$50,000?

Are they retarded? It's not Danny Bona-farking-duce, it's Roy Jones.

Oh, yeah, they are retarded.

And the Paulistinians STILL don't realize that lots of signs and other such shiat will not get their darling candidate elected, probably because many of them are rather lacking in the social graces.

Durendal: And the Paulistinians STILL don't realize that lots of signs and other such shiat will not get their darling candidate elected, probably because many of them are rather lacking in the social graces.

How about because their candidate apparently walked right out of the 19th century? The "We The People" act alone is more than enough reason for him to never hold another political office again.

Durendal: And the Paulistinians STILL don't realize that lots of signs and other such shiat will not get their darling candidate elected, probably because many of them are rather lacking in the social graces.

Yea, keep dissing the Paul supporters. IIRC they make up about 6-8% of the GOP last time I checked. (Allot of RP supporters come from the Dems as well.) Then when the GOP looses the election to the Dems by a small margin they will wonder what happened.

Alienating 8% of ones party, when elections lately have frequently been very close, is not the brightest of ideas. All the GOP is doing is driving these voters closer to RP or to other third party candidates. Instead of one of the other candidates trying to attract these voters, they are slitting their throats and driving them elsewhere.

Personally, I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I supported Paul at one time, if only he could be slightly watered down. Also, his campaign has been hijacked by lunatics.

But what happens if Roy Jones loses the fight?

sarcastrophe: But what happens if Roy Jones loses the fight?

Paulistinians would pay for a recount and/or declare that Roy Jones would have won if it weren't for the evil corporo-boxing establishment keeping him from getting his fair due.

Durendal [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-18 12:05:08 AM
And the Paulistinians STILL don't realize that lots of signs and other such shiat will not get their darling candidate elected, probably because many of them are rather lacking in the social graces.

This thread sums it up pretty well. (new window)

Rob Rob is offline
Senior Member

About:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 432

"How to Beat the "He Can't Win Mentality""

All of you are approaching this from the wrong angle. You're trying to use logic to explain irrational people. I've made this mistake several times and it has cost me horribly.

To soundly beat the "he can't win problem" all you have to do is trick them into thinking he is winning. This is much easier done than you think. Remember, we're dealing with idiots here, so you don't have to present a logical argument. In fact a logical argument is virtually useless with these people. We simply need to create the perception everywhere that he is winning, and then he will be winning because everyone thinks he's winning.

So here are my suggestions for how to trick many people into thinking Ron Paul is winning.

1) Get signs up everywhere as much as possible. I don't mean in just the days before the election. I mean RIGHT NOW. If people see Ron Paul signs everywhere, and only Ron Paul signs, it will begin to convince them that he's more important and viable.

2) Tell everyone that he's won the past 9 or 10 debates or however, many it has been. For those that don't watch them, this usually impresses.

3)Talk about how much money he has raised. Make sure you say that he has raised more money than all the other Republican candidates in the 4th quarter.

4)In a similar thread on the Michigan forum, jdmetz suggested we just tell the people in whatever state you are in that we're expecting Paul to win that state. The beauty of this is that after the primary that voter won't get another chance to vote.

Just keep hammering these points home, and always talk in the language of winning, even if at times it may be slightly deceptive. The one thing we can't change is the previous primary results. If confronted with that, tell them that they only account for about 4% of the delegates so they don't really matter.

If anyone has any other good ones please suggest them.

-----------------

Head Coordinator Washtenaw County

Chairman University of Michigan for Ron Paul
www.michigan4ronpaul.com/umich
Co-organizer Ann Arbor Meetup
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/714/?gj=sj3
Reply With Quote

"Hey Guys, I just realized what the problem was! Instead of trying to use rational arguments, we should be working harder on our spam tactics! It'll work too, because people are idiots. Why else wouldn't they vote for Ron Paul?
The funny thing is the how all the Rondroids on Fark have pretty much been following this dogma to the letter since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy.

schrodinger:

Have you ever witnessed an entire city jumping on the bandwagon of a successful local sports franchise? Or high school kids? Or anyone that watches Entertainment Tonight, Oprah, etc?

The bandwagon/mob-mentality/peer pressure is the easiest way to persuade someone to do something that doesn't make sense (I'm not commenting on Paul here, just the tactic)



The problem is once people recognize someone telling them what to think, they naturally rebel if only to preserve their independence

schrodinger: The funny thing is the how all the Rondroids on Fark have pretty much been following this dogma to the letter since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy

If you don't like Paul for president, you don't have to vote for him. But even 5% of the republican vote is a noteworthy amount (not significant... just noteworthy). I'm a Paul supporter that said, from the moment that he announced his candidacy, that he has no chance of getting the nomination.

I like the ideas, so I support the candidate. If anything, I should be praised for standing up for my ideals in the face of ridicule, even knowing that he has no chance in hell of winning.

I know damned well I'm in the minority and have no chance for some vindication that the rabid Paul supporters seem to believe in, but that doesn't mean people can judge me by someone else's actions.

I understand that most people on the intertubes are generally anti-paul, and I understand why. I find a lot of that crap annoying, too. Unfortunately, I still agree with the principles.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: To argue that the Department of Education isn't necessary is a losing proposition and just makes you a crazy man.

Please explain why the FEDERAL Dept. of Education is a good thing.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: No, you shwould be ridiculed for choosing a candidate that has no chance of winning. I like Hillary because I think she will win and be a good President. You like Paul because he was no chance in hell of winning and are wasting your time and vote. What will that accomplish, other than giving you an excuse for all time whenever something goes wrong under President Hillary?

7/10 -- because i almost wrote a rebuttal

schrodinger: Durendal [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-18 12:05:08 AM

"Hey Guys, I just realized what the problem was! Instead of trying to use rational arguments, we should be working harder on our spam tactics! It'll work too, because people are idiots. Why else wouldn't they vote for Ron Paul?
The funny thing is the how all the Rondroids on Fark have pretty much been following this dogma to the letter since Ron Paul first announced his candidacy.

Actually there are some good arguments to be made for RP's positions and many people are out there doing just that. But as the media barely covers him, his supporters come up with creative approaches to get the word out.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Otherwise, how would be pay for education? That's the way it's been done as long as I can remember.

Schools are financed at the state and local level, not the federal level.

sarcastrophe2008-01-18 02:57:46 AM

If you don't like Paul for president, you don't have to vote for him. But even 5% of the republican vote is a noteworthy amount (not significant... just noteworthy). I'm a Paul supporter that said, from the moment that he announced his candidacy, that he has no chance of getting the nomination.

Well, based on Rob's statement, even the people who proclaim that Ron Paul is winning don't think that he's winning. You're just a little more honest about it. But there are too many Rondroids who droned on and on about "Well, I see signs everywhere for Ron Paul!!!! Why don't I see signs for any of the other candidate? Because they're going down, that's why!"

I like the ideas, so I support the candidate. If anything, I should be praised for standing up for my ideals in the face of ridicule, even knowing that he has no chance in hell of winning.

I know damned well I'm in the minority and have no chance for some vindication that the rabid Paul supporters seem to believe in, but that doesn't mean people can judge me by someone else's actions.

Well, once you accept that your guy is losing, there are two basic attitudes you can take. a) "Well, I guess the count must not like Ron Paul. Maybe they have a legitimate reason for that. Maybe their choices/prices are different from my own.). b) "OMG, people are stupid!!!! That's why they won't vote for Ron Paul, because they're IDIOTS!!! We need to dumb everything down, in order to attract the DUMBASSES who won't vote for him! They're nanny state worshipping collectivists, and I'm sure that half of them are being paid off by the Neocons!!!"

Unfortunately, too many Ron Paul supporters fall into the second category, including the person I quoted. Which is exactly why they've managed to earn the ridicule of others.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: To argue for some 200-year-old interpretation of the Constitution just tells me that you really don't want to live in the 20th century. Hell, to even try to argue that freedom somehow comes from LESS government is just downright scary to me.

So you're on board with ignoring the 1st amendment and having a state religion?

justoneznot2008-01-18 03:05:41 AM

Actually there are some good arguments to be made for RP's positions and many people are out there doing just that. But as the media barely covers him, his supporters come up with creative approaches to get the word out.

What, you mean like offering a black celebrity to brand himself as their personal billboard? I'm shocked that that didn't go over better. It sounds almost as brilliant as the Ron Paul blimp idea, only 10,000 times more demeaning.

The problem with the Rondroids is that they thought that electing a president is the same thing as creating an internet meme. If you think you have a good argument, test it out. Let people see the results for themselves. The media isn't under any obligation to cover you just because you think that the story is important. Give them a reason to care.

In 1996, the Republican Party A 1997 survey conducted by Congressman Ron Paul found that 54% of his constituency wished to abolish the federal Department of Education.
USDE (new window)

schrodinger: Unfortunately, too many Ron Paul supporters fall into the second category, including the person I quoted. Which is exactly why they've managed to earn the ridicule of others.

I agree. I'm not out here calling anyone else stupid or ignorant because they don't agree. I'm just saying that this is what I believe in and I will vote as such. As I said, I knew damned well that from the get-go, there was no chance of a win. At the same time, I'd also consider myself lethargic if I didn't bother to actually support my beliefs.

Suicidal Writer2008-01-18 03:14:06 AM
In 1996, the Republican Party A 1997 survey conducted by Congressman Ron Paul found that 54% of his constituency wished to abolish the federal Department of Education.

Damn.

They also didn't seem to mind electing a confirmed racist. (And don't get started with your "but he denied it!" comments. They elected him in 1996 He didn't start denying it until 2001.).

Recall all Repuglikkkans: ??? I point out the sillyness of arguing for a 200-year-old interpretation and you respond with a strawman about an interpretation that no one has ever suggested. Try again, kimosabe.

That isn't what I asked. Which parts of the Constitution are acceptable to ignore?

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Um, then what does all the money that goes to the Department of Education do if it's not for education?

I don't know. Do you? Federal standardized testing oversight for the schools would be my first guess. I'd rather my locality have control over what is taught. At least then I'd have a voice in it.

schrodinger

The president of the NAACP would like a word with you. FOOL.

Suicidal Writer: That isn't what I asked. Which parts of the Constitution are acceptable to ignore?

The 9th amendment seems to be a popular choice.

/and the 13th
//and the 14th

Murkanen: The 9th amendment seems to be a popular choice.

/and the 13th
//and the 14th

Why do you hate states rights??? Go 10th!

schrodinger: They also didn't seem to mind electing a confirmed racist. (And don't get started with your "but he denied it!" comments. They elected him in 1996 He didn't start denying it until 2001.).

Actually Paul said he opposed racism in 1996. What he didn't reveal until later, as per his campaign advisers, was that someone else wrote them.

sarcastrophe: Federal standardized testing oversight for the schools would be my first guess. I'd rather my locality have control over what is taught.

You realize that the reason why America keeps winding up in the news for being Creationist central is because localities do have control over what is taught, right?

I'd also like to point out that Texas has more influence than the DoE in regards to textbooks and the like due to the fact that the manufacturers decided to accomodate the lowest common denominator it is better to print a single book than it is to print one version for Texas and another for the rest of the country.

sarcastrophe: Why do you hate states rights??? Go 10th!

Ahh yes, thanks for reminding me. People like to ignore the second half of the 10th amendment as well.

/and the first half of the 2nd.

Raptor_1.4G2008-01-18 03:19:34 AM

The president of the NAACP would like a word with you. FOOL.

Oh, you mean Dennis Courtland Hayes, Interim President of the NAACP? That guy? Does he have a statement? Was he speaking on behalf of the organization? Is there an official press release I can look at?

Or is this part of the "But Ron Paul has black friends!" meme that's been going round, in reference to the Austin Chapter President speaking on behalf of himself on a truther radio station and giving his personal opinion on Ron Paul?

Because Austin Chapter President =/= NAACP President.

Son of God: You seem a little full of yourself. We can all support the candidate we want, but I don't think you should be praised just because you support an obscure one.

And in the specific case of Ron Paul, I think you should be insulted.

I beg to differ. Every person should be praised for supporting their beliefs. I could say the same about you and whichever candidate you support. But you are free to beleive what you wish, and I respect that, even if we disagree.

I came here for funny pictures of Ron Paul. I leave disappointed.

Murkanen: You realize that the reason why America keeps winding up in the news for being Creationist central is because localities do have control over what is taught, right?

Yes, I know. And it is sad. First off, I'm an atheist, so trying to pin the creationist crap on me isn't going to work. I understand that localities can make bad decisions regarding education, but who are you going to complain to if huckster were to get in office and force ID on the entire nation? At least if it weren't federal, we'd still have hope.

schrodinger2008-01-18 03:28:36 AM
Or is this part of the "But Ron Paul has black friends!" meme

Whoopse, wrong link.

Suicidal Writer: In 1996, the Republican Party A 1997 survey conducted by Congressman Ron Paul found that 54% of his constituency wished to abolish the federal Department of Education.
USDE (new window)

A survey of a small congressional district in Texas isn't exactly representative of the country as a whole.

sarcastrophe: Recall all Repuglikkkans: Um, then what does all the money that goes to the Department of Education do if it's not for education?

I don't know. Do you? Federal standardized testing oversight for the schools would be my first guess. I'd rather my locality have control over what is taught. At least then I'd have a voice in it.

I'd be okay with my local govt deciding what will be taught, but damn I would feel sorry (even more than I already do) for kids that were unfortunate enough to be born somewhere like Mississippi or other backwater religious areas. Sex education, science and evolution? All tools of the devil that have no place in classrooms!

Suicidal Writer2008-01-18 03:21:12 AM

Actually Paul said he opposed racism in 1996. What he didn't reveal until later, as per his campaign advisers, was that someone else wrote them.

He said he wasn't racist, and then defended his racist writings.

Basically, "I'm not a racist, but... what do you think of them fleet footed black people?"

FuriousGeorge945: I'd be okay with my local govt deciding what will be taught, but damn I would feel sorry (even more than I already do) for kids that were unfortunate enough to be born somewhere like Mississippi or other backwater religious areas. Sex education, science and evolution? All tools of the devil that have no place in classrooms!

I hear ya. I think it sucks for them, too. But I'm not about forcing my religious beliefs (even if they are based on reality) on a bunch of people I don't know or care about. I'd hope that one day they figured it out, but and the end of the day, it's a state decision, not a federal one.

sarcastrophe: First off, I'm an atheist,

That's lovely, really, but I fail to see what that has to do with my point that the curriculum controlled at the local level.

so trying to pin the creationist crap on me isn't going to work.

Oh, so you brought up the fact you're an atheist because you misunderstood my point completely. That clarifies things up a bit.

but who are you going to complain to if huckster were to get in office and force ID on the entire nation?

The fact that being a creationist actually increases your chances of being elected in the US saddens me more than the idea of having an actual national curriculum.

sarcastrophe: But I'm not about forcing my religious beliefs (even if they are based on reality) on a bunch of people I don't know or care about.

...teaching the facts of the world isn't "forcing" your (lack of) religious beliefs on anyone.

Murkanen: sarcastrophe: First off, I'm an atheist,

That's lovely, really, but I fail to see what that has to do with my point that the curriculum controlled at the local level.

so trying to pin the creationist crap on me isn't going to work.

Oh, so you brought up the fact you're an atheist because you misunderstood my point completely. That clarifies things up a bit.

but who are you going to complain to if huckster were to get in office and force ID on the entire nation?

The fact that being a creationist actually increases your chances of being elected in the US saddens me more than the idea of having an actual national curriculum.

I was just pointing out that I'm not some creationist that believes creation (or Intelligent Design, in this century) should be taught in schools. I'm more afraid that some president/congress would get in charge of the Federal DoE and force creationism science (yes, contradiction) on the previously held state curriculum.

It's simply not a federal matter in my mind.

Murkanen: ...teaching the facts of the world isn't "forcing" your (lack of) religious beliefs on anyone.

Yeah... I view it as science. And I conform to the definition of science that excludes supernatural belief. I just don't think you can lead by forcing it on people. Eventually, I hope, people will figure it out.

Recall all Repuglikkkans2008-01-18 03:39:36 AM

Forget that. He actually said he doesn't think in terms of groups and then started talking about how people were out to get him because "the blacks" were now supporting him. Ignoring the stupidity of believing that African-Americans would support a racist like that, to contradict yourself in the span of 1 minutes is just pathetic.

Not to mention the fact that the entire premise is bullshiat. "I can't be a racist, because I'm a libertarian, and libertarians are incapable of racism!!!" Seriously? Because I figured that a libertarian, who believes in liberty, should be capable of just about anything. It's like watching a raving alcoholic insist that he doesn't have a drinking problem, because he's incapable of getting drunk. The fact that he won't even acknowledge the possibility of getting drunk puts his judgement into question.

I mean, seriously, WTF? And libertarians still repeat this hook, line, and sinker.

Oh, and I like what Cato had to say about Ron Paul:

And so it's understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

schrodinger: I mean, seriously, WTF? And libertarians still repeat this hook, line, and sinker.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I (as a libertarian) believe that every human being is an individual. That is more important to me than some collective that they belong to -- even the paultard collective.

Been there done that.

Now all the supporters need to do is buy a grill cheese sandwich with Ron Paul's face.

sarcastrophe2008-01-18 03:51:33 AM

I can't speak for anyone else, but I (as a libertarian) believe that every human being is an individual. That is more important to me than some collective that they belong to -- even the paultard collective.

So are you saying that you are mentally incapable of racism?

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hundreds of people gathered in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday as President Clinton and top lawmakers honored civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. "This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

So I'm confused. On the one hand, you have Ron Paul, saying that this medal goes against the spirit of Rosa Parks, and her fight for individual rights. On the other hand, you have Rosa Parks, saying that it's an encouragement for the fight for individual rights. So who's the bigger expert on what Rosa Parks would have thought on this matter? Ron Paul, or Rosa Parks?

Well, obviously, Ron paul is a doctor, and he referred to Rosa Parks as one of his heroes. So obviously, he knows Rosa Parks better than Rosa Parks knows Rosa Parks. Remember, he's the anti-racist, which makes him an expert on all things racial.

Also, it turns out that the medal wasn't tax payer funded. Whoopse. Way to stay on your game, Ron Paul.

You know it is bad if even the Cato Institute cannot say a kind word.

Recall all Repuglikkkans: sarcastrophe: Recall all Repuglikkkans: Otherwise, how would be pay for education? That's the way it's been done as long as I can remember.

Schools are financed at the state and local level, not the federal level.

Um, then what does all the money that goes to the Department of Education do if it's not for education?

The DoE gets $71b/year to tell the states how to run their schools. None of that $71b goes to funding schools.

From their webpage(www.ed.gov):

ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,500 employees and $71.5 billion budget are dedicated to:
• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

I think Ron has a responsibility to stop taking advantage of the mentally retarded.

gnasche:

The DoE gets $71b/year to tell the states how to run their schools.

Schools are controlled at the local level.

gnasche: Recall all Repuglikkkans: sarcastrophe: Recall all Repuglikkkans: Otherwise, how would be pay for education? That's the way it's been done as long as I can remember.

Schools are financed at the state and local level, not the federal level.

Um, then what does all the money that goes to the Department of Education do if it's not for education?

The DoE gets $71b/year to tell the states how to run their schools. None of that $71b goes to funding schools.

From their webpage(www.ed.gov):

ED was created in 1980 by combining offices from several federal agencies. ED's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. ED's 4,500 employees and $71.5 billion budget are dedicated to:
• Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
• Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
• Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
• Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

I could accomplish those goals with a staff of 500 and a budget of $1 billion.

Don't believe me? Give me the billion and let me try.