Obama supporters are truly starting to scare me.

[BlackTerrel]

That's not true, I wouldn't vote for you.

That's because I wasn't born in Texas... if I was you'd be posting on BlackTerrelForums.com

 

[BlackTerrel]

obviously you know nothing.

clearly

 

[phill4paul]

We need to take this opportunity to learn how Obama was able to brainwash 54% of the voting public and use it to our advantage. Every cloud has a silver lining.

He was able to brainwash 54% of the voting public because he promised them the moon.
All we have to offer is freedom.

 

[nodope0695]

We need to take this opportunity to learn how Obama was able to brainwash 54% of the voting public and use it to our advantage. Every cloud has a silver lining.

Right indeed, however Obama's motives were and are purely malicious.

 

[nodope0695]

Here's another ignant fool who refuses to take responsibity for her actions (the perfect liberal Obama supporter):

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/WEnotrich1.wav

 

[LibertyEagle]

Right indeed, however Obama's motives were and are purely malicious.

No one's saying they weren't. The thing is, someone needs to study exactly what he and his handlers did, so we can use it to our own advantage. In other words, we need to get smarter about playing the game, if we truly want to win.

 

[Knightskye]

Most Texans would vote for a pile of manure if it was from Texas.

I don't know why, but they are the most proud of their state than anyone I know. 95% of my friends I have no idea what state they were born in, no one cares and they never bring it up. The other 5% are from Texas, and I swear they mention it every other sentence.

Terrel, What state does Ron Paul represent in Congress?

 

[Truth Warrior]

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.' The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. -- H L Mencken, Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)

 

[gilliganscorner]

Given that this is your average voter:

Is there any wonder?

 

[libertarian4321]

If they wanted to flock to a candidate with no brains, wouldn't they have gone for McCain/Palin (especially Palin)?

You may not agree with Obama, but he's certainly not stupid- and if you underestimate your opponent, you have little hope of beating him.

 

[libertarian4321]

We need to take this opportunity to learn how Obama was able to brainwash 54% of the voting public and use it to our advantage. Every cloud has a silver lining.

It really didn't take any "brainwashing."

The result was nearly a foregone conclusion given the screw ups of the Bush administration that left this country in dismal shape at election time.

It would have taken a miracle for any Republican to win- they would have needed an intelligent (e.g. Ron Paul), charismatic (er, I guess RP falls a bit short here) pair of candidates with new ideas (e.g. Ron Paul) who could distance themselves from Bush (e.g. Ron Paul).

Instead, they gave us McCain and Palin- intellectually challenged candidates with minimal appeal outside the Republican base (and McCain had little appeal even within the Republican base) and no new ideas.

McCain/Palin needed a severe screw up by Obama to have a chance, and they didn't get it. Even the best Republican smear campaigns weren't going to be enough to overcome weak Republican candidates and the Bush effect.

 

[libertarian4321]

The thing is, someone needs to study exactly what he and his handlers did, so we can use it to our own advantage. In other words, we need to get smarter about playing the game, if we truly want to win.

I agree.

Also, and this may be more important- we have to learn from what they did NOT do. They did not present ideas that appeared wacky or bizarre to the American people. They stayed on message and told the voters what they wanted to hear.

What the VOTERS wanted to hear, not what the Obama campaign wanted to hear. Something that a lot of folks on these forums have made the mistake of forgetting since day one of the RP campaign. Its not about YOUR favorite topic- its about getting people on board.

So if your favorite topic is "9-11 truth" or "the drug war" or "the gold standard" and you associate RP with that topic, you ARE NOT HELPING because those topics will send most people running to the exits (most think truthers are just plain nuts, they don't approve of legalizing drugs, and they don't understand the gold standard argument).

You need to show voters how your candidate will help THEM, not you. So make sure you don't alienate the voter.

I probably wrote essentially this same post several times over the past 18 months, but I think its important to remember for the next election.

BTW, this is why I keep telling people here not to associate Ron Paul with the wing nut lawsuits (you know, the "Obama must be removed from office because he's a secret Muslim/kenyan/indonesian/CFR conspiracist" stuff), because most regular people associate that stuff with the crazies and don't want to be associated with these people.

 

[Conza88]

If they wanted to flock to a candidate with no brains, wouldn't they have gone for McCain/Palin (especially Palin)?

You may not agree with Obama, but he's certainly not stupid- and if you underestimate your opponent, you have little hope of beating him.

No. They'd have voted for either. But really, the McCain supporters didn't vote for McCain because of his PERSONALITY, or feel or vibe or RHETORIC, or style, or because he's cool.

They voted for him because they're retarded war mongers, who are brain dead in thinking that to be Conservative or "right wing" means you support war. They're country first, national socialists:

Except they all reside in their retirement homes, slowly dieing.

Obama supporters are out there, like a plague, zombies - brain dead drones who don't think, just drool over the Messiah.

 

[libertarian4321]

No. They'd have voted for either. But really, the McCain supporters didn't vote for McCain because of his PERSONALITY, or feel or vibe or RHETORIC, or style, or because he's cool.

They voted for him because they're retarded war mongers, who are brain dead in thinking that to be Conservative or "right wing" means you support war. They're country first, national socialists:

Except they all reside in their retirement homes, slowly dieing.

Obama supporters are out there, like a plague, zombies - brain dead drones who don't think, just drool over the Messiah.

Of course a lot of the McCain vote was a neocon type pro-war vote- the hard core are always going to vote for the guy with the "R" next to his name.

But elections aren't won and lost with the hard core party loyalists. They are won by appealing to independents and moderates- the folks who swing elections.

Obama didn't win over many neocons, but he did win over many of those folks in the middle. Certainly his intelligence and charisma and a well run campaign helped there (three things McCain/Palin did not have), but BUSH helped him a lot, too.

Also, I think you are making the same kind of mistake I was referring to when you call Obama voters "plague zombies."

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are retarded or zombies- it just means Obama did a better job of choosing a winning message and getting his message out.

Remember what I said in my last post? Winning elections isn't about proving you are right or smarter than everyone else because you know more about fractional reserve banking than they do. Winning elections is about winning people over to your side.

It doesn't help to call them zombies or idiots or mock them because they don't see agree with you on 9-11 truth or the gold standard or the CFR or the drug war or whatever.

If you want to win elections, you need to win them over- and I assure you, calling someone a "brain dead zombie" isn't a good way to start...

 

[Conza88]

But elections aren't won and lost with the hard core party loyalists. They are won by appealing to independents and moderates- the folks who swing elections.

Obama didn't win over many neocons, but he did win over many of those folks in the middle. Certainly his intelligence and charisma and a well run campaign helped there (three things McCain/Palin did not have), but BUSH helped him a lot, too.

No. Elections are decided by the mainstream media and who they are told to promote. I'd be more than happy to provide you with the empirical data that backs that up completely, if you so wish.

Also, I think you are making the same kind of mistake I was referring to when you call Obama voters "plague zombies."

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are retarded or zombies- it just means Obama did a better job of choosing a winning message and getting his message out.

Remember what I said in my last post? Winning elections isn't about proving you are right or smarter than everyone else because you know more about fractional reserve banking than they do. Winning elections is about winning people over to your side.

Wrong. Barack Obama, Change we can believe in? Emotions, personality, feelings, RACISM, cult. Not reason, logic or POLICIES. Winning elections is about selling your soul to the elite.

It doesn't help to call them zombies or idiots or mock them because they don't see agree with you on 9-11 truth or the gold standard or the CFR or the drug war or whatever.

If you want to win elections, you need to win them over- and I assure you, calling someone a "brain dead zombie" isn't a good way to start...

 

[BlackTerrel]

Terrel, What state does Ron Paul represent in Congress?

Dude, it was a light Texas joke in response to someone else's Texas joke. Lighten up.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I agree.

Also, and this may be more important- we have to learn from what they did NOT do. They did not present ideas that appeared wacky or bizarre to the American people. They stayed on message and told the voters what they wanted to hear.

What the VOTERS wanted to hear, not what the Obama campaign wanted to hear. Something that a lot of folks on these forums have made the mistake of forgetting since day one of the RP campaign. Its not about YOUR favorite topic- its about getting people on board.

So if your favorite topic is "9-11 truth" or "the drug war" or "the gold standard" and you associate RP with that topic, you ARE NOT HELPING because those topics will send most people running to the exits (most think truthers are just plain nuts, they don't approve of legalizing drugs, and they don't understand the gold standard argument).

I think you actually hit the nail on the head here. Obama had a lot of very loyal supporters, so did Paul - McCain didn't really at least from where I sat. Obama's loyal supporters made inspiring videos, they engaged people, they talked about the issues they really cared about, they made it feel like Obama would make your life better.

A lot of RP supporters (and I'll be blunt) were crazy, or they were in your face, or they were really effing annoying. I don't like watching a debate on FoxNews, and 98% think RP won, that's not realistic, it just makes us look like crazy spammers. They'd be in your face "oh you're not voting for Ron Paul, you're just a dumb lemming brainwashed by the mainstream media". "Oh you believe the official version of 9/11, you're such an idiot". I'm exaggerating somewhat, but not by much. I like RP, a lot actually. He does the cause a lot of good when he goes on TV. A lot of the supporters though are too effing stupid or annoying to ever be of any good.

I made a thread earlier how Chris Rock says the job of the President is peace and money. Basically that's all anyone cares about. That's what I care about and that's why I like RP. Make it simple - tell people why RP will 1. take us out of all these wars and bring our troops home and 2. be good for your wallet.

Keep it simple stupid. What I don't want to hear about is how remote controlled air planes flew into the WTC. I seriously doubt RP wants to be associated with that. Ok I'm off my soap box now.

 

[BlackTerrel]

No. Elections are decided by the mainstream media and who they are told to promote. I'd be more than happy to provide you with the empirical data that backs that up completely, if you so wish.

Please post it, but keep in mind that correlation doesn't equal causation.