Why Ron Paul can beat Obama: He converts Democrats on war & civil liberty

[rambone]

I said this way back in the beginning of this thread: leftists who support Paul do so coincidentally.


To illustrate:

What Lefite means: Firearms should be banned...
What Leftie means: I don't like the military...
What Leftie means: All war is wrong...

I don't even know where to begin. Stereotypes and generalizations are making this conversation almost impossible. I used to think like that. I can relate. I had to unlearn what the TV told me.

Not all Democrats are Leftists. These words are not interchangeable.
Not all Democrats hate guns, or the military, or the constitution.
Not all Democrats like Obama or his policies. (Not all Republicans like Romney.)
Not all war opposers are pacifists.
Not all Left-wing beliefs are statist. Just like the Right-wing is not all about liberty.
Not all OWS members are rabid communists. (Not all Tea Party members are racists.)

Different people land in different camps for different reasons. Not every Democrat wants to see high taxes, wealth distribution, destruction of the constitution, etc. Many of them vote Democrat because they wanted to bring the troops home, wanted the Patriot Act repealed, opposed Bush's fascist Security agencies, support their right to unionize, support their right to marry who they choose, oppose the Drug War, etc. And those are all valid, pro-liberty reasons for them to be Democrats.

Just look at the vast differences of opinion of people on this board. How effective would it be to stereotype this entire group? Whoever wants to try that is going to look foolish. Is it really so crazy to believe that people in another party have equally varied opinions and voting priorities?

Now to the point of this thread, I think it is quite reasonable that Ron Paul can convert a percentage of principled voters who identify themselves as Democrats. I've talked to, and converted some of them myself. Not everyone votes Party before Principle.

 

[level.eleven]

Wait a minute...I thought this was about winning elections. Who cares if minds are changed. Political reality is about winning elections. Changing minds is unicorns and gumdrops.

 

[88GT]

I don't even know where to begin. Stereotypes and generalizations are making this conversation almost impossible. I used to think like that. I can relate. I had to unlearn what the TV told me.

Not all Democrats are Leftists. These words are not interchangeable.
Not all Democrats hate guns, or the military, or the constitution.
Not all Democrats like Obama or his policies. (Not all Republicans like Romney.)
Not all war opposers are pacifists.
Not all Left-wing beliefs are statist. Just like the Right-wing is not all about liberty.
Not all OWS members are rabid communists. (Not all Tea Party members are racists.)

Different people land in different camps for different reasons. Not every Democrat wants to see high taxes, wealth distribution, destruction of the constitution, etc. Many of them vote Democrat because they wanted to bring the troops home, wanted the Patriot Act repealed, opposed Bush's fascist Security agencies, support their right to unionize, support their right to marry who they choose, oppose the Drug War, etc. And those are all valid, pro-liberty reasons for them to be Democrats.

Just look at the vast differences of opinion of people on this board. How effective would it be to stereotype this entire group? Whoever wants to try that is going to look foolish. Is it really so crazy to believe that people in another party have equally varied opinions and voting priorities?

Now to the point of this thread, I think it is quite reasonable that Ron Paul can convert a percentage of principled voters who identify themselves as Democrats. I've talked to, and converted some of them myself. Not everyone votes Party before Principle.

But I didn't say Democrat, did I?

Nothing you said contradicts or refutes what I said. In fact, your "not all" part kind proves it. What people support is less important than why they support it. And nobody coming from the Left is supporting Paul because of his libertarian philosophy.

 

[CombatRex]

This a long thread so I have not read them all..that being said. I like Ron Paul on domestic issues, but the minute he opens his mouth about foreign policy and 911 being our (America's) fault, he turns me off. I lump him in with Truthers. If it came down to him or Obama.....well it would be a tough choice, but I would side with him and hope to hell the House and Senate would be reign him in. Then again I could hope the same thing if Obama should win.

 

[rambone]

But I didn't say Democrat, did I?

You're off on a tangent then. The thread is about Democrats, and how some of them will switch over to help Ron Paul beat Obama.

 

[88GT]

You're off on a tangent then. The thread is about Democrats, and how some of them will switch over to help Ron Paul beat Obama.

Okay, like that changes anything.

 

[rambone]

I like Ron Paul on domestic issues, but the minute he opens his mouth about foreign policy and 911 being our (America's) fault, he turns me off.

Ron Paul is simply agreeing with what the CIA teaches about "blowback," and agreeing with the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission regarding the reasoning for the 9/11 attacks. Actions have consequences, including our own.

Ron Paul on Blowback

"I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were – if other foreign countries were doing that to us?" -- Ron Paul
​

 

[CombatRex]

You're off on a tangent then. The thread is about Democrats, and how some of them will switch over to help Ron Paul beat Obama.

Oh well that would not be the first time for me.

 

[rambone]

Okay, like that changes anything.

It does change things. Again, if you think "Democrat" is interchangeable with "Leftist" then the conversation is a non-starter.

Ron Paul doesn't need to convert the most radical people that you can imagine on the "Left." The premise of the OP is that Paul can and will pull away a percentage of moderate Democrats who don't fit with the stereotypes that you have adopted.

 

[teddy12b]

It does change things. Again, if you think "Democrat" is interchangeable with "Leftist" then the conversation is a non-starter.

Ron Paul doesn't need to convert the most radical people that you can imagine on the "Left." The premise of the OP is that Paul can and will pull away a percentage of moderate Democrats who don't fit with the stereotypes that you have adopted.

I think you're both painting with some pretty broad brushes and lumping everyone into single groups. It's a lot more of a frayed end, then a solid rope. There's a lot of people out there who are independent who voted "D" last time around. If you want to call "D's" then that's fine, but I happen to think that more of them voted for Obama because he was preaching about transparency & accountability between blaiming everything on W and sayign he'd end all the wars. I think people voted for him because they were sick of the same old BS republicans, and the TEA Party & Occupy are both a confirmation that people are unhappy with his performance. In my simple little opinion I think many of those independent voters are actively looking for a person to lead this nation and just about everyone out there can find something they can agree with RP on. Will it be enough to get the votes he needs for the white house? None of here really know and we're just speculating, but my hope is that he will, and I know he can't if people like myself don't vote for him so that what I intend to do.

 

[chizzle]

New Poll Places Ron Paul in the Lead In Iowa

I thought this article was appropriate, as it is an example of that the OP suggests:

Breaking - New Iowa Poll Places Ron Paul Firmly in First Place w/25% | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty

 

[Zoub]

What were all these people doing in your mother's basement?

Smoking pot and having and orgy, but it is rude of you to ask.

 

[88GT]

It does change things. Again, if you think "Democrat" is interchangeable with "Leftist" then the conversation is a non-starter.

You would know. You consistently and repeatedly create connections and relationships where none exist.

 

[88GT]

I think you're both painting with some pretty broad brushes and lumping everyone into single groups. It's a lot more of a frayed end, then a solid rope. There's a lot of people out there who are independent who voted "D" last time around. If you want to call "D's" then that's fine, but I happen to think that more of them voted for Obama because he was preaching about transparency & accountability between blaiming everything on W and sayign he'd end all the wars. I think people voted for him because they were sick of the same old BS republicans, and the TEA Party & Occupy are both a confirmation that people are unhappy with his performance. In my simple little opinion I think many of those independent voters are actively looking for a person to lead this nation and just about everyone out there can find something they can agree with RP on. Will it be enough to get the votes he needs for the white house? None of here really know and we're just speculating, but my hope is that he will, and I know he can't if people like myself don't vote for him so that what I intend to do.

I don't, but apparently someone else does. And it's exactly because such 'logic' is both stupid and inane that I have problem with the conclusion.

I voted R last time. That doesn't make me a Republican.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's one for the Paul supporters. The CS Monitor has picked up on the fact that Paul is in the #2 slot in Iowa, essentially a dead heat between the top 3. He's got more than a bit of momentum and people may just put him over the top, come caucus day. I think that much will depend on which way the dem voters go, since they essentially have no-one to vote for.

Ron Paul's strength in Iowa shows it's too soon to write him off - CSMonitor.com

 

[rambone]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppbPSm4MAxg[/ame]

 

[rambone]

Another Obama voter has been converted because of Ron Paul's defense of civil liberties.


After Getting Groped By The TSA, I May Just Vote For Ron Paul

I've disagreed with some of Ron Paul's economic views (I think getting rid of the Fed and rapidly transitioning to a new gold standard would create many unintended consequences, and harm middle class folks who don't have any exposure to precious metals; their savings are in US-dollar denominated bank accounts) -- despite this, he is the ONLY CANDIDATE who seems to care that our civil rights have been egregiously rolled back over the past decade. This alone makes him worth my vote. And I can't in good conscience vote for President Obama's re-election.

 

[88GT]

Another Obama voter has been converted because of Ron Paul's defense of civil liberties.


After Getting Groped By The TSA, I May Just Vote For Ron Paul

And whom do you think said former-Obama supporter will support in the multitude of other races in which he will cast his vote? Does it matter at all that he didn't care enough in the first place to recognize the danger until he became a victim of it? I question the intelligence and/or political awareness of people who voted for Obama because they believed his hype and are now jumping ship over superficial, single-issue rationales.

What good does it do to support Paul in one breath if in the next he's going to vote to give Pelosi her Speakership back?

 

[rambone]

And whom do you think said former-Obama supporter will support in the multitude of other races in which he will cast his vote?

I have no idea.

Does it matter at all that he didn't care enough in the first place to recognize the danger until he became a victim of it?

No.

I question the intelligence and/or political awareness of people who voted for Obama because they believed his hype and are now jumping ship over superficial, single-issue rationales.

Me too.

What good does it do to support Paul in one breath if in the next he's going to vote to give Pelosi her Speakership back?

What good is it? It wins Paul his election.

The GOP will have to put up another candidate who cares about amendments 4-8 if they would like to retain these swing voters.

 

[88GT]

I have no idea.


No.


Me too.


What good is it? It wins Paul his election.

The GOP will have to put up another candidate who cares about amendments 4-8 if they would like to retain these swing voters.

His election?