Ron's (appearance) of 'his way or no way'..

[laboomcats]

Don't shoot the messenger here, but as an ultra-progressive Liberal, I spend much of my time on Progressive-centric sites.
Every so often the subject of Ron Paul shows up and in every case, the central reasons for their lack of motivation for voting for him is down to policies he presents that he states so many times, that said people now believe he is unwilling to compromise on them.
(Such as removing the DOE, welfare, social programs, foreign aid in its entirety, for example).

I know that is not always the case (as seen in a few rare interviews) , but his presenting view of wanting to remove such large portions of the government all at once are a big thumbs down for such voters, most of which want to improve, not remove.

If Ron wishes to win back the interest of alot of Libs and Independents, he needs to convey his ability to compromise and present an interest in improvement of such systems more often --Rather than just eliminating everything like a nuclear warhead (their words, not mine).


Like I said above, don't shoot the messenger.
I know full well what his positions are (which is why I support his candidacy)

But as from experience, A large portion of Liberals, Progressives and independents are not seeing this
(Because he doesn't say such things nearly enough).
Just my observation from this side.

[kezt777]

He does not say that he wants to remove them like a nuclear warhead. He has even clearly stated in many debates, interviews, etc that it would not be possible to just cut those things out when people rely on them so much. I remember a debate not long back where the 4 candidates were asked what they would do about Obamacare and Romney gingrich and santorum all blathered on about repealing it, signing an executive order on their first day, etc - when RP got his chance, he looked right at them and clearly said that would be highly unlikely to be able to repeal it. In most things I have heard him say, he says they do not have the funding for it, but he will find the funding by eliminating the massive cost of things like military involvement overseas, off site bases, etc. A trillion dollars cut there to feed the programs IN the united states that people rely on but are not going to have anymore IF this other nefarious spending is not stopped.

I think perhaps you have heard some altered or broken sound bites. He has talked of how the US seemed to manage just fine without these things in the past, but they are there now and he would have to find ways to deal with it. Maybe changes like allowing people to opt in or out of social security deductions from their pay and such, but I do not hear RP wandering around telling everyone that he is going to END the welfare system lickety split. He knows they need to be torn down and rebuilt, not just torn down. Or that other things he wants to ransack will help in the restructuring of other types of social programs and get rid of the massive waste. He looked right at a woman in the audience and said he would not be taking away her Medicare and Medicaid because it was already in place, but he would be working to find ways to keep it afloat without strangling the entire country with taxes. Not to mention shrinking some govt organizations that eat up all the money before it can even get to the people who need it.

That;s my understanding in simple terms of what RP talks about. If my memory is correct, RP either got dead silence or boos in his response that it would be highly unlikely to be able to repeal Obamacare. He even seemed like he was laughing at the audacity of the others to basically lie to the audience like that. I could tell that the audience did not like HIS reply, but clapped their hands off at the other 3 saying they would kick Obamacare to the curb on their first day. That seems totally backwards from what your impression is.

[LibertyEagle]

You must have missed when he talked about TRANSITIONING out of things. They wouldn't end overnight. In fact, before things such as Social Security could be ended, it would take many years, as he believes the contract should be honored for all those currently on it, or close to going on it.

Question for you. Why are you so enamored with the Department of Education? Or, are you confusing that with the public school system?

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's not for immediately eliminating welfare and social security. That's his compromise; cut overseas, cut some domestic, leave the programs for the indigent. Anything more and you're asking him to be a different candidate.

Foreign aid is mainly used as a weapon of war; the regimes receiving the money buy weapons, and those weapons are made primarily by companies in the U.S, and those weapons fortify repugnant and oppressive governments in poor countries. I'd have more respect for progressives if they actually believed in opposing the MIC instead of yelling out the evils out of one side of their mouth while singing the praises of programs that serve the very thing they're (correctly) demonizing.

[Cleaner44]

Two things come to mind.
1. The reality is that Ron does not ever say he wants to eliminate things in one day, he always has a transition plan.
2. There is no reason to compromise with a bad plan. For example the federal dept of Education does not need to be fixed, there is no reason to compromise, it simply needs to be eliminated and the power and funds should be returned to the states where parents can decide how to best meet the needs to their students. Sending the money to DC and then begging for it back does nothing to improve education, it makes it worse, just look at No Child Left Behind. The solution to the problem is at the local level, not the federal level. Compromising on this issue is just a disservice to our children and only serves to funnel money off away from their education.

Your post does highlight Ron's lack of getting his message through as best he could. Thanks for posting.

[laboomcats]

Like I said above, don't shoot the messenger.
I know full well what his positions are (which is why I support his candidacy)

But as from experience, A large portion of Liberals, Progressives and independents are not seeing this
(Because he doesn't say such things nearly enough).
Just my observation from this side.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Like I said above, don't shoot the messenger.
I know full well what his positions are (which is why I support his candidacy)

But as from experience, A large portion of Liberals, Progressives and independents are not seeing this
(Because he doesn't say such things nearly enough).
Just my observation from this side.

You can't force them to uncover their ears. All you can do, is repeat the same message long until they eventually decide to uncover their ears.

[Voluntary Man]

Don't shoot the messenger here, but as an ultra-progressive Liberal, I spend much of my time on Progressive-centric sites.
Every so often the subject of Ron Paul shows up and in every case, the central reasons for their lack of motivation for voting for him is down to policies he presents that he states so many times, that said people now believe he is unwilling to compromise on them.
(Such as removing the DOE, welfare, social programs, foreign aid in its entirety, for example).

I know that is not always the case (as seen in a few rare interviews) , but his presenting view of wanting to remove such large portions of the government all at once are a big thumbs down for such voters, most of which want to improve, not remove.

If Ron wishes to win back the interest of alot of Libs and Independents, he needs to convey his ability to compromise and present an interest in improvement of such systems more often --Rather than just eliminating everything like a nuclear warhead (their words, not mine).


Like I said above, don't shoot the messenger.
I know full well what his positions are (which is why I support his candidacy)

But as from experience, A large portion of Liberals, Progressives and independents are not seeing this
(Because he doesn't say such things nearly enough).
Just my observation from this side.

Okay. You want a compromise Ron could live with? I bet President Ron Paul would be happy to let you keep ALL of your favorite social programs, provided you improve them by making participation optional and funding non-mandatory.

[Working Poor]

Like I said above, don't shoot the messenger.
I know full well what his positions are (which is why I support his candidacy)

But as from experience, A large portion of Liberals, Progressives and independents are not seeing this
(Because he doesn't say such things nearly enough).
Just my observation from this side.

The media is not going to report Ron's positions they just want everyone to be clear that he cannot win. It is up to his supporters to get his message out. If you are a known blogger at any of your progressive sites I hope you will get in there and dispel it when people claim Ron will cut people off SSI and benefits. He will cut the corporate welfare maybe the progressives are hearing spin about welfare because of the corporate welfare stand. The media could be spinning his corporate welfare stand to mean people corporations are people now according to law....

Roll up your sleeves and hold up your shield and get in there and fight with knowledge we all must do our part before there is nothing we can do.

I found the video below where he is talking about corporate welfare that may help you straighten out some people:

[trey4sports]

Honestly, he isn't trying to win libs over right now. He's running a GOP election campaign not a general election campaign.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Honestly, he isn't trying to win libs over right now. He's running a GOP election campaign not a general election campaign.

His appearance on Leno was an example of what would probably happen with Ron in general election mode. When asked about marriage, he said it used to be a church or secular matter, it was perfect. Literally encompassed all individual choice in one answer.



At the 9:50 or so mark