Some observations from today...

[Bloody Holly]

1. The War on Plants...Blacks...DRUGS

2. Asset Forfeiture

3. Tribute

4. War on Islam

5. Death Penalty

These are all issues of special concern to black voters, because they all have a disparate impact on black Americans. These are all issues on which Ron Paul shines above all other candidates, from either party. Black voters already know more about these issues, and Dr. Paul's position on them, than many white voters, to whom some of these issues may be of lower priority.

Most black people aren't going to vote in the GOP primary, but would vote for RP, by a large margin, in the general election, unless Obama wins his party's nomination, in which case Dr. Paul would still likely get the largest percentage of the black vote of any Republican -- in quite some time.

If Ron Paul were a racist, the policies he promotes would be a funny way of showing it. Do WNs support him? Sure. They may find many of his policies attractive, because of their own prejudices, but that certainly doesn't make them racist policies. For example, RP wants to stop illegal immigration because it results in fewer entry level jobs for Americans, creates a strain on gov't services, and increases crime. WNs want to stop it because they hate "mex-kins." RP wants to end foreign aid, because it increases US debt, creates entagling alliances, and swells the already heavy tax burden on American wage-earners. WNs want to end funding to Israel because they hate "the jews."

I have a secret for you: there are racists in every race. If you aren't a racist, you probably either know or are related to at least one. This goes for all of us, red, yellow, black, white, or brown. What we also know about these racist is, aside from making us shake our heads and groan from time-to-time, they are MOSTLY harmless. They say stupid things, and vent, and rant, but most of them wouldn't hurt a fly. Regardless, though, we try to get them to shake off old ways of thinking, but they are still family or friends, and, unless they are of the really bad, dangerous variety, we treat them accordingly. We may try to change their minds, but we don't force them to change their addresses, just because they have some stupid, backwards opinions.

Cut Dr. Paul some slack for thinking that friendship or family, even if that friend or family member is an ignorant bigot, is more important than some political office, even if that office is the presidency. Most Presidents have had their black sheep, an we usually don't demand they be thrown under the bus (remember Roger Clinton and Billy Carter?). He's going to stick to his guns, and continue to protect whomever he is protecting. If we can't accept that, then we need to find another candidate. For me, there is no other candidate. I'm sticking with Ron Paul. And, I admire his loyalty. Under the same circumstances, most of his opponents would have sold out their crazy cousin Joe or their old college buddy in a hot minute; and I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of president I would want.

Right on! A+

 

[Mark]

Funny you bring this up. Me and my wife first started researching Ron Paul after that interview where he said: "Why give it back? He cant buy me out and its less money for them to use for their organization." Or something to that effect. We both thought that it was really clever.

Yeah, but you and your wife apparently have intelligence.

2 people out of the MILLIONS who hear this and draw conclusions from it.

The median IQ is about 100 points.

And that's the MEDIAN average. HALF OF THE PEOPLE have LESS than that.

A lot of people just don't have the intelligence AND/OR the desire to think things through.

They been force-fed FUD by media and their trusted TV. And they VOTE, based on what they're TOLD by media.

Ever wonder WHY Ron Paul's supporters for the most part SEEM to have above average intelligence?

Because they DO. They're USED to thinking things through and coming to a logical conclusion.

That's why they support Ron Paul.

But that's not why the average person is going to support Ron.

The average person barely cares about or understands politics.

They hear what the TV tells them and vote based upon it.

Hearing "Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is GOLD for reaching the 50%+ of people like them.

Hearing "Ron Paul is a racist" has the exact OPPOSITE effect.

Try to think like the average Joe who can't wait to see the mind numbing things the MSM puts out as "entertainment and news".

THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME TO COMPREHEND A LONG LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

They may not even be CAPABLE of understanding one.

Most people need short simple answers that they can grasp with little or no effort.

"Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is one such short and simple answer.

 

[Bloody Holly]

Yeah, but you and your wife apparently have intelligence.

2 people out of the MILLIONS who hear this and draw conclusions from it.

The median IQ is about 100 points.

And that's the MEDIAN average. HALF OF THE PEOPLE have LESS than that.

A lot of people just don't have the intelligence AND/OR the desire to think things through.

They been force-fed FUD by media and their trusted TV. And they VOTE, based on what they're TOLD by media.

Ever wonder WHY Ron Paul's supporters for the most part SEEM to have above average intelligence?

Because they DO. They're USED to thinking things through and coming to a logical conclusion.

That's why they support Ron Paul.

But that's not why the average person is going to support Ron.

The average person barely cares about or understands politics.

They hear what the TV tells them and vote based upon it.

Hearing "Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is GOLD for reaching the 50%+ of people like them.

Hearing "Ron Paul is a racist" has the exact OPPOSITE effect.

Try to think like the average Joe who can't wait to see the mind numbing things the MSM puts out as "entertainment and news".

THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME TO COMPREHEND A LONG LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

They may not even be CAPABLE of understanding one.

Most people need short simple answers that they can grasp with little or no effort.

"Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is one such short and simple answer.

Also, your average American doesn't want to be called stupid either or treated like they are stupid.

Would you like it if you were called stupid for not supporting let's say Guliani?

 

[AceNZ]

Someone yelling that RP is a racist from a car is unlikely to respond to reason. IMO, the most effective approach would be to respond in an equally emotional way. For example, I would be tempted to say:

Don't believe the white media lies!

or

The white-controlled media is lying to you!

Similarly, responding to emotion with an issue, such as "he'll end the drug war" is not likely to be effective (and besides that's not very meaningful when presented as a sound byte), and could even backfire with the reaction "you mean all minorities use drugs?".

 

[Mark]

yeah you're right. we were both kind of surprised by it and so we didnt have a good response. also, i assume he was talking about the newsletter, not the donation (or maybe both). the other people we actually got a chance to talk to were referring to the newsletter. in that case, what should we say? "he didnt write it" which is true, sorta. "he doesn't actually have those beliefs" which nobody will believe us.

Yeah, it probably is the newsletter he referred to.

Which would have had a lot less impact if he had returned the money and denounced the group a month ago.

Because then you could have said:

"He got money from a white supremest group, and when he found out, he gave it back and said he wouldn't take money from racists.

"And he didn't write or read that newsletter back then, and when he found out about it, he forced them to remove his name from it and to NEVER use his name again."

And the guy's eyes would "be opened" and admire Ron for it.

Because Ron made a statement, and stood up for black people, when he found out about those things.

But no, now Ron and us have to listen to the FUD all day long, because he didn't have the sense to do a simple thing like return $500.

 

[pacelli]

it was the first meetup thing ive done. i should have clarified that. i posted here because i though you might be interested in my impressions, as a newer supporter. what's with the troll stuff? kinda condescending dont you think.

We get people in here who pop in to put a downer on Dr. Paul, who actually support other candidates, who like to make all productive threads worthless. You get the idea.

 

[VoluntaryMan]

Someone yelling that RP is a racist from a car is unlikely to respond to reason. IMO, the most effective approach would be to respond in an equally emotional way. For example, I would be tempted to say:

Don't believe the white media lies!

or

The white-controlled media is lying to you!

Similarly, responding to emotion with an issue, such as "he'll end the drug war" is not likely to be effective (and besides that's not very meaningful when presented as a sound byte), and could even backfire with the reaction "you mean all minorities use drugs?".

You ROCK!

 

[AceNZ]

On the donation issue, we should focus on what we can change and how we can respond. Armchair quarterbacking the campaign is counterproductive.

If someone complains about the donation, again it's an emotional thing, so respond in an equally emotional way:

Less money for crazy people is good for everyone!

or

If I gave you that crazy guy's donation, would you give it back to him for me (or would you keep it for yourself)?

 

[Mark]

1. The War on Plants...Blacks...DRUGS

2. Asset Forfeiture

3. Tribute

4. War on Islam

5. Death Penalty

These are all issues of special concern to black voters, because they all have a disparate impact on black Americans. These are all issues on which Ron Paul shines above all other candidates, from either party. Black voters already know more about these issues, and Dr. Paul's position on them, than many white voters, to whom some of these issues may be of lower priority.

Most black people aren't going to vote in the GOP primary, but would vote for RP, by a large margin, in the general election, unless Obama wins his party's nomination, in which case Dr. Paul would still likely get the largest percentage of the black vote of any Republican -- in quite some time.

If Ron Paul were a racist, the policies he promotes would be a funny way of showing it. Do WNs support him? Sure. They may find many of his policies attractive, because of their own prejudices, but that certainly doesn't make them racist policies. For example, RP wants to stop illegal immigration because it results in fewer entry level jobs for Americans, creates a strain on gov't services, and increases crime. WNs want to stop it because they hate "mex-kins." RP wants to end foreign aid, because it increases US debt, creates entagling alliances, and swells the already heavy tax burden on American wage-earners. WNs want to end funding to Israel because they hate "the jews."

I have a secret for you: there are racists in every race. If you aren't a racist, you probably either know or are related to at least one. This goes for all of us, red, yellow, black, white, or brown. What we also know about these racist is, aside from making us shake our heads and groan from time-to-time, they are MOSTLY harmless. They say stupid things, and vent, and rant, but most of them wouldn't hurt a fly. Regardless, though, we try to get them to shake off old ways of thinking, but they are still family or friends, and, unless they are of the really bad, dangerous variety, we treat them accordingly. We may try to change their minds, but we don't force them to change their addresses, just because they have some stupid, backwards opinions.

Cut Dr. Paul some slack for thinking that friendship or family, even if that friend or family member is an ignorant bigot, is more important than some political office, even if that office is the presidency. Most Presidents have had their black sheep, and we usually don't demand they be thrown under the bus (remember Roger Clinton and Billy Carter?). He's going to stick to his guns, and continue to protect whomever he is protecting. If we can't accept that, then we need to find another candidate. For me, there is no other candidate. I'm sticking with Ron Paul. And, I admire his loyalty. Under the same circumstances, most of his opponents would have sold out their crazy cousin Joe or their old college buddy in a hot minute; and I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of president I would want.

I know all of that, but does the average voter take the time to THINK THINGS THROUGH?

If so, they would ALL support Ron.

I spoke to a bus full of "average voters" the other day who didn't comprehend what getting rid of the Income Tax would do for them.

Much less a bullet point list of deeper issues.

One: "I ain't voting for a Republican".

I tried to explain that Ron's more of a Constitutionalist/Libertarian - not a "regular" republican.

Of course it didn't work. The word "Republican" is all they understood - based on the neo-con definition.

I mentioned war and the draft if we start up with Iran.

One: "The only draft I care about is draft beer".

It's not rocket science to understand the "dumbing don" of the American voter.

You have to reach the average person with a message that they can "grab hold of".

Something simple that makes them want to vote for your candidate.

A short essay is NOT going to do it for the MAJORITY of people who vote for the other Republican candidates.

On a morning news show the other day before the NH primary, 3 undecided voters said things they want from a candidate
that Ron has been saying all along.

But they were STILL undecided because they hadn't heard a candidate say what they needed to hear!

And Ron's been saying the SAME THINGS FOR MONTHS in a complicated manner!

But NOT using simple "sound bites" that most people understand -
He uses long complicated answers that most people tune out from after their 10 second attention span expires.

He needs SIMPLE answers to questions - people can look up the complicated explanations if they want to later.

 

[angrydragon]

Well there's no need to lie about it mark.

 

[BreakYourChains]

anybody have any thoughts on this?

Not sure yet how to deal with it. But, I think I know where a lot of it came from. CNN did an interview with Dr. Paul a couple of days ago, addressing the newsletters. Well, the interview was with Wolf Blitzer. Right before the interview, there was another piece leading in, really an attack piece. Ron Paul spoke well I thought with Wolf Blitzer and he gave him plenty of time to speak. I thought it would drop off from that point. This happened around 5ish est.

Well, they took that interview and edited it, then they inserted different pieces into the first hit piece, and really smeared him bad! They ran this all night, on Anderson Cooper several times. So, any liberal leaning person, and now even I was watching CNN, probably watched that. You can probably find it on youtube to confirm. It was horrible.

Well, suffice it to say, I sent CNN a not too nice email, telling them my opinion, and also told them I was not watching their station any longer, nor going to their website, and was banning their advertisers as well. The only way we have to fight this now is through our dollars, or what is left of them. I honestly don't think we can do much but let it drop from the radar. CNN is bad, heck all of them are bad, including CSpan. I watch it constantly to monitor, and you know, we RP people call in constantly. Then others will call in and call us all crazy. Perhaps we should just go door to door and leave the corrupted media to their corruptedness, and meet people in person. You have to remember too, not all of the crazies that call in might even be Ron Paul people. They might be paid to do this nasty stuff. Ron Paul supporters must start to behave rationally, and not be excited easily.

Anyway, once again, good job. Perhaps you should take the neg youtube down though? (I know you added the neg video to prove to those who questioned you.) No need to add more fuel to the fire on the internet, eh? Real RP supporters welcome you here. Perhaps some of those attacking you are from the other side as well. Keep the faith, brother.

 

[Mark]

Then the person would bring up the newsletter and another "no he's not" would be said even though Ron Paul spoke up about that too but that video was later edited.

The best way to deal with quick interractions where someone calls Ron Paul a racist is mention the war on drugs and how racist that is. Then give the person a flyer, a dvd, whatever material you have. Thank the person for their time and smile.

Yeah, but it's QUITE a strong point to be able to use that would have nearly negated the newsletter smear to begin with.

 

[Crickett]

While waving Ron Paul signs I've had people yell to "Go back to Russia, communist!"

This is what I have said a million times, but no one ever listens. He should never bring up the Libertarian thing. It sounds "communist" to older people. That is why MSM uses it all the time. Unfortunately RP and the campaign continue it.
All the other candidates and MSM make FUN of Dr. Paul..well you know..you just aren't in the CLUB if you side with the NERDS. I think you need a big sign that says RON PAUL IS NOT IN THE CLUB. Then maybe someone will listen about the CFR.

 

[pacelli]

Yeah, but you and your wife apparently have intelligence.

2 people out of the MILLIONS who hear this and draw conclusions from it.

The median IQ is about 100 points.

And that's the MEDIAN average. HALF OF THE PEOPLE have LESS than that.

A lot of people just don't have the intelligence AND/OR the desire to think things through.

They been force-fed FUD by media and their trusted TV. And they VOTE, based on what they're TOLD by media.

<snip>

Hearing "Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is GOLD for reaching the 50%+ of people like them.

Hearing "Ron Paul is a racist" has the exact OPPOSITE effect.

Try to think like the average Joe who can't wait to see the mind numbing things the MSM puts out as "entertainment and news".

THEY WILL NOT TAKE THE TIME TO COMPREHEND A LONG LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

<snip>

"Ron Paul returned the money and denounced the group" is one such short and simple answer.

QFT. People with an IQ of around 85-90 are excellent members of society but they would probably find these forums too overwhelming. In the same way as Mark said, they don't really want to take the time to explore political issues in the depth needed to cross-reference every allegation and extend some critical thinking along those lines. It is much easier to just be able to say, "No, he gave the money back and said he had no idea who the guy was". Response: "Oh, Ok, cool."

That's just how a lot of people prefer to think, nothing wrong with it at all. They want simple answers without having to "waste" time re-considering their initial reaction or problem. It just is how it is.

 

[Mark]

Also, your average American doesn't want to be called stupid either or treated like they are stupid.

Would you like it if you were called stupid for not supporting let's say Guliani?

I didn't say that at all. I just pointed out the median IQ.

I didn't say "call them stupid".

I basically said use simple things that they can understand like the other candidates do that are getting 30% plus in the primaries.

There's a reason other candidates don't answer questions and instead use meaningless buzz words.

BECAUSE THEY WORK with the MAJORITY of voters.

People who care can look up the complicated reasoning.

People who don't, the majority of voters, need simple reasons to vote for someone.

All I'm saying is we need to address that point and PROVIDE simple reasons.

And do SIMPLE things like returning $500 and denouncing a WS group.

 

[Mark]

Well there's no need to lie about it mark.

Lie about what? The newsletter?

I don't think Dr Paul's lying when he said he didn't read them, and he fired or whatever the guy who wrote it.

However, most of this WOULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED,
and most people would have been more inclined to believe him about the newsletters,

IF he had done the "political no-brainer" of simply returning $500 a month ago.

He could have used the incident to CATAPULT his issues on anti-racism like the unfair drug war ect.

Opportunity STARED HIM DOWN, and he didn't recognize it.

 

[AceNZ]

@Mark, I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're approaching it from the perspective of reason, which is not likely to be effective, even if the message is simple. As with my other responses in this thread, try approaching it from the emotional side. To a bus full of "average voters", you could say things like:

The government is reducing the value of your paycheck every week by printing boat-loads of money to pay for the occupation in Iraq, so your dollars can buy less and less

The government is slowly reducing the amount it pays you in social security -- not by giving you fewer dollars, but by making those dollars able to buy less by printing so many of them

Guess who benefits first when the government prints lots of new money? Wall Street. Guess who gets hurt most? The middle class and the poor.

When the government prints new money, it is robbing from the poor and giving to the rich.

Guess how health insurance companies make more money? By declining your claims. Do you really want all health care in this country to be controlled by insurance companies?


OK, maybe they're not all perfect, but hopefully you get the idea...

 

[pacelli]

Also, your average American doesn't want to be called stupid either or treated like they are stupid.

Would you like it if you were called stupid for not supporting let's say Guliani?

That's a good point. When doing intelligence testing, we refer to people in ranges of intellectual functioning, using terms that are not inflammatory. It is a term to describe the functioning of their problem solving abilities (i.e. the construct of intelligence). They are qualitative descriptions. The label of one of those ranges isn't "Stupid".

You have:

Very Superior range

Superior range

High Average range

Average range - 90 - 109

Low Average range

Borderline range

Extremely Low range

 

[Mark]

QFT. People with an IQ of around 85-90 are excellent members of society but they would probably find these forums too overwhelming. In the same way as Mark said, they don't really want to take the time to explore political issues in the depth needed to cross-reference every allegation and extend some critical thinking along those lines. It is much easier to just be able to say, "No, he gave the money back and said he had no idea who the guy was". Response: "Oh, Ok, cool."

That's just how a lot of people prefer to think, nothing wrong with it at all. They want simple answers without having to "waste" time re-considering their initial reaction or problem. It just is how it is.

My point well put succinctly.

It's not an insult or "put-down". It's just the way it is.

I've worked with, and have been friends with, EVERY level of intelligence for over 45 years.

From the mentally handicapped, to pure geniuses.

You HAVE to reach people WHERE they are at.

You CAN'T expect them to come to you. You HAVE to go to them.

EVERY issue has a "short answer" and a "long answer".

Some people want the "short answer", fewer want the long.

MOST of the people who vote want the short, "Oh, OK, cool" answer.

And if you "tickle their fancy" with the short answer,
they might even read more about the reasoning behind the "short answer" if they care enough about the issue.

 

[Duckman]

IF he had done the "political no-brainer" of simply returning $500 a month ago.

He could have used the incident to CATAPULT his issues on anti-racism like the unfair drug war ect.

Opportunity STARED HIM DOWN, and he didn't recognize it.

I agree. I actually supported his move then, but I knew it was risky if it could be combined with even the newsletter issues as I understood it at that time (which was that it was an isolated incident where the responsible party was fired).

I actually think Ron Paul did lie when he said he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters. At the minimum, I think we're left in a quandry by that statement, because if he's telling the truth it seems that he's either incompetent or too trusting, which are both bad, and add more fuel to the concerns about how he would govern considering the fact he can't seem to find people to manage his campaign properly, or else he's covering up by lying to the public, which is worse. Honestly, given his demeanor during the interview, I unfortunately believe that he was lying.

Notice he didn't say that he had no control over the contents of the newsletter.
Also that he didn't say he had never looked the contents of the newsletters.

Why would Ron Paul still not know the author after being smeared with this for 10+ years? It just doesn't add up.

I think Ron is toast. The general public thinks he's a racist, and alot of his supporters are conflicted about his response to this crisis.

I feel for freedom and liberty. But Ron has destroyed himself with this.