Conversation w/Trump supporter (my uncle)

[MelissaWV]

This sudden switch for "anti-establishment" candidates is rather strange. Or is it a way to justify their dislike for Rand ? A man who did not have to sell out ?

There is a switch to support for candidates who are perceived as not being politicians, but this is one of the few times that someone well-known is in the race and can claim to not be a politician.

The only thing that can be done, imo, is to point out how Rand was fighting against the tide from the inside, which takes infinitely more wisdom and guts than fighting FOR politicians from the outside. How much money has Trump given to politicians of all sorts? How much support to the very people the uncle in the OP dislikes?

It is a longshot, though, because a lot of people are really just looking to vote for someone interesting, and the news is going to decide that for them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Interesting, thanks OP

I know people like that. Not any Trump supporters but that type of thinking is very common. Your uncle will change is preferences over and over again. The reason he cannot articulate why he likes or dislikes someone--cannot point to clear examples--is because he himself either does not understand himself and his beliefs or he has no clear guiding principles or philosophy.

However, most people probably do have a guiding belief yet they cannot articulate it and because of that they swing around candidates with varying views without knowing what they really believe. Therefore, it is easy for people like your uncle to grasp onto mainstream cliches like "anti-establishment". What does that term even mean? If you were to ask 10 people you'd probably get a handful of answers some with overlap and others opposed.

Indeed. That's the beauty of vague slogans: people can see in them what they want.

Whatever irrational fears and urges a voter has, he will come to see the slogan as representing them.

PR men get paid extremely well to come up with slogans that do precisely this.

"Hope and Change" being maybe the most perfect, archetypal example in recent memory.

Want to try something? Ask him if he likes Fiorina. If he says no, bet him that he will like Fiorina inside a month.

That'll certainly give him a shock, might cause him to reflect on why he supports who he does, which may a prelude to changing his ways.

....Or it might piss him off tremendously (no one likes to admit he's been suckered).

But there's nothing to be lost by trying.

[VIDEODROME]

Rand did good in the debate; really good, I think. But, he needs to be more forceful in getting time. Instead of asking permission, just get in there and take it.

Republicans like strength. Rand has to do something to show it. That's my opinion, anyway.

It's all about perception.

The burden of a Liberty candidate is in the short time window they have they try to persuade the folk with facts and logic. That's probably why guys like this think Libertarians are 'kooky'. Other candidates like Trump and now probably Fiorina are making massive appeals to emotion instead of sounding like a professor.

[Bern]

The burden of a Liberty candidate is in the short time window they have they try to persuade the folk with facts and logic....

I disagree. I don't think most voters care a whole lot about facts or logic. They want to root for a candidate they can feel comfortable identifying with. This is why some character issues (like infidelity) get more play than they should (IMO).

[nayjevin]

False premise.

The key to electoral victory is not changing the minds of those who have cognitive dissonance / in the trance / swallowed the red pill / addicted to biased media.

One of the keys to long term education of the populace is breaking through the veil. Prime strategies include being the one who predicted this mess (Ron Paul What If?), trolling with comedy (Daily Show), and good ol' fashioned honest reporting (Ben Swann).

But the key to electoral victory is organizing like minds and staying productive toward valid ends. The number of people who support Rand Paul's ideals is far and away enough people to win him the election. The mission in the election, should you choose to accept it, is not to change minds, but to organize what already exists.

[twomp]

So basically, your uncle does what the television tells him to do.

[nayjevin]

Side note - when I preached daily the ills of the world to my Facebook I got tons of resistance, and very little support. When I stopped, about a year later, I started getting support without saying a word. The world showed our philosophy is predictive. It was only when enough time had passed that libertarian ideas were no longer associated in people's minds with my rabid daily mongering that they could begin to accept them and see their wisdom for themselves.

Similarly, lots of folks who were against Ron Paul are seeing that they were wrong, and that would not be possible if we were still browbeating them and strengthening their herdlike defense of the institutions that give them their identity (GOP, FOX).

[helmuth_hubener]

Thanks, fcreature. + rep.

Your uncle is the prototypical old school, truly libertarian American who is caught up in the media's snare. He has gotten the message they have spun for him. His reactions are perfect. He is an outstanding case study.

If I'm reading the signs right, they know Trumpmania is spent and they're preparing the next Candidate of the Month Club Selection. And I think it's Fiorina.

Want to try something? Ask him if he likes Fiorina. If he says no, bet him that he will like Fiorina inside a month.

Don't bet so much that the first time you catch him talking nice about Fiorina, he gets mad at you for taking all his beer money.

Once he sees you being able to predict his behavior that way, he might listen to your explanation of how the media--including the Fox Wing--is manipulating him into choosing the worst loser of a candidate in the whole Republican Party. Just what you would expect the Liberal Media to do to you if you thought about it.

It seems simple to just say, 'Look old man. Fox is just telling you how to lose. If you pick the guy who will do what you actually want done, the GOP will win, because a whole lot of people could be talked into that. But Fox has you so bamboozled you can't even remember what you really want done, much less spot the guy who will do it.' But of course that never gets the desired reaction, so maybe make a bet that he's more predictable than he thinks he is. That might get his attention.

That is a very creative idea!

[specsaregood]

//

[RDM]

We might have to figure out who their next Candidate of the Month Club Selection is going to be pretty quickly. I don't think Fiorina's going to last very long.

In this order. Kasich is next, then they will go back to re-hyping Rubio until end of year to prop him up for VP, then come 2016, it will be all Bush for the nomination.

[acptulsa]

In this order. Kasich is next, then they will go back to re-hyping Rubio until end of year to prop him up for VP, then come 2016, it will be all Bush for the nomination.

I don't know. Kasich came across well enough in the debate, but the media keeps saying he didn't. I think Rubio might be next. Think of him as an antidote for Trump stirring up anti-Hispanic sentiment. Well, better him than Cruz.

I don't know if I can take a month.

Of Cruz stopping in the middle of sentences it's also kind of irritating the way.

He runs the end of one sentence into the beginning of the next.

[TheNewYorker]

Well your uncle is stupid to consider Trump/Fiorina/Carson outsiders and only vote for them.

First of all, Fiorina has been a politician before. And Trump buys politicians, so what's the difference there?

Carson... Well he's just a magoo.

[devil21]

We might have to figure out who their next Candidate of the Month Club Selection is going to be pretty quickly. I don't think Fiorina's going to last very long.

Watch the Fox News (and CNN to lesser extent) after-debate commentary for the MK-ULTRA tactics that likely predict the next flavor. If you recall, after the first debate, Fox kept a Fiorina campaign placard firmly planted in the camera view directly behind Kelly/Hannity/etc and the candidates during their interviews at almost all times. There was a guy literally standing there holding it with few, if any, people around him as the night wore on. His job was to hold that placard up in front of the camera to implant the Fiorina name firmly into the subconscious of the viewers as the next "flavor" after Trump wore off. Her flavor is underway now. Look for the same thing after the Oct 20-something debate....good clue who the upcoming flavor will be.

I didn't watch Fox commentary after 2nd debate so I didn't see who they were complimentary toward and if there was the same placard games. You may be right that the next is Rubio. CNN and media in general were very complimentary about his appearance. Also likely why there's 9 debates total.....they're platforms for setting up the next new flavor, while pumping the current flavor until the next debate and while limiting chances for candidates to jump outside of the media-driven script on their own. They're very tightly controlling this election cycle because they know people are starting to get pissed.