obama is the cat's meow ---- HOW THAT IS, I DO NOT KNOW... Neither of them has the experience to manager a pizza parlor and they both voted for amnesty against the MAJORITY wishes of the american people.. so that tells me, they are working for someone elses wishes... Some battles are not made to be won, but the experience gained will no doubt leave its mark.

[Zeke]

In due time. Besides, he recently saw the movie Zeitgeist and loved it! So he may yet find his own way of liking Ron Paul in the long run.

[RP08]

I haven't read this whole thread but I've actually found it more difficult to talk to today's "Republicans" about Ron Paul than today's "Democrats". The neo-cons have their grip (say one thing as a position and nobody notices when you do something totally different).

[DAZ]

I just skimmed all this, so forgive me if it's a repeat.

He insists that RP being a Republican means they are all the same. Have you mentioned the "Ron Paul exemption" where he is excused from voting the party line when it conflicts with his principles? Nobody else gets that exemption. What about his consistent voting record? Don't just tell him about RP's stances, show how he stands by them in 424-1 votes.

Also, try to delve deeper than just his blanket support of Democrats. Stop discussing candidates for a while and try to pin him down on his own stances on a few issues. If possible, contrast Ron Paul's views with those of Hillary or whatever Dem he happens to like most.

Finally, don't piss him off. My parents always taught me that you don't just marry the girl, you marry her whole family. Good advice, I think.

[ZackM]

This is a tough one. Both parties have a base of support that's built around "hatred" for the other side. The videos and speeches of Dr. Paul are incredibly powerful to anyone with a slightly open mind. In this case, the mind is firmly shut, locked, and the key has been flushed down the toilet.

-Try to make him realize that he embodies the person he hates. Throw some of his own words with some "modifications" to point out the extreme narrow-mindedness of the statements

"Again, I have respect for many of his political stances, but my experiences with politics have taught me that democrats CANNOT be trusted under any circumstances, no matter who their candidate might be."

Point out that this is exactly how Sean Hannity callers probably talk to each other to justify the inadequacy of their own candidates. Ask him then why is he, a progressive democrat, just as closed minded as the most dogmatic republicans?

- If you can open his mind then you have a chance.

[Zeke]

Turns out he's not as stubborn as his last e-mails make him out to be. Here's the latest of our conversation, picking up with my reply to the last e-mail he sent me (see first post in this thread)...

I reply back:


No hard feelings. I don't want to sounds like a Jehovah's Witness knocking down your door. I just wished to introduce to the candidate that Sean Hannity hates more than any other (you should hear him hang up on people on his radio show when he hears the name; it's pretty funny). For few (if any) other candidate has had the guts to point out the "blowback" that has occurred in this country (9/11) as a result of our foreign policies and our "defense" spending in front of an audience at a debate.

I'll be paying close attention to the Democratic debate tonight to see if any one of them (besides Gravel and Kucinich) have the courage and fortitude to take such a stand. I hesitate to trust any of them who are for a "phased withdrawal" (or "redeployment"), especially one who goes with Bush and avoids the use of time-tables or deadlines. We'll see what they say tonight....

He replied:



Dude, no offense taken. I merely wanted you to understand that I know you know the issues
and that you're being a responsible voter by examining the candidates' complete stand on
them before making up your mind. You just need to understand that I am a jaded, used-and-
abused cynic borne of a time when folks tended to adapt the same sorts of balanced
ivory tower-based attitudes toward the world, only to be keelhauled and betrayed by the very
politicians to whom we entrusted our legacy. What you're doing is not wrong, by any stretch
of the imagination... it's merely 'more of same' to those of us who've lived through years and
years of promises by politicians who would have said anything to get elected.

I wish you well... and I wish you luck, because you're going to need it. From the bottom of
my heart, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

I reply:


How did Red put it?

"Keep your stick on the ice." As well as, "Quando omni flunkus moritati"

I love that show, ha ha.

We've got another year to sort the rhetoric from the candidates. Let's make it fun if possible, he he. I'm missed the first half of the Dem debate, but will find a full copy of it easy on the net later tonight (I think CNN said they wanted to distribute all debates hosted by them under the creative commons license, so it's available for free legally off the web....probably off their website, maybe youtube as well since they were doing so much cross promotion of it). So, other than the topic of Energy, I didn't get to see questions about Iraq thrown at them, but will when I find the replay.

Overall, I liked the debate.... Although Joe Bidden came across as a bit of a sexist towards the end, as well as insensitive to the guy with that machine gun...suggesting he's a crazy person. The guy to Gravel's left (can't remember his name) needs to learn to follow the rules of the debate and shut up when the moderator asks him too. I don't want to take any shots at any other front runners yet until I watch what I missed.

[thomaspaine23]

Ask him if he had the choice between a candidate that he agreed with 100% that was a republican or a democrat that he agreed with only 50% which one he'd vote for.

If he answers democrat ask him why he values a political party rather than his ideals. Then say take a look at Paul's record.

If he answers republican then tell him to take a look at paul's record.

You can also point out that Paul is not beholden to Corporate interests unlike
EVERY other candidate...