The worst thing I ever heard from a fellow voter.

[jcannon98188]

I talk with this guy at my church all the time about politics. He is a smart guy, he is a physicist. He learns languages and memorizes things for fun. He swears up and down by the constitution. You think he would support Ron Paul! He supports Romney..... Why? Is it because Romney is mormon and so are we? Nope. Its because he thinks that you need to exact small changes only. He doesn't believe that substantial change can be made, so we need to "chisel them down" with small changes from people like Romney. You know, the "people with a few things we agree with". He also says that certain things (Election Fraud, Birth Certificates etc.) are "worthless" things to spend your time on. Does anyone else have people like this they talk to? If so, any one have any tips on how to tell them they are stupid, without outright calling them stupid.

 

[RPES1]

Call him an idiot and see how mad he gets.

 

[anewvoice]

Tell him it is because of the lack of conviction of men like he that we are in this mess and if left to him we ought all admit to slavery now.

 

[The Goat]

The democrats use backhoes and we use shovels. Great plan. :facepalm:

 

[scottstew]

I was teaching my 8-year-old sons about NDAA and indefinite detention yesterday, and of course they understood perfectly well that it's wrong to arrest and imprison Americans for as long as the government chooses. My politically apathetic wife gets mad and tells me that they don't understand the context and that what I said isn't really true. I let it go just because I didn't want to start a big fight, but the truth is she has no idea what NDAA even stands for, and I feel that it's my duty to educate my children in areas such as civil liberty ... they certainly won't learn about it in their government school.

Bottom line: It's maddening trying to help others to understand freedom. In my opinion, it means that they don't much care for it.

 

[KingNothing]

I talk with this guy at my church all the time about politics. He is a smart guy, he is a physicist. He learns languages and memorizes things for fun. He swears up and down by the constitution. You think he would support Ron Paul! He supports Romney..... Why? Is it because Romney is mormon and so are we? Nope. Its because he thinks that you need to exact small changes only. He doesn't believe that substantial change can be made, so we need to "chisel them down" with small changes from people like Romney. You know, the "people with a few things we agree with". He also says that certain things (Election Fraud, Birth Certificates etc.) are "worthless" things to spend your time on. Does anyone else have people like this they talk to? If so, any one have any tips on how to tell them they are stupid, without outright calling them stupid.

Election fraud and birth certificates are indeed worthless things to spend time on, but he's wrong to support Romney if he thinks incremental change is the way to go. Paul will bring that. Mitt will bring nothing but a continuation of what we currently have.

 

[J. W. Evans]

You need to aim high because even if you fail to make it, you can still completely change the narrative for the future.
If we chisel a little at a time, there's nothing to be had there, and society will inch to freedom at a rate no different then it will inch to fascism.

Ron Paul's so gold, even his fallacies are.

 

[Lishy]

Tell him it is because of the lack of conviction of men like he that we are in this mess and if left to him we ought all admit to slavery now.

You know, I have to echo this.

I wanna see that exact message told to the guy.

 

[mczerone]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - Murray Rothbard.

(Though I agree that focusing on most of those issues that have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories" is a waste of time)

 

[satchelmcqueen]

my old boss was like this. he said we cant "swing the pendulum all the way to one side to fast". i asked him why. he didnt really have a good answer.

 

[deputydon]

I still think the worst think I've ever heard people say is the very simple, 'not like my one vote will matter anyways.' That angers me to no end. If everyone dropped that mentality, Ron Paul would already have this nomination.

 

[Student Of Paulism]

I was teaching my 8-year-old sons about NDAA and indefinite detention yesterday, and of course they understood perfectly well that it's wrong to arrest and imprison Americans for as long as the government chooses. My politically apathetic wife gets mad and tells me that they don't understand the context and that what I said isn't really true. I let it go just because I didn't want to start a big fight, but the truth is she has no idea what NDAA even stands for, and I feel that it's my duty to educate my children in areas such as civil liberty ... they certainly won't learn about it in their government school.



Bottom line: It's maddening trying to help others to understand freedom. In my opinion, it means that they don't much care for it.

I know the feeling, believe me, trying to convert my gf to RP's message and wake her up to all the corruption, unjust wars, and little by little, the entire history and roots to how it all got this way. I see a lot of apathy in her and frustration in the whole process (which is good, as i can use that to my advantage and i see that has being 1/2 way there already), she says ALL the candidates are crap and may not even vote. She will say good things about Ron here and there, and when i ask why she feels he isnt viable, i get the 'He is too old' response I can easily get her past that thinking soon enough, but sadly, so many voters who like Ron feel that way and it shows in the polls. I know if he was Rand's age he would be over 20% nationally easily. But the fact something so stupid and trivial affects how a person votes is just really pathetic. If the person is the right one for the job, i dont care if hes 178yo.

She is also a Wells Fargo banker/broker lol, so she is already indoctrinated into the Mafia Banking Cartel. She gets mad if i knock GWB, and says stuff like 'stop saying that! i liked gwb alot!!' lol. Ill get her to see the light soon enough. I am connecting the dots for her via reading material, mixed in with vids here and there, and giving her things to think about. Some of them she can't refute and shuts up real quick

I still think the worst think I've ever heard people say is the very simple, 'not like my vote will matter anyways.' That angers me to no end. If everyone dropped that mentality, Ron Paul would already have this nomination.

Pff tell me about it. It has to be the most nonsensical and illogical way to think. The same can be said for any candidate. Obviously, Romney is leading and is where he is in the polls, because ya know, PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR HIM. Duhh. If you do the same for Ron, well then he would be leading lol.

 

[anewvoice]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - Murray Rothbard.

As always someone has said it better.

 

[KingNothing]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - Murray Rothbard.

(Though I agree that focusing on most of those issues that have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories" is a waste of time)

Murray is not right about that, though. Gradualism is how we got where we are. It's incremental changes over several decades that matter, so long as our current system remains in place - and in spite of the general apocalyptic tenor of our campaign, I expect The World As We Know It to last for some time.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that Paul is in favor of gradualism on the difficult matters, and in favor of immediate change on the simple ones. We can easily change our foreign policy without a tough transition period. We cannot say the same about monetary policy. But at the same time, even Ron's budget and tax plans are not drastic, they just seem that way in comparison to $150B in new debt every month and insanely high tax rates. He's only advocating budgetary common sense, and I can't imagine that anyone who would consider voting for a Not Obama in November has a problem with that.

 

[anewvoice]

Murray is not right about that, though. Gradualism is how we got where we are. It's incremental changes over several decades that matter, so long as our current system remains in place - and in spite of the general apocalyptic tenor of our campaign, I expect The World As We Know It to last for some time.

I think what a lot of people don't realize is that Paul is in favor of gradualism on the difficult matters, and in favor of immediate change on the simple ones. We can easily change our foreign policy without a tough transition period. We cannot say the same about monetary policy. But at the same time, even Ron's budget and tax plans are not drastic, they just seem that way in comparison to $150B in new debt every month and insanely high tax rates. He's only advocating budgetary common sense, and I can't imagine that anyone who would consider voting for a Not Obama in November has a problem with that.

True Ron Paul favors transitions out of the mess, but I suspect what we would consider gradual change others would consider radical and more drastic. Ending military adventurism is not a gradual change.

 

[fisharmor]

"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - Murray Rothbard.

(Though I agree that focusing on most of those issues that have been dismissed as "conspiracy theories" is a waste of time)

Virginia is home to an organization called VCDL - the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which is our state pro-gun activist group.
Virginia is also a pretty permissive state when it comes to firearms freedoms. This is VCDL's philosophy:

VCDL believes that to win the fight to restore our Rights, we have to 1) go on the offensive and 2) make use of the best lobbyist – the voter.
VCDL rejects the approach of focusing on a defensive battle until “the time is right”. Even if you win 95% of the defensive battles, you lose 5%. Over time, this defensive war of attrition slowly whittles away our Rights until we have none.
The time isn’t going to magically become right to introduce pro-gun legislation. Instead, WE have to make the time right. And we do that by constantly pushing a pro-gun agenda – getting pro-gun legislation before the General Assembly, getting voters to contact their legislators, and hounding any locality that violates the law.


Even if we win only 5% of our pro-gun agenda each year, we are advancing our rights each and every year, instead of losing them bit-by-bit.

So there's a real-life example of why your church friend is wrong.

All bills are generally acts of negotiation. You don't start a negotiation by saying "Ok, here's the absolute minimum I can tolerate leaving this negotiation with".
If you're negotiating with four people for a cake, you start by saying "I can't possibly leave this negotiation without seven-eighths of this cake, MINIMUM. By all rights, I should be walking away with the whole frickin' thing, but I recognize there are other people here so the rest of you can fight over that last slice."
And then you get whittled down. To half of it.

If you come out saying "Well, everyone here has a right to this cake and so we should divide it up into quarters", guess what? You're walking away with jack shit.

People who vote for Romney really don't like cake at all. If they liked cake, they'd stop and realize (like us!) that they haven't had a single bite of cake their entire lives - and that guys like Romney keep fucking lying to us just to get elected, saying "This is a team sport! If you just vote for me, I promise to do what I can to get you a bite!"

Politics is not a team sport: it's dog-eat-dog. There's a reason why most states have abysmal gun laws - it's because the other side knows how to negotiate.
"WE'RE COMING FOR ALL OF THEM, AND ARE GOING TO GO DOOR-TO-DOOR."
The correct response is NOT "Oh wait, hang on a sec, let's talk... you can have all the handguns if you just leave us the rifles! Please???"
The correct response is "WE'RE COMING WITH THE REPEAL OF NFA '34 AND A COMPANION BILL THAT PROTECTS PEOPLE WHO KILL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMITTING VIOLENCE ON THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT A WARRANT."
Radical measures are only going to be countered with radical measures.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, we've been getting 'chiseled down' for a while now, so I'll say it's an effective strategy. Problem is, we're the ones getting 'chiseled'

 

[EBounding]

Romney isn't even a small change. He's exactly the same!

What's funny is that even though Ron Paul's philosophy advocates radical change, his platform and plans for president aren't really all that radical. Freezing spending at 2006 levels, with increases only only to several mandatory items (Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Defense) isn't really all that radical considering we are $16 Trillion in debt.

 

[fisharmor]

Cutting five cabinet positions is radical.
I can't even name one cabinet position which has ever been cut (as opposed to folding it into another). Five in a year? That's political armageddon.

 

[jbauer]

frankly I'd like an explination of exactly what the difference between obama and romney is except the party they say they're in and the color of their skin?

Romney's so darn far from being a conservative that I'd rather have obama again so alteast we have 4 more years to convince people that our country is in peril. Action is required, but most people dont act until forced to. 4fsan more of obama has the good chance of forcing that change. Pun intended