What are the main reasons people reject Ron Paul's platform?

Everybody has been brainwashed by the media from day one that RP cant win before even one caucus or poll was held. If i had a nickle for every person who has told me "I like his ideas but he cant win" i would be rich (and i would donate it all to RP) I believe thats where he lost the biggest amount of votes to people who want to support the front runner even if they agree with RP more. Now on the GOP side and the rejection of Paul leading to a lack of coverage and praise which in turn lead to lack of popularity which lead to unaware voters who get there news from the tube and believe everything the MSM puts out which is about 90% of America lead to lack of educated votes.
The GOP would love RP if he wanted to stay in Iraq for a hundred years and let our economy and freedom go to hell along with more loss of American life. If RP agreed on our foreign policy the GOP would praise him and he would be winning but if that were the case his support wouldnt be real like it is and none of us would be on here talking about this.because Ron Pauls platfor is all linked together change his position on the war and the whole thing falls apart. We have acomplished so much and have started a great movement. Lets continue to fight hard like those of the original revolution and we will take our country back as well... RP will go down in history as the man who started the 2nd American revolution!! And maybe (god willing) the next president of the USA!!!

Based on my canvassing:

#2 is the biggest one.

Then

He's a republican. It is often insurmountably difficult get a democrat to switch parties and vote for Ron Paul because the Obama-Clinton race is too important to them. There are a few democrats who are truly open-minded, but most of them are not.

Amongst the republican party, the difficult issues is the war. We lost about 8 voters in a straw poll because a question about the war was last on the agenda. The voters thought that "muslims are crazy and that's why they attack us". It was hard to tell them that one should treat terrorism like school shootings. It's not enough to just call them crazy, you have to try and figure out why they do what they do and keep it from happening again.

Monetary policy is also a stumbling block (people are uncomfortable with the idea of removing the IRS and the Fed, because that is the status quo). However, to be honest, most voters are not sophisticated enough to ask those questions of Ron Paul -- it might be turning them away after they start digging deeper. To be honest, I personally almost turned away from Ron Paul because of this, but I was patient and finally understood the message.

Truth of the matter is, "from freedom to fascism" doesn't work. People are turned away by conspiracy theories, and some of the arguments about the IRS are a bit shoddy. It's absolutely correct that the IRS is unconstitutional and that some of its tactics are scary, and it's correct that the Fed is a bad agency, but framing it as a conspiracy doesn't work. People are MUCH more receptive if you tell them that it's a result of misguided do-gooderism, which, in all likeliness is true anyway.

We have to educate the masses about the New World Order and the One World Government.

Get more people to watch Jerico -- right down the pipe.

As it gets worse -- more and more people will awaken. Hopefully before it is too late -- we will stop them. I pray to God we will.

.

The smear campaign, horserace mentality...

a flashy, charismatic speaker. who is very polished, on and off camera. who has the speaking skills to clearly explain in simple terms, with charm and wit, and certainty, the wisdom of their plan. they want someone to look up to and they can be infatuated with. in other words they want a dream that no person can live up to. for any such person always ends up being a con-man and a lying thief. for those types tickle your ears, telling you what you want to hear. but there is no truth or conviction in what they say.

i would say that if Ron Paul had Mike Huckabee's speaking skills...and, Ron Paul would have shown a little more fight and spunk , and a willingness to go to battle against these other bozos...he would have won hands down.

i'm not saying that Ron Paul did not get his licks in...but the others played dirty and used so much time in the debates to take the spotlight. Ron should have fought back just a little bit more. not to the point of be obnoxious or a time hog. but there were times he answered so abrupt, and concisely, that the others took 5 minutes of time to answer the question and talk about other things that they wanted to talk about. where as Ron just answered the question and then stopped talking...just giving up the floor. of course that was when he was allowed an opportunity to speak... for i know that they cut him off or didn't let him speak for most of the debates. all the more reason Ron should have asserted himself even more. for the people want some boldness and assertiveness out of their leaders. Ron was already having problems with name recognition from the beginning. the debate that he fist got into it with Rudy, i thought, was how Ron was going to win. yes, Ron was in a few more scraps with Huck and then Mitt...but he should have stayed on the offensive. for one thing i know...the media likes a big fight and/or spectical.

but in some ways that is also why Ron Paul appeals to me. Ron is not as flashy or smooth as some are. he's not a "Ken" doll on stage(sorry Ron...heh). but Ron has wisdom and humility, that most people will never understand...for they do not want to...or they just want to stick their heads in the sand because they cannot believe that their leaders would be so evil or they are to cowardly to stand up for their beliefs. then again...maybe it's all about what they can get out of it. i for one will never understand anyone who would "sell their birthright" of freedom...and willingly go into slavery of fascism or socialism.

the other reasons i believe, DO have to do with Israel and Ron not standing up more vocally as a Christian. a lot of Christians want and need this from their leaders. they also recognize the moral decay that is happening to our country...so Christian evangelicals are demanding their leaders vocalize these things...and not remain silent, like it doesn't matter.

but i still cannot figure out why people are voting for McCain...it makes no sense at all...

That's the most infuriating one.

It is the media. Our country is buried in the media.

Because if they did.... placing comments on DP!

We need to get motivated again....

www.RingsideRevolution.co...

Lets get it done....

It's not because of policy (they would flock, as we have). It's not because of his personal belief (Huckabee would be jealous). It's not because of his supporters (I fear some of us have taken to this notion). It is because of the power of his message, the power to wake up a nation. It is because if he came to power because of the power of his message, and then rejected that power and put it in your/our hands.....you know the rest.

and fear tactics
against war = against troops, nonintervention = isolation, against Dept of Ed = against public Ed, individual freedom = anti afirmative action, optional SS = immediate termination of SS and medicare, ...

really, I don't think it reaches the level of a thought about a platform position. I don't mean to be flip, but if the TV does not portray him as a legitimate candidate most Americans are going to "think" he isn't...for no real reason they can honestly pinpoint. 95% of Americans just do not consider, in any depth, the presidential candidates' stated positions on vital issues a president can greatly impact.

A black, a woman, a military man, and a preacher...an easy representation of the core constituencies of the parties for voters wanting easy choices. No place for the principled brain hurting of Ron Paul in America's hit political sitcom "Four's Company".

Fortune Favors the Bold

humans are unique in that they have the ability to override their limbic based processing, driven herd cues, with frontal lobe inhibition. but most don't. I think the anti-paul memes have been very pervasive. Also, I don't think most people have a philosophical belief in individualism. Collectivism, and a collectivist notion of responsibility, as oppossed to personal responsibility, are currently the mainstream paradigms in all demographics, both left and right.

The public didn't reject Ron Paul's message, nor Duncan Hunter, nor most of the early candidates that dropped out.
Most have not heard their message because the msm chose which candidates to give media coverage and those with little coverage dropped out.

We the Ron Paul revolutionary army are the reason that the media have not caused him to drop out. He is in it and if some negative media comes out that msm cannot squelch it is possible for McCain, Obama, Clinton, or Huckabee to stumble and throw the election up in the air.
And there are many things that we and others know that could make them stumble and fall.
We do not have the power to give major coverage but sometimes some things cannot be swept under the rug. Hang in there. Go Ron Paul!!

of eligible voters in the U.S. are blissfully ignorant, 40% of them are miserably ignorant, and 10% of them are RP'ers.

It's because so many rich assholes will lose their lucritive "sponging of the sheeple" livelihoods so they won't let regular people hear him.It's really bad for business.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.--Thomas Paine

I dont think the general public *is* rejecting Ron Paul... so many people I talk to LOVE HIME but say simply he is not electible and thus are going to vote along their usual party lines (paul not being considered a republican) that is all there is to it....
SIMPLE ANSWERS ARE ALWAYS THE BEST/RIGHT ANSWERS when you start to try and dig deeper for some hidden meaning or reason you only start to fantasize...

1. Stance on Iraq/Foreign Policy- People are afraid he won't defend us... here's what I tell them. He'd actually increase national security. We know our current foreign policy only incites more hatred towards us, so first thing you do is change that. Secondly, it's fine to go to war, but Congress must declare it. Third, if we know we are going to be attacked Ron Paul will act first (but we have to be dead sure... no more false intelligence like in Iraq)... no preemptive war where we threaten and attack people if they don't do as we say. No more funding our enemies and potential enemies with weapons and cash. Update the military and technology (I've heard him talk about this and how our army isn't even capable of handling an attack on the country). Bring the extra troops home to beef up defense here.... start withdrawal of Iraq... it might take a year (not overnight)... however long the military strategists think is necessary for safety. We can no longer afford this war and military strategy/foreign policy, so we have no choice but to change it. We can still be humanitarian and spread our culture through trade, friendship, example, and as individuals. Iraq is not a buffer zone for our enemies. They do not have to travel through Iraq to get to us... so our military isn't really protecting us from anything. Secure the borders! Bring the army home... that way anybody trying to get in here has the whole army to face rather than an army spread thin throughout the world.

2. Taxes: People don't understand that their income taxes don't pay for the things they think... gas tax pays for roads, local property tax pays for education/schools, etc. etc. We need to explain the tax system to people...

3. He doesn't have a chance of winning: Only if you don't vote for him.

4. Who is Ron Paul? Tell them...

and then you can put the rest in pretty much any order.

5. Oh ya, and Ron Paul supporters!

are so deep in mainstream conditioning that they don't know what to do with Ron Paul and his message even when they hear about him. He says things that are about real change and that scares them. People are scared to death of change.

The media has created fears of terrorism and helplessness, and people are looking to the politicians who promise to protect them and take care of them. The public knows at a certain level that it's all upside down, but their fear-based emotional conditioning takes over. They are entranced and deep asleep.

"C'mon, it can't really be like that? It's too depressing, I don't want to think about it. And besides, what can I do about it? The media says he won't win. It will be so exciting to have a woman as President. Or Barack Hussein- he's so hip, I know he's going to change things - I don't know what specifically, but give him a chance. McCain must be good or he wouldn't be the front runner. Ron Paul is too out there - a conspiracy nut. Hey, who do you think should win American Idol? I must have one of those new I-Phones. Hey, where's the party? No, not the GOP ... the Grammys! Oh, by the way, how's Britney doing?"

MSM told them not to and sheeple do what they are told.

Believe only can God can create something from nothing? Then you know nothing about central bankers (The Federal Reserve, in the US). It costs EXACTLY the same amount to print a $100 bill as a $1 bill (about 19 cents, as last I heard). The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE banking system. Whoever controls the money supply controls any country's population. They have special influence on the "rich" and "powerful", who want to stay that way The "conservative media" is NO exception. Remember the "moneychangers" of the New Testament? The biggest differences between the "Judases" of today and the one that betrayed Jesus, is today they get paid off with something worth considerably less than 30 pieces of silver.

There are four stages used to suppress any message which threatens the power order.
1. Ignore the messenger.
2. Ridicule the messenger.
3. Corrupt the messenger.
4. And if all else fails, kill the messenger.

Actions against Ron Paul's campaign fluctuate between (1) and (2).
Generally, most of voters, whom the power order considers "cattle" or "sheep" blindly follow the power order.

We need to mass educate the public as to the identities of the power order. Our best forum is personal emails and write-protected PowerPoint presentations to educate and alert the public to the truth.

I think, naturally, if someone has not heard of RP, they would not support him. So, let's assume someone DOES know about him, and has heard his viewpoints. I think at that point, many people like many things he says, but it's a lack of immagination about how the country would "be like" if those policies took hold.

There has been the income tax for so long, it's hard to imagine not having it. We'd had troops all over the world for so long, it's hard to imagine not having them in korea, germany, and elsewhere. Gold? Isnt that just an old fashioned currency that bandits robbed stagecoaches to get at in the wild west? It's hard to imagine a currency based on an actual mineral, in the age of "phantom" money like credit. No department of education? Wouldnt the children just end up not learning anything at all? It's hard to imagine a US with no Dept of Ed.

The list goes on and on, and I think people realize there is a problem. But they can not picture how things overall would work with the changes RP is advocating. I dont think it's fear, per se, just inability to envision what it WOULD BE LIKE once many institutions are removed that we already can see how they ARE like now.

I think RP would be helped by doing a few things:
1) Ease up on primarily pointing out problems as a "whistle blower" (people dont translate that into leadership skills), and instead spend his precious few media moments to proactively paint a picture of what the country COULD be like. (a la MLK's "I have a draem" speach)
2) Emphasize how the dems are a broken record of "change", which is inspiring to the crowds. If you think Obama would be a change, take a look at RP! Also, "The dems are for change, but RP is for the CORRECT change" type of message. I think that message would resonate with the mass population, and would be a direct attack to the dems, which would possibly yield more face time on tv for paul.
3) I think mainly emphasizing freedom and liberty for the people has a stronger appeal to non-political-junkies than the call to stop our "empire" worldwide

-sam hersee

false information about Dr. Paul. They say he is an isolationist, and doesn't care about national security, but really it is just the oposite. Do you think our country is secure, with our borders wide open for anybody to cross? Pres Bush continues to say we are fighting the "war on terrrorism", but there have been report after report, that Muslims have been coming across the border regularly. I ask, how does this constitute making America secure, and stopping terrorist from entering our country? People, don't believe the disinformation you hear from the establishment talking heads, do you own research. Look at Dr. Paul's record, and the records of the other candidates. Dr. Paul knows how to make peace in the world, especially with America. We fought the Brits, because we didn't like their governance, so what gives us the right to tell others how they should govern? In those days, we used terrorist tactics, then called unhonarable attacks, then was acustom. Watch the movies about the war of independence, the Brits stood in line to attack, we hid and attacked behind barriors.

out my post "Logic 101"

The term conservative has been appropriated. Anyone against the 'War on Terror' or the 'War in Iraq' is lumped in with the democrats and as a traitor, or at the very least, weak on foreign policy. It's all fear-based, but it's entrenched. Neocon is now _the_ de facto definition of a conservative in many people's minds, and the dems are fine with that, it's less of a counterpoint to their views.

Additionally, a lot of people reject the idea of less spending. It's a malaise that has spread throughout the population. Even so-called conservatives balk at the idea of getting rid of social security, because of the big-government philosophy that has existed here for decades. People are scared of the idea of self-sufficiency.

Because they are told he can't win. And people believe what they are told. So we need to educate otherwise.
A Conservative is someone who follows the Constitution and a Liberal is someone who wants to re-write it or even worse ignore it.
grant

1. SIX HOURS SLEEP FOR MAN,SEVEN FOR WOMEN AND EIGHT FOR FOOL.
2.THE SAT ONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE HUNGRY ONE.

What I've dealt with -- Most generally agreed with Ron Paul's platform and thought it was fantastic, but these were the big issues that made them vote elsewhere (liberals and conservatives alike):

* Overturning Roe v. Wade (mostly liberals)
* Environment (mostly conservatives)

People could even understand the gold standard; the biggest argument I've heard was that from a property right point of view, the environment would be degraded by the time the parties finished with their lawsuits for damages. The abortion issue created hostility and anger. The environment I could argue around; not abortion.

I'm sure everyone's experience in dealing directly with people is different.

and the cementing of that ignorance via their reliance/acceptance of what they're spoonfed via the MSM. I have encountered questions on other forums from people who have heard of Dr. Paul but say they can't support him because:

1. Protecting the lives of the unborn is my most important issue.
2. Paul is Libertarian and Libertarians believe in:
a. Unrestricted abortions
b. Open borders
c. Unrestricted free trade
d. Making heroin and cocaine legal

These questions come up out of strident ignorance. We are facing a large group of people who refuse to read. To much too large of a degree, if they don't hear it via the MSM, then they are not inclined to research on their own. It's a mindset that has already been largely "captured" by the MSM and it's not an easy task to break them loose. Very few of them have ever read one single word written by Dr. Paul.

They don't "reject" him, they just dont get to hear him.

G_d bless
Attend a Church of your choice this Saturday
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

The number one reason I've heard of, by a wide margin, is that he's too extreme. This even comes from people who generally agree with most of is ideas. Lower taxes for example, they want lower taxes, but not the elimination of the income tax. The second reason is the war, and the third reason is that he's unelectable. Add those up and even someone who agrees with 90% of what he says still wont vote for him.

After reading some of the federalist papers, I feel that the democrat/republican debate will go on forever because people "problem solve" differentlu.

Everyone I know, democrat or republic, loves life, tries to be careful with money and wants their economic well being protected.

The main difference I see between republicans and democrats is that republicans make their money by ripping off their neighbor and democrats make their money by ripping off the poor in other countries;

I agree...most people I know who have heard of him and who have spent time trying to understand his platform...disagree on "security" and Iraq.

A lot of people have not heard of him, which really hurts us...but those who are active and agree with every other thing he says, won't vote for him because they believe the U.S. is right militarily.

Too many people in my state listen to the propaganda on clear channel radio.

It takes a lot of effort to educate them, and get past the war propaganda.

----
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau

Strike at the root - Watch Money Masters

"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it." Confucius

...that I've heard publicly stated, is that he will not be able to work with Congress and nothing will get done. Just look at what he has accomplished while serving in Congress - nothing. He's known as Dr. No, and this position will not be effective as President.

Most Americans want a president who is "moderate" and has the ability to work with both sides in Congress to "solve" our problems with effective legislation. This is one of the primary fascinations with Obama - people think he will be able to do this.

There is an adage in political science that says that fundamental change only occurs during times of extreme duress. America is not at this point just yet.

He wants to withdraw immediately. People disagree with that.

This is my argument for converting people:

http://www.dailypaul.com/...

It's the media. Uninformed people listen to what these ding-a-lings tell them and then they believe it.

I spoke to a woman about Ron Paul this morning. I don't even think she really knew who I was talking about. She told me "Well I was watching Fox News this morning and they said there were only 2 republican candidates left"

Ug, it makes me sick

80-90% of Americas just do what they're told without question. If everyone else wants McInsane, then it's McInsane....They don't really know what and whom they're voting for in the slightest. The ignorant are prone to believe anything that sounds good like Obama's "Real Change" message. They parrot what the MSM's talking points are...People on this forum and Ron Paulites, in general, read - question - research - learn about these candidates.

It boils down to serving the idols erected by the establishment. People of ancient times would bow down to wood / gold statues not because they believed it would do anything, but because they were told to do so; and doing otherwise put you outside the protection of the establishment and all that goes with it (prestige, good job, social circles, influence, etc.).

To go with Ron Paul is a risk. He doesn't show up much on Fox News in a favorable light. We are talking about people who are worried much more about self than country and countrymen; and it's not even about the issues for them because they mostly don't have any of their own. So the constraints of looking bad (reputation / vanity), hurting business, being on the "losing" side, etc., control them. There is no logic involved here on the issues because again, it's not about the issues for them. Remember that people get angry when something they highly value is attacked. So Ron Paul just makes them angry because they love the status quo since this system is the source of their stability, security and self-worth and in a lot of cases significant business interests. War is big business and someone is making a ton of money and a lot of people are employed by these companies.