Has anyone convinced a war supporter to vote for Ron Paul

[wgadget]

My husband went and pulled the lever for Ron Paul even though he has some war issues. His decision was made by comparing him to the other bozos, and RP came out on top, war or no war.

Must be his honesty and stance on all the OTHER issues.

 

[AlbemarleNC0003]

I always win that argument.
War against terrorists is fought with spies, and not the military.

I suggest you read the Art on War by Sun Tzu on the 'use of spies' - and keep in mind that the goal of studying the Art of War is to preserve and maintain peace.

Consider my avatar.

I've been able to get them interested in the terrorist/pirate argument. But then they revert back to "we can't leave Iraq, it'll be chaos!" I remind them what Petraeus said in January, 6 more months to determine if we've made any gains and that the Iraqis are not coming together in Parliament. "But we can't surrender!" Who would we be surrendering to? Who will meet us to sign the treaties? "We are winning."

It's like whack-a-mole. Everytime they agree with something, they revert right back to where they were or they bring up the desire to end the IRS and call Paul delusioned.

 

[ARealConservative]

yes - plenty. Especially now that it is down to 2 liberals vs our guy.

If you sense they fear losing in the general - play that fear up.


"You hear Hillary blasting Bush's war all the time? Can you believe that? She voted for the war. It's too bad we don't force congress to declare war and stop playing politics with our troops lives!"

If they show any agreement - give them a copy of Ron Paul's bill calling on congress to take back responsibility for our goals in Iraq.

Next up, wonder aloud how crazy it is that we are spending a trillion annually on this war and still haven't shored up our own borders. "I wonder if politicians even care about our borders any more? Terrorism is so serious, how can we spend a trillion dollars to fight it and ignore our borders?"

Lastly - play up their sense of patriotism. We have the strongest military in the world. If we need to go to war in the ME, go and win. Those people are irrational though, they see us rebuilding their countries after the war as a sign of weakness. A better policy is to win the war and get out - allowing them to lick their wounds and think twice about crossing us again. Not only is this the best policy to deal with their irrational beliefs, but it will help stop the bleeding in our own economy.

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Yes, I have. Several.

In my humble opinion a critical point of approach for many people can be focusing on the fact that conservatives have opposed interventionism, "we all railed against Clinton for it during his administration..Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti...conservatives in Congress pointed out how these things were unconstitutional - that was the conservative position."
But don't attack them by saying - you used to be believe this so you should believe it again. Instead, I approach more with the observation, like I'm sharing my thoughts, lamenting the thought that conservatives as a whole have been duped into changing their position to an unconstitutional one. It really makes people stop to think as opposed to getting defensive if they're questioned directly.

I've had people come back and point to 9/11 and how that changed things, and I respond with something along the lines of, "but did the world really fundamentally change? Is the world fundamentally really much more scary and dangerous than it was before 2001? wasn't there al queda and bin laden before 9/11? Didn't they believe in the same extreme form of islam back then? We were attacked by them previously, just not on the same scale -- WTC was attacked during Clinton, then there was USS Cole, and possibly even Oklahoma City, but conservatives still believed in the constitution. Even though Clinton wanted to send in troops to Somalia in part because it was a hotbed for terrorists, conservatives still stood by what was right -- saying that interventionism is wrong, nation building is wrong, and policing the world is NOT what we want to be doing. Heck, Bush campaigned specifically based on those conservative principles in 2000, and we supported him because of it!"

The Oklahoma City is a good example because it was Timothy McVeigh and not an Islamist.

 

[AlbemarleNC0003]

Thanks everybody. I'm still not confident we can sway the pro-war people. I've posted pieces from Reagan speeches to remind them that even Reagan was against endless wars. I'll keep plugging along using your suggestions.

 

[acptulsa]

A lot of these war supporters are pussies who have never used a gun before, if this is the case just tell them to sign up to the military. Get the website up and tell them it's their patriotic duty. When they decline, which they will, it will be a little bit easier pushing Ron's antiwar message. For the psychos who like killing people, get them to sign up and hopefully they'll get their heads chopped off in Iraq.

One thing here I completely disagree with. They have guns. They love their guns. You want to make sure the war supporter you're dealing with doesn't vote for McCain, educate this person on McCain's stance on gun control.

 

[cameronb]

crazyfacedjenkins --
Timothy McVeigh and not an islamist? Wise up. There's evidence that Mohammed Atta and Mossaoui were involved with that. Whether as "islamists" in an act of terrorism a la 9/11, or as used by others, I don't know, but the lone wolf story was only bought by the purest of sheeple....

 

[rexsolomon]

I've been able to get them interested in the terrorist/pirate argument. But then they revert back to "we can't leave Iraq, it'll be chaos!" I remind them what Petraeus said in January, 6 more months to determine if we've made any gains and that the Iraqis are not coming together in Parliament. "But we can't surrender!" Who would we be surrendering to? Who will meet us to sign the treaties? "We are winning."

It's like whack-a-mole. Everytime they agree with something, they revert right back to where they were or they bring up the desire to end the IRS and call Paul delusioned.

Surrender what? Iraq is not our territory. Ask that person if he or she considers Iraq and Iraqi oil now as American property.

Ask them if 4000 dead American soldiers in a war lasting longer than Vietnam is considered by that person as 'winning'. Seriously.

You can't change closed minds. Drop the argument.

The only way to do that is by a tangible example. That's why Dr. Paul and his followers should all move to the state where he garnered the most votes and make it prosperous and peaceful - while all other states flounder in the recession.

Then and ONLY THEN will the rest of America listen.

 

[jblosser]

We convert them all the time down here.

0) Never ever argue with them about whether there is a threat we have to fight, why they attack us, any of that. Never. Give it to them as a for granted that there is a threat and we have to kill a lot of people to remove it. That's not the argument you're going to win with them.

1) The economic argument is key. Ron Paul is one of the strongest advocates of American defense in Congress (per Reagan). He wants to defend this country absolutely, but we have to do it in a way we can sustain, and this isn't. Ask them if they know how we are paying for this war. Most will tell you it's tax dollars. Let them know it's NOT, and we are borrowing the money from countries like China and Libya. China and Osama paid attention when we took down the Soviets (with Osama's help), and they are not doing the same thing to us. They are leading us by the nose to bankruptcy, and we are following right along. Ron's CPAC speech NAILED this, by the way.

2) For those convinced we have to "fight them there", point out that isn't up to us. We are fighting a group that's already shown a will and ability to strike us when and where we don't expect it. If they choose to attack us here now, who is going to stop them? With our military, or national guard, and our BORDER PATROL over there? This argument has been known to convert pro-war people to sign-waving Ron Paul people in 30 minutes at a sidewalk sign wave.

3) For those convinced there will be chaos and we "owe them": we aren't making it any better over there right now. And the conservative position is and always is that government doesn't make things better. War and defense are the role of government, but that's not what we're doing there. That mission was accomplished. Now we're doing nation building, and we don't do it well. Americans that want to respond to the need there can do so but it's no more the conservative position that the government should do that than it is that the government should do education, health care, etc. "There will be chaos" is the same as "think of the children that will fall through the cracks without welfare".

4) If they think we are winning and the surge is working, tell them you hope they are right. Tell them you aren't sure, though, because in reality most of the casualties declined a few months after the surge started, immediately after the al-Sadr ceasefire started. That ceasefire is due to expire at the end of this month. Hopefully it's the surge that really did it and not the ceasefire, because otherwise there is going to be a new bloodbath very very soon.

5) If they insist on arguing about why we were attacked, etc., clarify for them that yes, Ron Paul believes there is a threat, and continually proposes and votes for legislation to deal with the actual threat. The argument is not that there are NO crazy people that hate us for our freedoms. The argument is that without our help those guys are basically crazy people yelling in the town square. It's only when we go over there and start bombing them that the crowds get motivated to become suicide bombers, plane hijackers, etc. The data is clear on this. Ron also nailed this one at CPAC with his line that OBL doesn't need to come over here, we're doing his job for him by going over there.

 

[billjarrett]

I guess it depends on who you are talking to. Alot of the pro-war people I know are also long time conservatives. They are also fiscal conservatives.

I've converted people over using:
1. If you're a fiscal conservative, how can you agree with spending this much money while we're going bankrupt.
2. The line that Dr. Paul uses about war being the Democrats business, and that we were always the war stoppers (Korea,Vietnam)
3. The fact that almost no conservative will argue that our military was very strong under Reagan, and yet Reagan didn't have to go around preemptively striking anyone who looked at him funny. Although Roosevelt isn't the most popular Republican figure, most conservatives will agree with "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

 

[thehittgirl]

I had a friend watch a DVD I put together. As soon as she saw the clip of Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney guilty of what the were being accused of, she called her husband over to watch it.

I convinced her the war was wrong. Unfortunately, she found out at the poll that she was a registered democrat and couldn't vote for Ron Paul. She evidently had forgotten to switch.

 

[rg123]

I have convinced many. I usually show them propaganda videos and then
I show them graphics of children with their leggs or arms blowen off their bodies
and tell them this is what awaits their children if they are drafted in the future it is especially helpful if their children are at home. I strongly feel because the MSM does not show the victims of the war that the country as a whole do not even see it. When people are sitting at their dinner table they are not thinking about the 1 million women and children that we have either blowen them to smitheriens or
all the ones who have died of starvation. The number one issue is the WAR it is why you dont see the body bags on TV. Because if the people seen the horror they would be storming DC like in the 60's. The campaign has dropped the ball on this issue. They should be showing the horror of the WAR in ads. If people are offended by it then they should blame the people who put them there as Ron has said but time is running out and it wont be showen unless the grassroots does it.
I cannot create videos I'm old and not teck savey but many in here could. When a person sees a child with his FACE BLOWEN OFF it does something to you and you are never the same again and this is where we can get the most votes. Ron is the only candidate in both parties who will stop the war.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

"Today’s globalist interventionism and nation-building take all the worst aspects of the welfare state and magnify them at the global scale."

"We look weak and foolish to let a few cave-dwelling jihadists tie up our aircraft carriers and infantry divisions."

Like the Soviets, "Our mighty American Abrams tanks and aircraft carriers will turn to rusting hulks if we continue to ignore our finances."

Much more at http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[emilysdad]

here is my story.

My younger brother, 46, 6 figure salary, all the toys, big house and compete R. He gets his info from talk radio because he is in his car 2-4 hours a day on average, sometimes longer. Loves to hate on liberals, blames them for everything wrong with the country.

In May, I turned him on to Ron Paul right after the first debate. "I disagree with his foriegn policy, he is an isolationist." Basically, parroting MSM. In May, he was a Rudy supporter with some reservation. In July, he was hoping Newt would enter the race. In September, he was a Thompson supporter. We stopped talking at that point about politics because he can not get past the war mentality.

He called me half way through the last debate and asked quite smuggly, "so who is gonna drop out next Huckabee or Paul and who will they endorse." Needless to say, he heard an earful. I reminded him of his support over the past several months and then said, "so let me guess, now you are a McCain supporter." He replied, "no I hate McCain, (talk radio!!) and I am voting for Mitt Romney." I basically told him, he does not know what he supports and will vote for who the T.V. tells him too. We hung up on bad vibes.

Hmm, wonder who he is voting for now?

My point is this. There are going to be many, like my little bro, who will end up voting for their second, third, forth and in some cases fifth choice. This basically tells me a couple things. They are extremely uniformed and can't make their own choices. They are party loyalists and will vote for the party, regardless. The funny thing is, my brother agrees with everything Ron Paul, except the "war" (occupation).

During our phone call, I laughed at him because he is so into the liberal vs conservative game, yet he is throwing his support at a RINO. I just can't imagine how he could even now support McCain, the least convservative of all original eleven candidates. My brother, like many die hards are stuck between a rock and a hard place. McCain, Huck or Paul. Hmm, the conservative choice is obvious, but I suspect these people will rationlize and justify a McCain vote.

Take pride in knowing you all have done your research, form your own opinions and throw your support 100% behind your candidate, while these others will have to keep shifting their support to whoever is the annoited choice.

 

[rg123]

here is my story.

My younger brother, 46, 6 figure salary, all the toys, big house and compete R. He gets his info from talk radio because he is in his car 2-4 hours a day on average, sometimes longer. Loves to hate on liberals, blames them for everything wrong with the country.

In May, I turned him on to Ron Paul right after the first debate. "I disagree with his foriegn policy, he is an isolationist." Basically, parroting MSM. In May, he was a Rudy supporter with some reservation. In July, he was hoping Newt would enter the race. In September, he was a Thompson supporter. We stopped talking at that point about politics because he can not get past the war mentality.

He called me half way through the last debate and asked quite smuggly, "so who is gonna drop out next Huckabee or Paul and who will they endorse." Needless to say, he heard an earful. I reminded him of his support over the past several months and then said, "so let me guess, now you are a McCain supporter." He replied, "no I hate McCain, (talk radio!!) and I am voting for Mitt Romney." I basically told him, he does not know what he supports and will vote for who the T.V. tells him too. We hung up on bad vibes.

Hmm, wonder who he is voting for now?

My point is this. There are going to be many, like my little bro, who will end up voting for their second, third, forth and in some cases fifth choice. This basically tells me a couple things. They are extremely uniformed and can't make their own choices. They are party loyalists and will vote for the party, regardless. The funny thing is, my brother agrees with everything Ron Paul, except the "war" (occupation).

During our phone call, I laughed at him because he is so into the liberal vs conservative game, yet he is throwing his support at a RINO. I just can't imagine how he could even now support McCain, the least convservative of all original eleven candidates. My brother, like many die hards are stuck between a rock and a hard place. McCain, Huck or Paul. Hmm, the conservative choice is obvious, but I suspect these people will rationlize and justify a McCain vote.

Take pride in knowing you all have done your research, form your own opinions and throw your support 100% behind your candidate, while these others will have to keep shifting their support to whoever is the annoited choice.

This is why I referenced the war have you showed him the horror of the war yet.
I do not see Jihadist outside my window. I see illegal Guatemalans. Does he have have children that could be drafted. How old is is wife if she is under 40 she could be drafted. McCain called for the draft the other day and Hillary is looking for mandatory military service. If he is radio brainwashed you could maybe show him which border is more important to him. The borders in Iraq or the Borders in the United States.

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

crazyfacedjenkins --
Timothy McVeigh and not an islamist? Wise up. There's evidence that Mohammed Atta and Mossaoui were involved with that. Whether as "islamists" in an act of terrorism a la 9/11, or as used by others, I don't know, but the lone wolf story was only bought by the purest of sheeple....

Ok then Theodore Kaczynski, my point is that it's a white American and not "one of dem dere brown people."

 

[crazyfacedjenkins]

One thing here I completely disagree with. They have guns. They love their guns. You want to make sure the war supporter you're dealing with doesn't vote for McCain, educate this person on McCain's stance on gun control.

I live in NJ, so the vast majority here don't have guns. It's illegal to have an "imitation firearm" (ie nurf gun). You are right though about the others.

 

[EotS]

I have a good friend I'm working on, I think I almost have him rethinking the whole thing.

There are a few really good interviews on Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton that I'd recommend you share with your friends. It wil take 1/2 hour to an hour of their time, but you must stress how important it is to listen to these experts.

Audio #1: Dr. Michael Scheuer was the head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit for 14 years. He is one of the world’s foremost experts on terrorism.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul

Audio #2: Robert Pape is the leading expert on the topic of suicide terrorism – what is it that motivates someone not only to attack, but to sacrifice themselves in a suicide attack? Dr. Pape is the top consultant to the government on these matters – when they want to understand why people are willing to kill themselves to kill others, they go to him.


http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/06/01/robert-a-pape/

Really, really good stuff here. Urge your friends to listen.

 

[Pete]

I used to be for the war, even down to believing that WMDs had been trucked off to Syria by the Russians.

Here's what changed my opinion, keeping in mind that RP had already won me over by his fiscal and monetary conservatism:

1. Reading his "Questions that Won't be Asked about Iraq", that demonstrated to me that he knew his stuff: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

2. Putting 2 + 2 together with the NAU, Bush's embrace of illegal immigration, and open borders. Who ever heard of a war with open borders?

3. The democratically elected government of Iraq has asked us to leave - twice.

4. There were no Islamofascists under my bed.


The open border point is an especially good one. I was telling an evangelical Christian type about RP the other day, and you could see his mind click when I mentioned it.

 

[NoPants]

I guess you could say I was a war supporter before I got a Dr. Paul addiction. I didn't really understand the war before, and it was one of the things I didn't agree with him on. I also bought into the "If you don't support the war your not a good American" propaganda. Yes, I have brought shame to my family *preparations for hara-kiri occurring in background* but did see the light eventually. It took about 3 months for the full metamorphosis to occur. Now I'm a beautiful butterfly.