Help me debate my Mom and sister - RP related

[AlexM]

For number 1, I think the best argument to the "wasted vote" nonsense is to tell them that the only way to waste a vote is to vote for something other than what you support and that even if the candidate doesn't win, by receiving more support, other people will start taking that candidate's ideals more seriously and things are more likely to turn in that direction.

Also, you can say "hey, it's not like the election is going to come down to one vote anyway, so vote your heart," but that doesn't really work because the same logic suggests not bothering to vote at all. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

As for #2, if people believe in the standard "why we should kill Mid Easterners" propaganda, I have no idea how to deal with them. The best I can think of is to say that we've proven our point in response to 9/11 and they've learned their lesson and that we should pull out and tell them that if it happens again we'll be coming right back so knock it the hell off.

[theseus51]

You're supposed to vote for who you want to win. Not who the media says is supposed to win. Besides, voting for more of the same, is going to get you more of the same. If you think the way things are going now is just dandy, then yeah, vote for any of the other 15 candidates.

Besides, even if Ron Paul loses, if he gets a big percent, he could push the parties to his direction. Remember how Ross Perot made us focus more on the deficit? And Howard Dean pushed the Democratic party to being more anti-war? But if people just vote for the Bush-Clinton-Rudy-Obama machine, then everyone will just think "well, the people like our big government, welfare/warfare state, let's give them more of it". But if they see a huge percent against it, they might not be so eager to do so.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to convince my family why they need to vote for RP in the primary. My mom and sister both live in SC, and I am sure RP could use the help. I have highlighted all of RPs strong points that they would care about.
1. Locking down the borders. (This is actually my least fav. RP plank)
2. Fiscal conservatism.

Their counter is typical, but I need some strong argument against it.
1. Why should we vote for someone who can't win.
2. He wants to get rid of the Dept. of Homeland Security? What about the terrorists? I want someone invading my privacy because I don't have anything to hide, and hopefully they'll catch terrorists.

The simplest explanation is the best here. They are going to be up for listening to a long drawn out argument. It doesn't even really matter if the argument is valid or not, I just need a strong counter that will make them think voting for RP is a good idea.

gogogo!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell them what you must but if they're not satisfied just tell them to trust you and then STFU unless they want to praise him. Better yet send them to this forum and have them express their concern to the RP cheerleaders here to get the job done. Then you'll be in the clear and won't have to tell them to STFU if they're not praising him.

[slickss]

I think you will have a hard time convincing them of voting for Ron Paul if you've already tried and failed. Ron Paul is too extreme for most people, which is also his biggest concern for the election.

May I ask who they currently are thinking of voting for?

[Ron Burgundy]

Did your mom ever vote for Ronald Reagan? RP is much more similar to Reagan than any other candidate. He is the only one with actual specific plans to shrink the size of the federal govt.

The DHS has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists. What was so bad about our military and intelligence services that they couldn't protect us before? The purpose of DHS is to increase executive power, and create more buerocracy.

RP is the only candidate that wants to withdraw from the UN. The UN is a socialist organization that seeks power over every country in order to eventually create a world govt. RP strongly opposes anything that would override US sovereignty. That includes the WTO, NAFTA and the North American Union.

I think this is the argument I would use to convince them of RPs foreign policy: Our military is diluted all around the world. Meanwhile, the borders are wide open for terrorists to wander in. Every time we decide to be the police force of another country, we decrease our ability to police our own country.

RP has always voted against amnesty and any kind of welfare or subsidies for illegal immigrants. He wants to repeal the automatic birthright citizenship.

RP has never voted to spend any money out of the social security budget. He wants people to be able to opt out of ss and not have to pay ss taxes.

RP has been a strong opponent of the Real ID act, which attempted to create a national ID card.

RP wants to protect private property rghts. He opposes any kind of eminent domain.

RP opposes affirmative action, he voted to end aa for college admissions in 1997.

[maxtower]

[ QUOTE ]

The DHS has nothing to do with protecting us from terrorists. What was so bad about our military and intelligence services that they couldn't protect us before? The purpose of DHS is to increase executive power, and create more buerocracy.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty good angle. "Got to stay focused on a singular objective and not spread ourselves too thin. Bringing the military home to guard the borders....etc"

[iggymcfly]

1. On the "he can't win" thing, point out that no pro-war Republican can possibly win the election. 70% of the country is against the war in Iraq and they'll vote for the perceived anti-war candidate no matter what. (Even if in Hillary's case, she's going to do zero to actually end anything.) Say that Ron Paul's the only candidate who can actually win.

2. The second one's harder since she's so far off-base that she might be hard to straighten out. I think you might have to actually explain some things in-depth. Point out that the other Republican candidates are in favor of basically starting a war in Iran. If the United States (eventually) ends up occupying another country, it will spread the military to its absolute breaking point, making Americans less safe, and will also bring hatred of the US to record levels in the Muslim world. Point out that ideologies such as that of the Chinese are much more opposed to Islam than our own, but that we're hated due to our military industrial complex.

Say the only way we'll ever be safe is if we withdraw from these foreign entanglements and focus on protecting our own citizens. If you're committed to your views, and you spend enough time confidently repeating something rational, you can usually sway someone who just builds their views on what they see in the media. This doesn't work on an average person since you never get enough time, but on someone who you're close to, as soon as you get more time talking to them than they've had time watching the television, you can usually change their views.

[maxtower]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you will have a hard time convincing them of voting for Ron Paul if you've already tried and failed. Ron Paul is too extreme for most people, which is also his biggest concern for the election.

May I ask who they currently are thinking of voting for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Their current thoughts are to vote in the Democratic primary for someone besides Hillary in the hopes that she gets booted. I think the average Republican is really scared of her right now.

They admitted they don't have a huge republican preference right now, and are on board with RP's fiscal responsibility (they hate paying for everything) and his border policy. The biggest hurdles I have to overcome are the underdog thing and the terrorist thing. They are really scared of terrorists and want the government to do something about it.

Obviously I understand the flawed logic in only voting for the favorites, but its tough for me to explain.

Also its hard for me to describe how doing nothing as opposed to doing something is better for the terrorism problem. Remember its hard for to unwind social programming of many years filled with "America the Beautiful," and "One nation under god." They see America as the good guys and Arabs as bad guys. They want the US gov't to actively protect them.

[Ron Burgundy]

[ QUOTE ]
Their current thoughts are to vote in the Democratic primary for someone besides Hillary in the hopes that she gets booted. I think the average Republican is really scared of her right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. What do they think is so bad about Hillary? She's most similar to the neo-cons of any dem. She's said she would have no plans to withdraw troops from Iraq at least by the end her first term.

[maxtower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Their current thoughts are to vote in the Democratic primary for someone besides Hillary in the hopes that she gets booted. I think the average Republican is really scared of her right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this at all. What do they think is so bad about Hillary? She's most similar to the neo-cons of any dem. She's said she would have no plans to withdraw troops from Iraq at least by the end her first term.

[/ QUOTE ]

They don't think about it on this level. They just probably here how awful she is from their republican buddies. NeoCons have done a good job of fooling the masses into thinking that they spend less money than Democrats. Apparently all you have to do is lower taxes and borrow to make up the difference.

Its kind of funny because most uninformed Republicans I know hate Democrats because they spend too much money. In reality, both parties spend too much.

Uninformed Democrats that I meet are really typically concentrate on abortion laws which don't really impact the majority of Americans, at least not as much as fiscal policy.

Both parties have done excellent jobs at shifting concerns to unimportant issues, or blaming the other party for the important issue. They are covering up the fact that our gov't is corrupt, sells out to big business, and for the most part completely uninterested in working for the masses.