Help me debate my Mom and sister - RP related

[maxtower]

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!

[kidpokeher]

1. Ask them if they vote for the best candidate or the biggest loser they think will win? If they're really that much followers, tell them I'm convincing family out there to vote RP as well. All it takes is enough people making an effort.

2. Tell your sister I said she looks pretty hot.

[Phil153]

For 2., convince them that the War on Terror is a lie, and have them ponder the fact that terrorist threat before 9/11 was no different to that in 2002.

Also have them realize that other countries dealt with far worse terror threats before without fascist policies.

Also mention that the greatest terrorist threat is caused by US policies in the middle east, including downright evil meddling in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries.

For bonus points, get them to realize that Osama's attack on the US had greater moral legitimacy than the US invasion of Iraq, by almost any objective standards, and that Americans - and the women themselves, through their taxes and support of corrupt politicians and policies - are supporting the actions of murderers. Really hammer that home.

Get them to realize that Ron Paul is the solution to these problems.

Of course, please don't mention the fact that he's a crackpot with no (edit: few) credible plans. Since they don't seem to realize that, what they don't know won't hurt them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ALawPoker]

1.) "Well, he CAN win. He has been hovering around 6-9% on prediction markets, which speaks for itself. This is a question you shouldn't even be asking yourself anyways. The point isn't to guess who other people might be voting for and act accordingly; the point is to diligently find the best guy. What's the point of necessarily picking someone who wins anyways? That seems to defeat a lot of the point behind making your voice heard."

2.) "He doesn't want to up and get rid of it; he wants to work towards phasing out that department, in addition to other departments he thinks create wasteful spending, such as the dept. of education, because he thinks the goal of what these departments are intended for will be best met when you remove the barrier of centralized regulation.

Terrorists are a real threat, and because of that RP doesn't want to trust the solution to be in the hands of a bureaucratic federal government. Government is incompetent at everything they do, and defense is no different. We need to move towards solving this problem on the state and local level.

While we personally might have nothing to hide in our emails and phone conversations, we should still be wary of a counter-terrorism approach that involves this tactic. Other people are bothered by it, because people like privacy, and they will only let it go so far before they say no more. So our counter-terrorism forms a sort of dependency on an approach that's inherently flawed. We should be focusing on an approach that has more long-term viability. I don't know exactly what that approach should be, but I do know that when you take the federal bureaucracy out of the way and give states and local governments more control over their own safety, good things will happen."

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Government is incompetent at everything they do, and defense is no different.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad tactic imo. No sane person believes this. You just come across as unreasonable and dogmatic.

[maxtower]

Yes, this is good. Assume my mom and sister are just normal media trusting folks.

[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.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Government is incompetent at everything they do, and defense is no different.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bad tactic imo. No sane person believes this. You just come across as unreasonable and dogmatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you define "incompetent". If you define it as "less efficient than other possible means" then plenty of sane people believe this and if you define it as "unable to accomplish anything at all" then obviously you're right. I think most people understand if they hear something like this that it's a bit hyperbolic and will assume somewhere between those two is intended though.

[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.