Are we losing people over hot button issues?

[gagnonstudio]

I don't really think many people will drop their support. If they do, then that's up to them. They haven't even given RP a chance to explain his new ad yet.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running for the people. He is looking out for our freedom, our well being, our economy. We are his first priority. If there is something that we disagree with him on as a nation, he is the only candidate I trust to listen to us, and adjust, unlike our current administration.

Ron Paul loves this country. He got into the government because he was frustrated with how things were going, just like us. The campaign is going to make mis-steps along the way, and Ron Paul has stuck his neck out for us, so I'm going to let him have some mistakes. He isn't perfect. He has said, over and over, that he isn't. It isn't about Ron Paul anyway. It's about us, and about our future, our kids future.

Ron Paul hasn't given up on us, and he gets lambasted by the media. He's called a kook, crazy, fringe. He's mocked, and ridiculed. The grassroots even ridicules almost every little decision the campaign makes. He could have easily given up a long time ago. But Ron Paul has thick skin. He's not going to give up on us, and I for one am not going to give up on him. Especially over a 30 second sound byte, or his position on evolution (which has no impact on how HE would govern).

So, if people are going to jump ship now 4 days before the first vote is cast, well then that is something they have to live with. But the vast majority of us are ready to huddle up, get tough, and fight for this message. Iowa is ready to push the snowball down the hill, and I can't wait to be part of it.

 

[Eponym_mi]

To me, the issue is purely a scientific one, as Im sure we can all agree that murder is not ok.

You're looking for a black/white type answer and there isn't one. Not that simple.

 

[AggieforPaul]

You're looking for a black/white type answer and there isn't one. Not that simple.

The cynical side of me affirms social exchange theory, thinks "morality" is actually just a series of game theory-esque compromises driven by rational self interest, and the only reason we favor consequences for murder is because we don't want to be murdered ourselves. Thus the fetus provides the perfect test to this point: we can murder he or she, but he or she cant reciprocate. For example, we don't want it to be legal to murder the spouse of the person we're in love with, because we could conceivably end up on the receiving end. But we DO want abortion to be legal, because we can't ever be a fetus again. Like Reagan said, 100% of those who support abortion rights have been born themselves.

The side of me that does believe altruism exists, and that a sense of duty to the fellow man is inherent, thinks this question should be decided strictly down scientific lines, and that "convenience" should have nothing to do with it.

 

[jake]

a handful of people posting on ronpaulforums does not equal loss of supporters.

 

[AggieforPaul]

a handful of people posting on ronpaulforums does not equal loss of supporters.

I sort of view us as a microcosm of the entire movement though. If people here are pissed off that RP isn't an in your face atheist, the non internet inclined supporters are probably thinking the same. (although its arguable; the internet has always been home field for atheists. perhaps Ron paul's offline support isnt nearly as one sided)

 

[marathon1218]

I would like to believe for every person we lose to these side issues we gain 1000+ people on issues such as the war, monetary policy, and civil liberties.

YES!!!

 

[wildflower]

My suggestion is just for Ron not to talk about abortion. I think he has taken a cue from his supporters, because he barely ever talks about it anymore. He can just say "it's a states issue" and leave it at that.

Attitudes like that are a bit surprising to me, because Paul IS a Republican, and the Republican position traditionally has been pro-life. He is also a Christian, and most Christians are pro-life. From what I've seen, it seems like some people here expect Paul to act like a leftie Democrat... maybe they're projecting their own views on him?

Yes, he is one of the more libertarian Republicans of all, but even among Libertarians, there is disagreement on the abortion issue. There are plenty of pro-life libertarians. Read the essays on this site, maybe you will start to see things differently.

I don't think he should hide how he feels on this issue. He is going for the Republican nomination. And I think even crossover Democrats or others who disagree with him on this issue still respect his opinion - because he was an obstetrician, so he has personal experience on this matter, more than most people.

Also, studies have shown that more people are becoming pro-life, especially young people. I think that has something to do with new technology, and that we can see the baby in the womb much more than we could, say, 20-30 years ago. Also, the age of viability has gone down - babies are surviving outside of the womb at an earlier age than a few decades ago, which has also caused people to reconsider their views on abortion.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

That's what frustrates me about the issue of abortion. It shouldn't be decided by what you think government's role is. If you believe a fetus is a human life, you should be anti-abortion whether you're an anarchist or a socialist, and if you believe its just a parasitic growth, you should be pro-abortion.

To me, the issue is purely a scientific one, as Im sure we can all agree that murder is not ok.

Agreed, which is why i never understood the argument that government should have no say in the matter. If abortion is in fact murder, then government should be allowed to protect the rights of the fetus, just as murder laws protect the life of living people (or attempt to) by deterrance of punishment. Many pro-choicers then fal to the "oh well its only a ball of cells" or some other convoluted, weak defense, which is another game altogether.

Pregnancy is a natural consequence of the evolution of life independent of any sort of moral attachment. It predates the whole notion of "rights" by aeons. Thus the whole "parasite" argument also fails when the notion of any sort of "rights" is applied, as by a simple glance at the laws of nature, the right of the fetus to life trumps any right of the mother to her own body. By having sex and getting pregnant, she is taking "nature's gamble", an implicit risk that assumes the fetus has a right to "enter" the womans body, as decided by the laws of nature, which are the basis of any form of "natural law" or other non-positivist rights.

This is why i believe the Libertarian Party has the whole policy of abortion entirely wrong, unless of course they also believe the state should not enforce the law against murder as well. The only people who have consistent views on abortion are legal positivists, which many progressives tend to be, although they don't really know it. This, of course, does not mean they are correct, they are simply consistent. I believe the Republican party and specifically Ron Paul are both correct and consistent on this issue, the libertarian party is correct but inconsistent, and the Democratic party is incorrect but consistent. I think Ron Paul is especially brilliant on this issue, and i believe he has put alot more thought into than just sheeping along with the Republican party/Christian platform.

But thats all predicated on the notion that abortion is indeed murder, then everything is the linguistic converse of everything i just said.

That, i think, is the real heart of the issue.

Of course, if you are an anarchist, then you believe government should not exist at all, and thus i consider anarchists who are "pro-choice" in the same sense as the Libertarian Party as being consistent.

 

[Mark Mosconi]

For anyone who was almost aborted before being born, abortion is a huge, personal issue. Or for anyone who just believes that life is sacred or that the unborn have the right to be born. I would say we be very cautious before adopting eugenics type policies.

What I can't understand is how so many people that claim to be pro-life don't take that same stance on the war. Now that just baffles me.

 

[driller80545]

I am against abortion. But I am afraid that if the government over rules a woman's right to choose that it is just a small step from there to requiring many other things in the interest of the unborn babies rights. Pre natal care, forced diets, etc. You know how fanatical the government can get. I suppose the basic question boils down to whose liberty are we going to enforce- the unborn babies, or the adult woman?

 

[Bradley in DC]

No we are not losing any support, if you take notice the people who are complaining are very miniscule in numbers and they typically have post counts 50 or less and have just joined the bandwagon, they are relatively soft supporters..

No, we have lost some people who had been working very hard to get Dr. Paul elected.

 

[angelatc]

No, we have lost some people who had been working very hard to get Dr. Paul elected.

What issue do you think lost them? I am not really surprised by anything he has written or said.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Most of the people around here who "left" are probably hardcore libertarians and/or militant atheists. While they would be helpful, as would other similarly non-traditional GOP primary voters, they are nowhere near the majority of the people we need to win.

Many of the people who are "leaving" elsewhere around the 'net probably were only going to vote for him in the general election. Some probably weren't even seriously considering it, but made a fuss for the hell of panicking Paul's base.

Then there's the offline world, where people either don't know about these recent "controversies" or mostly don't care.

All in all, I would say the people we're losing over 2 seconds of poor terminology in one TV ad or our candidate's skepticism about an issue he says (rightly so) has nothing to do with the election of a president (or at least him) are not the people who have thoroughly researched Paul's paleolibertarian (as opposed to pure libertarian or strict paleoconservative) positions.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

I am against abortion. But I am afraid that if the government over rules a woman's right to choose that it is just a small step from there to requiring many other things in the interest of the unborn babies rights. Pre natal care, forced diets, etc. You know how fanatical the government can get. I suppose the basic question boils down to whose liberty are we going to enforce- the unborn babies, or the adult woman?

How is it a small step toward requiring them to do anything? There are already laws against abandoning children, once the children is born ALOT of laws are already in place that put alot of responsibility on the woman. If abortion is thus murder, and if you believe murder should be punished, then how do the "rights" of the woman (which are convoluted and ill defined anyways) trump the very well defined right to life of the unborn fetus? Nature is a cruel mistress, and unfortunately, when you have sex and dont use contraceptives or protection, you often get pregnant. Thats sort of how its been for millions of years. Now, if even the right to life is arbitrarily defined or nonexistant, were it not for human intelligence, civility, and thus morality and ethics, then sure, the woman can do wahtever she wants, as it is not as if there are any "moral" in the wild. But if we are really serious about the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", based on human nature, as all humans claim to be, than pregnancy and the implicit risk of it, due to its natural occurance, are assumed to be part of the natural order of things, and thus there is no "intrusion" by the fetus, because it is natural, and is a mechanism of evolution that predates humanity.

This is, of course, all based on two assumptions, i) that abortion is murder and ii) that the state should exist. I belive 1 but am skeptical on 2, however, so long as it does exist, i believe it should protect life, including that of the unborn, derived from my belief of #1. The weaksauce "oh i believe abortion is murder but i dont think the state should have a say, but i do believe the state should protect life" is a contradiction of massive proportions. I think the federalist approach is smart because it is treated it just like murder. Id vote for abortion restriction laws in my state in a heartbeat, ones that have enough leeway to allow for abortion in certain cases (such as rape, where i do believe the tacit implication assumed when having consensual sex no longer applies), or in the very very rare case (this example is used as a counterargument far too much by prochoicers) that it endangers the mothers own life, then of course the states should protect the life of the woman.

The problem with the abortion debate is people dont work from their assumptions toward a logical position, in fact they often are superfluous in their assumptions at all. Christians have an easy starting point, but it is certainly not one that is convincing to those who don't believe the Bible is the word of God. Those who believe in natural law also have a fairly easy, as well as a more palatable starting point. Those who are positivists are always superfluous anyways, so they aren't even worth addressing. I find most-prochoicers to be incredibly inconsistent in their defenses and their views, and they tend not to define anything they try to argue, but rather they start from a very illogical point, such as it being a "woman's right". However, christians yelling that God says life begins at conception is just as weak a position from a rationalist standpoint as it gets.

Of course, no one is leaving over abortion, its more over the immigration ad and, if theya re stupid enough, over evolution. *rollseyes*

 

[driller80545]

You missed the point. The point was about control, not moral justifacation.

 

[Cinci4RP]

The real competition is apathy.

I could not agree more. Sheep is what the establishment wants.

Over the past weeks I have done an informal type survey of everyone I interacted with (after comfort period) waitress, cashiers, people in long lines behind me...etc. I've kept a rudementary journal and after 131 interactions, 5 people had a clue who Ron Paul was. (yes I told them, at least those who would listen)

Canvassing I find a good portion of people just don't give a rats ass about voting or politics in general.

 

[ThePieSwindler]

You missed the point. The point was about control, not moral justifacation.

Are you talking to me? I think YOU missed the point of my post(s). Very much so, in fact. First off, the two are intertwined with what one believes the role of government ought to be. It is the realm of fools who don't wish to expose themselves to criticism that they restrict debate to one facet when there are many to be explored that are all interconnected.

But i also addressed the "control" issue. I said that your logic does not follow, as "forcing" a woman to have a baby (another way of putting it is "protecting" or "allowing" the child to live) has little to do with the baby actually being born - once the baby is born, the mother actually does have the duty of legal custody, so in essence she is "forced" not to abandon/kill her child, but little else. There is a big difference between protecting life (if you believe preventing abortion is doing such a thing), and controlling how a woman takes care of her child, and the discerning eye will see this. If you believe the state should exist, and believe murder should be enforced by it, and then believe abortion is wrong/murder, how does it follow that you believe the state should not have any "control" over abortion? I am skeptical on the first assumption, but so long as the state exists, i believe wholeheartedly that the 2nd and third assumption necessitate state "control" of abortion. I think leaving it as the State level the same way murder is done is actually a very good method of lawmaking that allows for exceptions and specifics.

 

[noztnac]

I think this is an important thing to point out. I criticized a poster in another thread of throwing the baby out with the bath water, and I really think that's what's happening amongst folks who claim they're dropping their support (particularly over the visas thing).

We have bigger fish to fry, as the saying goes.

Personally I agree but to many people this is a critical issue. Ron Paul lost a bunch of votes over the "terrorist states" comment and I'm pretty sure he didn't gain any of the neocons that language is aimed at. The campaign needs to avoid pandering to the neocons. There's no chance of winning them over and pandering to them risks losing good supporters. Obviously I still support Ron Paul but it pisses me off that the people making the ads don't seem to understand his base. Ron Paul's big distinction is that he doesn't believe in collectivism. That includes branding large groups of people terrorists based on their nationality. It was a mistake and I hope the campaign realizes it and does not repeat it in other states. I worry that if we succeed that they will erroneously assume that ad had something to do with it. If you pull that ad out we easily would get 2 or 3 percentage points higher.

 

[noztnac]

No, we have lost some people who had been working very hard to get Dr. Paul elected.

You are right!

The "terrorist nations" statement was against everything Ron Paul stands for. Bad ad and it cost us. Is the campaign listening? I seriously wonder.

 

[DarkReign]

The evolution thing is going to lose Paul potential voters by the thousands. He will be mocked all across the internet. And soon, the MSM (my greatest fear). But many very hardcore supporters can possibly stand this, and still hold on.

The "terrorist nations" thing though...coupled with the evolution thing...well, that is tough to ignore.

And now with this whole not believing in the separation of church and state thing coming up more and more....yikes. But this one is still unconfirmed...and I think he needs to clarify his position, unless of course he does NOT believe in separation of church and state, in which case he can kiss +50% of his supporters goodbye.... = /

The campaign needs to show Dr. Paul that evolution is real, show him the evidence, and then have him retract his previous statements, and let everyone know that he was mistaken and does in fact accept the basic fact of evolution. This would be a GREAT boost for the campaign, and would restore so much lost faith in the campaign that I can't begin to describe it.

The new immigration AD needs to be scrapped ASAP, and RP needs to clarify what he means by terrorist nations. Because to some people, USA is a terrorist nation.