Paul in 2012?

Zyphlin · 02-12-09, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Yes, insult the voters. That's a winning strategy.

Just to point out, while I wouldn't say stupid, I do think "ignorant" to a point fits.

Yes, many people will do a cursory amount of research into issues. Many however will simply listen to debates and the news and what they hear is what they go off of.

MOST people in the U.S. do not go deep into online research, reading academic journals about an issue or searching out books or articles by respected experts in fields every presidential election. It just doesn't happen. That is different than being completely uniformed, or being stupid. They get information, they just get it generally from a very narrow amount of sources...generally whatever their prime news source is, debates, and word of mouth from other people.

Ron Paul has issues with explaining things in such a way that someone who isn't well read up on the issues he's talking about can easily understand it. Its not that their stupid, its that they don't have the previous information to really work off it. Ignorant, in the most technical and not insulting form of the word.

Lets say you get into a government agency. I can tell you from experience, your first few weeks in you can feel completely confused as people spit out acroynyms and talk about things in terms completely over your head. You KIND of get what they're talking about, but it comes so fast with context of things you just don't grasp that it goes in one ear out another. Now, to those within this agency for a while, who know the acroynms, who know the procedures that are common, it may make perfect sense.

Same thing with Ron Paul. He doesn't talk economics like you'd talk it to a person on the street, he talks it like you're talking to a college economics class. He talks about reduction of government in a sense that a group of political science or major political junkies will get what he's saying, but in such stark ways that the average person is taken aback by it.

Communication is the key, as evident by the biggest wins for both parties in the past 40 years was from candidates viewed as some of their strongest communicators ever. Communication, on a national scale, is just too much of a vice for Paul.

Harry Guerrilla · 02-12-09, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

I really think you underestimate people. A large part of the population tries to find out at least a basic amount about politics and the world. They may not come to the same conclusions as you, but that doesn't mean they're stupid.

Besides, is insulting people really a winning way to change their minds?

The handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time.

A lot of times basic information isn't enough to fully grasp the consequences of the actions representatives will take.

People have deciding that voting themselves largess from the public treasury is the course of action they want to take. We have been warned repeatedly that when this happens is it only a matter of time before things devolve into more madness.

I'm not going to gamble the lives of my wife and children on the hope that I can change the minds of people who think more government benefits are good for everyone.

The facts have already been presented to the people, they choose to ignore them or not believe they are true. What else is left to do but say "Ok, you want it that way fine. When it is over you will see the mess you have made."

How do you plan to share the burden of 53 trillion + dollars of debt the government currently holds?

Zyphlin · 02-12-09, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARealConservative

This is how I see it as well.

Most of American is stupid, and sadly the same applies to this forum.

But the message is gaining strength because nobody actually wins debates against the message.

One poster in this very thread even stopped responding to the debate because he was losing it so poorly. No army can stop an idea who's time has come. The keynesians are flopping all over the place with failed ideas and it will only get worse for them.

^---- outside of Paul's own flaws, **** like this from too vocal of a group (I honestly can't tell if its a vocal minority or if its just the actual majority) is also going to add into it. The "You're an idiot or you agree with me" or "You're ****ing sheeple if you don't like Dr. Paul" or "Obvious you're just stupid since you can't see our perfect unequiviocal logic" type attitude displayed by this group of Paul supporteres is one of the largest things, along with the tin foil hat crowd within his following, that will likely continue to hurt him on a national scale.

Zyphlin · 02-12-09, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Wait, are you saying that your "message" is perfect, and no one can beat it? I'm confused. Also, please stop insulting the American people. For all the hype of Liberal Elitist Snobs, it seems like conservatives that seem to insult the voters the most.

While I won't go as far as ARC, in general the american population is only mildly educated about Politics. Yes, they have some understanding of things...and to their credit generally more so during election seasons...but its generally at a very basic level. The news (however they get it be it print, TV, radio, or net), debates, and word of mouth. Even during election season, I honestly do believe if you called up 100 people completely at random and asked them if they've done even say 5 hours of additional research into stances and information about candidates in the election you'd only get maybe a 25-40% response of "yes" and that 40 is probably being generous.

There's a different between completely uninformed, average informed, and well informed. I'm not saying the average voter is completely uninformed...I'm saying the average voter in general doesn't have much beyond a general grasp on most issues unless they have one particular pet one.

Part of it is cyclical as well. If you don't have some actual decent knowledge of economics, its very difficult to read up on in depth articles or things about economics.

ARealConservative · 02-12-09, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

^---- outside of Paul's own flaws, **** like this from too vocal of a group (I honestly can't tell if its a vocal minority or if its just the actual majority) is also going to add into it. The "You're an idiot or you agree with me" or "You're ****ing sheeple if you don't like Dr. Paul" or "Obvious you're just stupid since you can't see our perfect unequiviocal logic" type attitude displayed by this group of Paul supporteres is one of the largest things, along with the tin foil hat crowd within his following, that will likely continue to hurt him on a national scale.

People hate to be on the losing side of a debate. Some people change their position to rectify this axiom, others just run from the debate to fit this axiom or remain stubborn because they may not like the arrogance of the winning side.

Either way, I'm pretty happy with they way things are trending for the freedom movement.

ARealConservative · 02-12-09, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Wait, are you saying that your "message" is perfect, and no one can beat it? I'm confused. Also, please stop insulting the American people. For all the hype of Liberal Elitist Snobs, it seems like conservatives that seem to insult the voters the most.

nothing is perfect. Obots may seek a perfect utopia but they will fall far short.

My views are based on logic, not emotion and hyperbole, so they test out well in intellectual debates.

Ikari · 02-12-09, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Not at all.

Its nothing against Paul's message, he just simply does not have the charisma nor the speaking ability and political savvy to put his ideas across as intelligent and helpful instead of over the top and crack pot to the average mainstream nation wide audience.

I do believe he'll have a far stronger showing in the primaries in 2012 if he runs again though, and I think it'll continue in the correct direction for the republican party to a point. The hope for Paul's ideology is him inspiring and helping to create a charismatic, younger, person with his ideals but the ability to explain them in a way that appeals to the masses and helps them understand it.

He also has the habit of just coming right out and saying what he things and wants to do in a no nonsense sort of way. Most politicians try to leave wiggle room in their rhetoric so depending on the crowd, they can tailor their speech. Ron Paul doesn't do this, he speaks his mind clearly and bluntly and in the end that may actually hurt him. One because then he automatically sets up some groups which will be against him. Another in that the other politicians will twist and turn and deceive in every way possible to mischaracterize what Paul says. He's too straight forward, but I do hope that he will bring forth a candidate similar to him that can lead us out of this Republocrat crapfest we have going for ourselves currently.

Zyphlin · 02-12-09, 12:29 PM

Actually here...possibly a better way to express this.

I'll go off the 2002 census info as I can find it easiest at the moment. Likely it didn't make a giant double digit shift in 6 years.

80% of people in the U.S. at this time had graduated from High School or had a GED

21% had taken college courses but not graduated

15.5% had earned a bachelors degree

8.9% earned a graduate degree

(So ~40% having college experience, with 24.4% graduating)

Now, while education doesn't in an of itself determine or indicate someones education, it'll be a good tool here to explain what I'm talking about.

If you talk about these issues on a general "high school" level you would likely have a far greater amount of the population understanding your ideas and then possibly making a positive decision about them. If you talk about these issues on a general "College" level you would likely have far LESS doing this.

Ron Paul has a tendancy to talk to people as if everyone is a college educated academic who had numerous classes in economics and political science. Because of this, he has a tendancy to talk over peoples heads or explain things in ways that don't ACTUALLY explain it to people who don't have a decent grasp of whats being talked about to begin with. Additionally, the more in depth, specific, and specialized you talk about a subject the longer you end up having to talk about it. The longer you talk about it the more difficult it is to fit into a debate, the more difficult it is to fit into a news clip, and the more difficult it is to stick in peoples minds or keep them interested the entire way through.

Truly great communicators and speakers are able to take a complex issue, break it down into simple terms, and explain it succinctly. Paul does not have this ability from all I've seen.

niftydrifty · 02-12-09, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Could Ron Paul get the nomination in 2012? I think it's possible. Let's imagine for the sake of argument that Obama is very popular coming up to the 2012 election. It is possible and perhaps likely that the big hitters in the party will sit out, keeping their powder dry for 2016. Historically, incumbent presidents attract weak opposition. I could see most of the big hitters sitting out, leading to a weak, fragmented field in 2012. Ron Paul has proven that he has a very devoted group of supporters. Am I the only one that could see a primary with depressed turnout, where Ron Paul's devoted base carries him through? What do you all think?

no way, no how. Paul is against moneyed interests and corporatism. you have to be with them, in order to get a major-party nomination.

Harry Guerrilla · 02-12-09, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

Actually here...possibly a better way to express this.

I'll go off the 2002 census info as I can find it easiest at the moment. Likely it didn't make a giant double digit shift in 6 years.

80% of people in the U.S. at this time had graduated from High School or had a GED

21% had taken college courses but not graduated

15.5% had earned a bachelors degree

8.9% earned a graduate degree

(So ~40% having college experience, with 24.4% graduating)

Now, while education doesn't in an of itself determine or indicate someones education, it'll be a good tool here to explain what I'm talking about.

If you talk about these issues on a general "high school" level you would likely have a far greater amount of the population understanding your ideas and then possibly making a positive decision about them. If you talk about these issues on a general "College" level you would likely have far LESS doing this.

Ron Paul has a tendancy to talk to people as if everyone is a college educated academic who had numerous classes in economics and political science. Because of this, he has a tendancy to talk over peoples heads or explain things in ways that don't ACTUALLY explain it to people who don't have a decent grasp of whats being talked about to begin with. Additionally, the more in depth, specific, and specialized you talk about a subject the longer you end up having to talk about it. The longer you talk about it the more difficult it is to fit into a debate, the more difficult it is to fit into a news clip, and the more difficult it is to stick in peoples minds or keep them interested the entire way through.

Truly great communicators and speakers are able to take a complex issue, break it down into simple terms, and explain it succinctly. Paul does not have this ability from all I've seen.

Your post certainly makes the case for limiting who can vote.

Some things take more than a general understanding to make sense.
If you don't have the brain power to understand then they just shouldn't vote and we could rectify the situation we are in.

02-12-09, 12:29 PM	#28
Zyphlin Change we can laugh at Mod team member Join Date: Jul 2005 Last Seen: Today 02:43 PM Location: Herndon, Va Posts: 12,517 Thanks: 5,828 Thanked 7,659 Times in 4,227 Posts Lean: Conservative Gender: Total Awards: 1	Re: Paul in 2012? Actually here...possibly a better way to express this. I'll go off the 2002 census info as I can find it easiest at the moment. Likely it didn't make a giant double digit shift in 6 years. 80% of people in the U.S. at this time had graduated from High School or had a GED 21% had taken college courses but not graduated 15.5% had earned a bachelors degree 8.9% earned a graduate degree (So ~40% having college experience, with 24.4% graduating) Now, while education doesn't in an of itself determine or indicate someones education, it'll be a good tool here to explain what I'm talking about. If you talk about these issues on a general "high school" level you would likely have a far greater amount of the population understanding your ideas and then possibly making a positive decision about them. If you talk about these issues on a general "College" level you would likely have far LESS doing this. Ron Paul has a tendancy to talk to people as if everyone is a college educated academic who had numerous classes in economics and political science. Because of this, he has a tendancy to talk over peoples heads or explain things in ways that don't ACTUALLY explain it to people who don't have a decent grasp of whats being talked about to begin with. Additionally, the more in depth, specific, and specialized you talk about a subject the longer you end up having to talk about it. The longer you talk about it the more difficult it is to fit into a debate, the more difficult it is to fit into a news clip, and the more difficult it is to stick in peoples minds or keep them interested the entire way through. Truly great communicators and speakers are able to take a complex issue, break it down into simple terms, and explain it succinctly. Paul does not have this ability from all I've seen.
	__________________ Political buy outs, "my way or the highway" attitude, ignoring of rules and traditions because it suits your purpose... Yep, gotta love the "Change from politics as usual" in this "post-partisan" era.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zyphlin For This Useful Post:
Goldenboy219, Joby

The Following User Says Thank You to Zyphlin For This Useful Post:
RightinNYC

The Following User Says Thank You to Zyphlin For This Useful Post:
Harry Guerrilla

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ikari For This Useful Post:
Ethereal, Harry Guerrilla

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to niftydrifty For This Useful Post:
ARealConservative, Harry Guerrilla