PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Ron Paul 2012 - Ron Paul Destroys Michael Moore On Larry King


KILLER_CLOWN
08-30-2011, 10:11 PM
<script language="javascript">var VideoID = "16120"; var Width = 425; var Height = 344;</script><script src="http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/hdplayer/rt.php" language="javascript"></script>

go bowe
08-30-2011, 10:31 PM
why does pressing play on that video take me to a jihadist training camp?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-30-2011, 10:33 PM
why does pressing play on that video take me to a jihadist training camp?

Could this be the reason Larry King Retired? He is now with Al Ciaduh. Oh and you're doing it wrong.

go bowe
08-30-2011, 10:44 PM
larry king retired??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

KILLER_CLOWN
08-30-2011, 10:46 PM
larry king retired??? :eek: :eek: :eek:

:D

Taco John
08-30-2011, 10:48 PM
My wife works in HR, and basically says that companies are scrambling right now to find the loopholes in ObamaCare. She says the first one that companies are eyeing is the one that says you don't have to provide healthcare for workers under 30 hours. She says that 20-25 hour work weeks are going to be a common thing in the near future. She sees a day where many people have two 20 hour jobs thanks to this mess.

prhom
08-30-2011, 10:50 PM
I like Ron Paul, but he'll never win over large parts of the electorate. If I were his campaign coordinator I'd try to have him talk less, and make things more simple. He does an excellent job of explaining things, but it takes him too long to do it and I'll bet that if you showed that video to a random sample of people 90% would stop paying attention after 20 seconds. Unfortunately, his real stance takes longer to explain because it's so different from the other things that are being said out there. That's why I don't think he'll ever get very far. You can't compress the message into 10 second clips and have people fully comprehend. Nowadays, that's all the time you really have.

Taco John
08-30-2011, 10:59 PM
I like Ron Paul, but he'll never win over large parts of the electorate. If I were his campaign coordinator I'd try to have him talk less, and make things more simple. He does an excellent job of explaining things, but it takes him too long to do it and I'll bet that if you showed that video to a random sample of people 90% would stop paying attention after 20 seconds. Unfortunately, his real stance takes longer to explain because it's so different from the other things that are being said out there. That's why I don't think he'll ever get very far. You can't compress the message into 10 second clips and have people fully comprehend. Nowadays, that's all the time you really have.

Ron Paul would rather be right than be president. He's just laying the foundation for Rand in 2016. America will need to go through a lot more pain before they are willing to get off the government smack.

SNR
08-30-2011, 11:02 PM
Ron Paul would rather be right than be president. He's just laying the foundation for Rand in 2016. America will need to go through a lot more pain before they are willing to get off the government smack.Rand's going to have to learn how to be more eloquent if he wants to be president. Sometimes he's up there and sounds just like Todd Haley rambling about his offseason conditioning program.

IMO he's got a long ways to go if he wants to look as smart as his father. It will probably take more than a single senate term for him to achieve this.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-30-2011, 11:05 PM
Ron Paul would rather be right than be president. He's just laying the foundation for Rand in 2016. America will need to go through a lot more pain before they are willing to get off the government smack.

America will be 3rd world status by 2016, we need big changes next election.

prhom
08-30-2011, 11:05 PM
Ron Paul would rather be right than be president. He's just laying the foundation for Rand in 2016. America will need to go through a lot more pain before they are willing to get off the government smack.

That may be, but when times are tough people want easy solutions. Nothing about what Paul wants to do will be easy, or easy to understand. You and I understand the idea of it all, but what people want to hear is "don't worry about your problems, I'll fix them all and you won't have to sacrifice a thing". No one cares that the plan(s) won't work, all they want is to feel good about what they've done. I didn't meet one Obama supporter after the election that wasn't on a high over what they had done to create history and turn this country around. Never mind any of the details about how exactly that would happen.

prhom
08-30-2011, 11:09 PM
IMO he's got a long ways to go if he wants to look as smart as his father.

If he's smart, he won't try to look that way. Being smart and talking a lot doesn't get you anywhere. They (Ron and Rand both) need to find a way to condense the message into smaller bites. People can't focus long enough to understand what they really stand for. Ron Paul would have many more supporters if he could make the message catchy.

BWillie
08-30-2011, 11:31 PM
If he's smart, he won't try to look that way. Being smart and talking a lot doesn't get you anywhere. They (Ron and Rand both) need to find a way to condense the message into smaller bites. People can't focus long enough to understand what they really stand for. Ron Paul would have many more supporters if he could make the message catchy.

You can't make it catchy. Some things aren't simple simple simple w/ alot of huffing and puffing.

prhom
08-30-2011, 11:57 PM
You can't make it catchy. Some things aren't simple simple simple w/ alot of huffing and puffing.

You have to find a way though. I agree that the concepts aren't simple, but the competition can make their message very simple. Being right or wrong isn't the main concern of the voting public, it's how they can relate to and remember ideas. The problem for Paul is that many times he's the only one saying something. In the mind of the public that makes him a crackpot. Something is only true once they hear it from multiple sources. I think this is why it's so hard for a third-party candidate to gain ground. So much of what they say isn't repeated elsewhere so it seems radical. Radicals scare people unless the message is easily understood.

Paul says he dislikes the current health care system because it's corporatism and doesn't deliver top care. Moore says he dislikes the current system and wants universal health care and sees it at a right of all people to have it. Which message is more easily understood? Michael Moore's idea resonates with more people because they can understand terms like "universal" and "rights". 90% of people aren't going to know what corporatism is and if you try to explain it, will not pay attention.

If Paul had a good strategist they'd get people's emotions involved and not make things so theoretical. We here in DC love to hear the details, but that's not the audience he needs to sell on his ideas. GW won based on emotions of fear and patriotism, Obama won based on an emotional story of change and progress. What is Paul's emotional story? He doesn't have one, and until he finds one he'll never compete.

T-post Tom
08-31-2011, 12:18 AM
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/s66bTshO1jM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Taco John
08-31-2011, 12:37 AM
If he's smart, he won't try to look that way. Being smart and talking a lot doesn't get you anywhere. They (Ron and Rand both) need to find a way to condense the message into smaller bites. People can't focus long enough to understand what they really stand for. Ron Paul would have many more supporters if he could make the message catchy.

It's not about having a catchy message. Ron Paul isn't trying to win an election - that's the point. Sure he wants to win it, but he finds it more important for there to be a real fundamental shift in consciousness - the spirit of 1776. He understands that any gains would be short lived if people didn't truly understand and set their compasses around the kind of liberty that gave us the greatest libertarian accomplishment in the history of man: our constitution. It's not perfect, but it's the crowning achievement of libertarianism, and it only happened because enough dedicated people understood it on a level that soundbites cant touch.

We either get there or we don't. But soundbites aren't the signposts that will point the way. Those go the other direction. Libertarianism requires intellectual rigor and understanding of nuance. It requires true progress.

NaptownChief
08-31-2011, 07:25 AM
You can't make it catchy. Some things aren't simple simple simple w/ alot of huffing and puffing.



True but the simple minded Democrats don't like thinking....they just want a buzz word or catchy phrase that they can run with like "Big Oil", "Corporate Greed", "Private Jet Tax"...None of them understand what it means but the simpler the better for them.

prhom
08-31-2011, 07:49 AM
It's not about having a catchy message. Ron Paul isn't trying to win an election - that's the point. Sure he wants to win it, but he finds it more important for there to be a real fundamental shift in consciousness - the spirit of 1776. He understands that any gains would be short lived if people didn't truly understand and set their compasses around the kind of liberty that gave us the greatest libertarian accomplishment in the history of man: our constitution. It's not perfect, but it's the crowning achievement of libertarianism, and it only happened because enough dedicated people understood it on a level that soundbites cant touch.

We either get there or we don't. But soundbites aren't the signposts that will point the way. Those go the other direction. Libertarianism requires intellectual rigor and understanding of nuance. It requires true progress.

I guess we just disagree on this point. I don't think that understanding Libertarian ideas REQUIRES a lot of thought and intellect. I also don't think you have to sacrifice principles to make the message less complex. Why is it anathema to try to condense the ideas into more easily understood phrases? Larry King helped me make this point by something he said in the video. At one point he says something like "I think we're just arguing semantics", if Larry King doesn't have an adequate understanding of the nuance of Libertarianism how can we expect even 30% of the electorate to get it? If people don't get what he's saying then it's not going to change any of the discussions out there because no one will really be listening.

Jaric
08-31-2011, 09:43 AM
America will be 3rd world status by 2016, we need big changes next election.

Won't happen. The system we have in place elects people like what we're dealing with. Unless you change that system, you should expect the same results.