People that say "I don't like Ron Paul"

[mhad]

My response: "Yes, he is to intelectual for some people to understand"

 

[rb3b3]

That's ok you don't have to like him, when he is the president of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, he believes in the constitution and he will tell you himself you have every right not to like him. Have a nice day!

 

[sailingaway]

Do you think that changed their mind?

 

[phill4paul]

WTF? In a Grassroots thread this Title??????????????????

 

[Lord Xar]

.. spellcheck

 

[anewvoice]

And if you're going to go intellectual high road on someone, don't have both a grammar and spelling error in the response.

"Yes, he is to intelectual for some people to understand"

Just me but the better response likely was "what is it you don't like about him?"

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

I don't like him either...I LOVE HIM!

 

[ByeByeBernanke]

*too

 

[dancjm]

No doubt your witty and charming response will have got them on board.

 

[MisterTickle]

No doubt your witty and charming response will have got them on board.

He should of called them a filthy neocon and shouted about 9/11 being an inside job. That will get EVERYBODY!

 

[awake]

They don't hate Ron Paul as much as they hate his ideas.

 

[tbone717]

They don't hate Ron Paul as much as they hate his ideas.

Since you are in Canada you may not have personal experience with average GOP voters here in the states. I do, lots of it, and talk to many people that I know personally. It is not his ideas which are unpopular at all, in fact most are well on board with his economic message, and surprisingly when talked about in a generic sense people agree with the FP aspects. The main issue I am seeing here on the ground in talking with 100's of people over the last few months is that Paul has not been able to connect himself to those issues.

In my opinion Paul is great at the ideological aspects of libertarian-conservatism. His writings are sound, and his long speeches on the floor of Congress are inspiring. But for all that he has in that respect, he lacks so much in the ability to sell himself and his ideas to the average voter.

 

[ericthethe]

They don't hate Ron Paul as much as they hate his ideas.

Actually, the truth is just the opposite. People vote on style over substance. How a candidate's personality and character makes them feel on an emotional level. It's absurd. It's exactly how Obama won, coupled with a ridiculously large and expensive PR campaign.

 

[Jeremy]

My response: "Yes, he is to intelectual for some people to understand"

You spelled too wrong.

It's not really a good idea to insult someone you're trying to persuade, by the way.

 

[LibertyEagle]

//

 

[LibertyEagle]

My response: "Yes, he is to intelectual for some people to understand"

Yes. Insulting a prospective voter is a sure way to win them over.

 

[Liberty74]

I always ask, "Why not?"

Then after they speak, I chew them up and spit them out. Yes, it's that easy.

 

[jtb]

Try this:

I didn't either at first. However (for some unknown reason) I started to do more research about the message of liberty and his vision for the country. I quickly learned that what he is talking about is bigger than just him. I think if you take a closer look you will get over whatever minor things you don't like about him.

 

[TheGrinch]

I always ask, "Why not?"

Then after they speak, I chew them up and spit them out. Yes, it's that easy.

This.

Challenging people's beliefs may lead to seem fierce resistance, but it's only by making them question what they think is right along with the alternatives that you even have a chance for people to give way on largely partisan beliefs.

But mroe importantly I think , is to note what's important to them, and then build on common ground... For instance, for my family, I started with the domestic issues, as they are true fiscal conservatives, not social conservatives, so finding common ground was easy. The hard part was getting them to come around on foreign policy, but I planted the seeds and eventually they did... Pretty much the opposite for liberals, that some of Paul's liberty-minded and non-interventionalist ideas might be more appealing to, and use that to hopefully get them to even consider looking past the stigmas they have about small government.

In a nutshell, you have to know your audience to succeed when speaking to a biased audience, especially when it comes to politics or religion. Talking down to someone is about the worst way possible to sway someone on these 2 incredibly divisive topics.

 

[tbone717]

Actually, the truth is just the opposite. People vote on style over substance. How a candidate's personality and character makes them feel on an emotional level. It's absurd. It's exactly how Obama won, coupled with a ridiculously large and expensive PR campaign.

Right. If Obama was a below average orator he would have never even gotten close to the nomination. But he gave a good speech and connected his issues to people's needs. People weren't sold on Marxism, they were simply wooed by his charisma.

There is no reason that a libertarian-conservative could not also be a skilled orator and connected his issues to the people's concerns, and still remain committed to his core principles. Reagan was masterful at that. And while some here may or may not agree with how Reagan governed, the message he delivered on the campaign trail in 76 and 80 was a lot closer to libertarian conservatism than it is to the ideology of Romney, Newt and Santorum.