The liberal olive branch

[ARealConservative]

Due greatly to the obvious lack of interest the democrats have in ending the war, we have been strengthened by liberal minded people in this movement.

The question is, how do we benefit from this long term?

How do we tailor our message to not alienate liberal minded individuals moving forward?

I believe it is our principles of individual liberty that will provide the solution to end the partisan bickering this country embraces too fully, but we clearly have work to do in that regard as well.

 

[The One]

I don't think we should "tailor our message." The message is what it is. People just need to be taught that it is the right message.

 

[mrkurtz]

I don't think we should "tailor our message." The message is what it is. People just need to be taught that it is the right message.

You beat me to the punch.

Remember "ARealConservative", you're using a collectivist assumption by lumping views onto a group of people (i.e. liberals). We're all individuals, and Ron Paul has an impeccable message for non-collectivists.

It's hard enough working with the GOP... there are enough folks in the party that seem hell bent on a "GOP wins, conservatism loses" strategy.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

I'll tape a pocket constitution to my balls and teabag folks with it. Seems these days the truth has to slap people right in the face before they recognize it.

Only joking of course, I agree with The One. Changing the message to appeal to those in disagreement with it sounds like a bad idea to me. Hopefully they'll come around, eventually. The seeds have been planted, now we just need to nurture them. It won't happen overnight.

 

[ARealConservative]

I don't think we should "tailor our message." The message is what it is. People just need to be taught that it is the right message.

Well, sorry to say you people aren't Ron Paul.

you all could stand to tailor the message a great deal.

 

[The One]

LMAO at constitution-on-the-balls-teabagging. Slap 'em in the face with it....that's classic. Congratulations, Paulitical.....I have a new signature.

 

[mrkurtz]

Well, sorry to say you people aren't Ron Paul.

you all could stand to tailor the message a great deal.

hehe, I think I see what you're saying... maybe the problem is that we just simply aren't communicating RP's message... he's given us the materials; we need to sew the clothes, right?

On that matter, since there still is about 70% dissatisfaction about the Iraq War there's not much to change in respect to RPs stance on that. I'm finding SIGNIFICANT success talking about the dollar, connecting it to foreign policy, and our diminishing economic sovereignty.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

LMAO at constitution-on-the-balls-teabagging. Slap 'em in the face with it....that's classic. Congratulations, Paulitical.....I have a new signature.

/honored

 

[Truth Warrior]

Liberals in general, will "say" anything. "agree" with anything, "do" anything, "try" anything as long as they see any way to even remotely, possibly further the "liberal" statist agenda.

 

[Highland]

LMAO at constitution-on-the-balls-teabagging. Slap 'em in the face with it....that's classic. Congratulations, Paulitical.....I have a new signature.

True Dat

 

[Kade]

Due greatly to the obvious lack of interest the democrats have in ending the war, we have been strengthened by liberal minded people in this movement.

The question is, how do we benefit from this long term?

How do we tailor our message to not alienate liberal minded individuals moving forward?

I believe it is our principles of individual liberty that will provide the solution to end the partisan bickering this country embraces too fully, but we clearly have work to do in that regard as well.

Stop attacking me?

 

[ARealConservative]

Stop attacking me?

always the victim

 

[sratiug]

Due greatly to the obvious lack of interest the democrats have in ending the war, we have been strengthened by liberal minded people in this movement.

The question is, how do we benefit from this long term?

How do we tailor our message to not alienate liberal minded individuals moving forward?

I believe it is our principles of individual liberty that will provide the solution to end the partisan bickering this country embraces too fully, but we clearly have work to do in that regard as well.

Public financing of higher education. If liberals believe in public higher education, and government financing of public higher education, and federal government financing of higher education, they still can't possibly agree on the way it is done. I have read that more federal government money goes to private institutions (expensive, exclusive, etc) of higher learning than to public ones. This is a travesty.

Even if that were not the case, any school that receives public money should be absolutely free to attend. Otherwise there is no equality of opportunity for people of different economic means.

So we both work toward different goals the same way, and end the current federal subsidies. Since there is not enough money to make them free, federal subsidies would end, until there was enough money and support to pass an amendment to give everyone a free colledge education, leaving more money for state schools in the states.

Also most of the money budgeted to states directly from the feds for higher education is actually student loan money going to banks, not states or students. I don't think liberals would support that either.

 

[crazyfingers]

IMO, when trying to win votes from liberals, the focus should be on the local control ("state's rights") element of the libertarian platform. Local solutions to local problems...almost everyone can agree with that.

 

[StilesBC]

I agree with the previous two respondants, in that the message of freedom should be enough to win over people who think they are liberals and conservatives alike.

Having said that, toning down the religious rhetoric could not hurt in recruiting more democrats who are agnostic, yet voting simply because they want 'change' and think the Democrats can bring it.

The abortion issue could be sticky in attracting the same type of voter.

I see a lot of this mold of people:

- anti-war
- non-religious, or of another religion
- believe in the 'woman's right to chose'
- major bias against republicans
- dissillusioned as to the direction of America
- apathetic politically

These people would likely agree with Paul's message on 80% of issues, and with Obama or Hillary on 50% (if they actually were to find out where they stand). So if these obvious differences could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's actual constitutional position on them, perhaps a seed could be planted that would encourage them to read Paul's book or do more research.

The religion issue could be smoothed by indicating a clear separation between church and state. The abortion issue could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's position against federal jurisdiction, leaving the window open for individual states making the decision. The anti Republican/War bias can be easily taken care of by stating the intention to return Rupublicans to their roots where they were traditionally non-interventionist (nobody believes me when I say Democrats are traditionally the war party). This needs to be emphasized.

This comes from a person who has voted for the socialist party in Canada, is pro-abortion and believes that much of what is wrong in the world today can be blamed on religion. I was won over by Paul's Austrian monetary views (not something I envision many others starting with). But if someone like myself can be turned into a vocal Paul supporter, anyone who fits the above mold can.

 

[Kade]

I agree with the previous two respondants, in that the message of freedom should be enough to win over people who think they are liberals and conservatives alike.

Having said that, toning down the religious rhetoric could not hurt in recruiting more democrats who are agnostic, yet voting simply because they want 'change' and think the Democrats can bring it.

The abortion issue could be sticky in attracting the same type of voter.

I see a lot of this mold of people:

- anti-war
- non-religious, or of another religion
- believe in the 'woman's right to chose'
- major bias against republicans
- dissillusioned as to the direction of America
- apathetic politically

These people would likely agree with Paul's message on 80% of issues, and with Obama or Hillary on 50% (if they actually were to find out where they stand). So if these obvious differences could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's actual constitutional position on them, perhaps a seed could be planted that would encourage them to read Paul's book or do more research.

The religion issue could be smoothed by indicating a clear separation between church and state. The abortion issue could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's position against federal jurisdiction, leaving the window open for individual states making the decision. The anti Republican/War bias can be easily taken care of by stating the intention to return Rupublicans to their roots where they were traditionally non-interventionist (nobody believes me when I say Democrats are traditionally the war party). This needs to be emphasized.

This comes from a person who has voted for the socialist party in Canada, is pro-abortion and believes that much of what is wrong in the world today can be blamed on religion. I was won over by Paul's Austrian monetary views (not something I envision many others starting with). But if someone like myself can be turned into a vocal Paul supporter, anyone who fits the above mold can.

One of the more intelligent posts of the day. Congratulations.

 

[ARealConservative]

I agree with the previous two respondants, in that the message of freedom should be enough to win over people who think they are liberals and conservatives alike.

Having said that, toning down the religious rhetoric could not hurt in recruiting more democrats who are agnostic, yet voting simply because they want 'change' and think the Democrats can bring it.

The abortion issue could be sticky in attracting the same type of voter.

I see a lot of this mold of people:

- anti-war
- non-religious, or of another religion
- believe in the 'woman's right to chose'
- major bias against republicans
- dissillusioned as to the direction of America
- apathetic politically

These people would likely agree with Paul's message on 80% of issues, and with Obama or Hillary on 50% (if they actually were to find out where they stand). So if these obvious differences could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's actual constitutional position on them, perhaps a seed could be planted that would encourage them to read Paul's book or do more research.

The religion issue could be smoothed by indicating a clear separation between church and state. The abortion issue could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's position against federal jurisdiction, leaving the window open for individual states making the decision. The anti Republican/War bias can be easily taken care of by stating the intention to return Rupublicans to their roots where they were traditionally non-interventionist (nobody believes me when I say Democrats are traditionally the war party). This needs to be emphasized.

This comes from a person who has voted for the socialist party in Canada, is pro-abortion and believes that much of what is wrong in the world today can be blamed on religion. I was won over by Paul's Austrian monetary views (not something I envision many others starting with). But if someone like myself can be turned into a vocal Paul supporter, anyone who fits the above mold can.

good suggestions.

As an atheist, I can definitely see your point on the religious rhetoric.

I think Ayn Rand said it best: To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I agree with the previous two respondants, in that the message of freedom should be enough to win over people who think they are liberals and conservatives alike.

Having said that, toning down the religious rhetoric could not hurt in recruiting more democrats who are agnostic, yet voting simply because they want 'change' and think the Democrats can bring it.

The abortion issue could be sticky in attracting the same type of voter.

I see a lot of this mold of people:

- anti-war
- non-religious, or of another religion
- believe in the 'woman's right to chose'
- major bias against republicans
- dissillusioned as to the direction of America
- apathetic politically

These people would likely agree with Paul's message on 80% of issues, and with Obama or Hillary on 50% (if they actually were to find out where they stand). So if these obvious differences could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's actual constitutional position on them, perhaps a seed could be planted that would encourage them to read Paul's book or do more research.

The religion issue could be smoothed by indicating a clear separation between church and state. The abortion issue could be smoothed by clarifying Paul's position against federal jurisdiction, leaving the window open for individual states making the decision. The anti Republican/War bias can be easily taken care of by stating the intention to return Rupublicans to their roots where they were traditionally non-interventionist (nobody believes me when I say Democrats are traditionally the war party). This needs to be emphasized.

This comes from a person who has voted for the socialist party in Canada, is pro-abortion and believes that much of what is wrong in the world today can be blamed on religion. I was won over by Paul's Austrian monetary views (not something I envision many others starting with). But if someone like myself can be turned into a vocal Paul supporter, anyone who fits the above mold can.

< ROFLMAO > Thanks I really needed that one! Priceless!

 

[StilesBC]

Apparently my own sense of humour eludes me today. What's funny?

 

[freedom-maniac]

First, I think we should start welcoming people of all political backgrounds back into the movement. It used to be, "You're from the LP? Great! The CP? Wonderful. Come hold signs with us. Independent? Ex-Republican? Dissillusioned Dem? Perfect! Donate on December 16th with us!"

Now it seems like, "You don't believe we should abolish the Department of Education?!?!?!? What! Socialist! SOCIALIST!"

Liberals in general believe in personal liberty, and economoic policies that help the Middle Class and Poor.

For one, we have them on personal liberty. They want to end the War on Drugs, which conservatives don't. Some may be "gun grabbers" but as soon as the Supreme Court rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment, there will be nothing they can do.

As for economic polices, we have to convince them that the root of the problem is the FEDERAL RESERVE. Once this is done, they should back us for the most part.