Persuading Republican Boneheads to Vote for Ron Paul

[Hickory]

Jan. 16, 2012

To All:

Here is the line of reasoning I use to persuade boneheaded mainstream Republicans who "don't want to waste their vote," to vote for Ron Paul. I simply make the following points, in the indicated order:

(1) Since Ron Paul supporters are twenty to thirty percent of the Republican Party, and perhaps more if the votes were counted fairly, no Republican candidate can win without them.

(2) Since Ron Paul supporters believe that if Ron Paul doesn't win, we lose the country to tyranny, they aren't going to vote for anyone else.

(3) Result: any Republican who votes for a candidate other than Ron Paul wastes his vote.

(4) Therefore a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

The above method of arguing works so well that if its use were to become widespread, I would begin to have a slim hope that Ron Paul might actually win.

Try it and see how it works for you.

[Dan74]

Embrace his drug views, ignore everything else. Great plan!

[Hickory]

Now that's funny. Post something that makes a bit of sense, and they immediately turn out all the inmates at the asylums!

I can't wait to see what's going to pop up next!

[LetThereBe]

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about Ron Paul.

I agree with his approach on drugs and war. I agree with his opposition to the Patriot Act and NDAA.
Most of the things I do disagree with he seems to want to leave to the states.

I feel I am not well versed enough to determine whether his economic policies would be beneficial or not overall.

In general... he feels like the only candidate (and perhaps only politician) that is actually different. I actually feel he is honest and trustworthy. Whether or not his policies would be best for the country, I find myself trusting that he will be consistent with what he campaigns on.



I guess thinking about it I support him despite that uncertainty... if for no other reason than NDAA. There is no way I can support Obama after he signed it, and no other Republican candidate is respectable.

[Chris the Chees]

The only people who understand basic economics and history less than Ron Paul are his supporters. Paul's ideas went out of date back in the 19th century.

[Hickory]

Jan. 16, 2012

To LetThereBe:

I share your concerns about the NDAA. It made explicit what had been implicit before: that the government of the United States now reserves unto itself the privilege of snatching U.S. citizens off the streets or out of their homes at its discretion, on the basis of unproven suspicions. The victims have no right to an attorney, no right to a speedy trial or, indeed, to any trial at all, no right to face their accusers in a public venue, or hear the charges, or see the evidence against them. Indeed, they don't even have the right to ever be seen or heard from again. And, tellingly, when Obama originally threatened to veto the legislation, the reason given was that he had all those powers already, and resented the implication that he needed the permission of congress to do such things!

That's not acceptable. And the fact that all of the Republicans except Ron Paul think it is acceptable disqualifies them not merely from the presidency, but from any other office of public trust where the oath of office requires that they swear to "uphold, preserve, and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic."

Evidently they all think the Bill of Rights isn't part of the Constitution!

Well, it is, and that's why the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters wouldn't spit on any of them if their hair was on fire. It is a literal truth that if Ron Paul isn't elected President, we lose the country, and any Republican who casts a vote for anyone else might as well be voting for Obama.

[Dismay]

With Ron Paul you have to weigh the bad with the good. You will most likely conclude that he at times is the most sane person in the room, then you realise he is in a room full of neocons and it isnt really saying much.

I do agree him more that Obama or any of the GOP candidates but I don't agree with him nearly enough to vote for him. Ill just make a list.

Agree
1) Drug policy
2) I know im gonna get shit for this... Economics
3) Foreign Policy
4) Corpratism = Soft Fascism
5) Protection of Liberties

What the fuck are you thinking Paul?
1) Abortion
2) Creationism
3) His idea that facism on the state level is somehow better than when it is on the federal level.
4) National Borders
5) No Amnesty for migrants
6) Ending Birth Right Citizenship
7) Flat tax

[Hickory]

Jan. 16, 2012

To Dismay:

I share all of your points of agreement with Ron Paul, but not all of your points of disagreement. However, none of that really matters. What does matter is this: if you plan to vote in this presidential election cycle, either in the primaries or the general election, you have only two choices: you either vote for Ron Paul, or you vote for Obama.

Do you understand that?

[The Decider]

[b](2) Since Ron Paul supporters believe that if Ron Paul doesn't win, we lose the country to tyranny, they aren't going to vote for anyone else.

As a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, I sincerely hope that Paulistas make good on their threat to stay home in November or vote for a third party candidate if Romney is the Republican nominee. It would drive the last nail in the Teabagger coffin.

[oades11]

Not sure how you can disagree with Ron Pauls view on flat tax, yet agree with his economic stance..

[dirk90]

Jan. 16, 2012

To All:

Here is the line of reasoning I use to persuade boneheaded mainstream Republicans who "don't want to waste their vote," to vote for Ron Paul. I simply make the following points, in the indicated order:

(1) Since Ron Paul supporters are twenty to thirty percent of the Republican Party, and perhaps more if the votes were counted fairly, no Republican candidate can win without them.

(2) Since Ron Paul supporters believe that if Ron Paul doesn't win, we lose the country to tyranny, they aren't going to vote for anyone else.

(3) Result: any Republican who votes for a candidate other than Ron Paul wastes his vote.

(4) Therefore a vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

The above method of arguing works so well that if its use were to become widespread, I would begin to have a slim hope that Ron Paul might actually win.

Try it and see how it works for you.

You actually realize that the argument. You have to vote for him because his followers won't vote for anyone else is not really working out right?

[Meleagar]

Ron Paul is the right's version of Obama. He's too extreme to be good for the country, even if he is a strict constitutionalist. The only difference between electing him and Obama is he would screw up the country in a radically different way than Obama currently is.