Ron Paul Should Triangulate On The Defense Spending Issue

[Sola_Fide]

Instead of beating the Republican primary voters with the steady flow of negative arguments against our foreign policy and defense (offense) spending,

Ron should offer some positive arguments of how he would deploy troops to defend the American shore...and how he would deploy defensive technologies to defend the American borders.

Much like Rand, Ron could couch his non-interventionism in hawkish language. There is nothing more appealing to red-blooded conservatives than militarily defending the homeland. Ron should start offering positive arguments as to how he would use America's military.

Thoughts?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Kill 'em All - pushed metal to new extremes, inspired bands from Slayer, Possessed, Kreator, et al to go faster, heavier. Without Metallica, there may well have not been a Possessed or Bathory.

Black Album - yanked the carpet from under metal, inspired bands like Megadeth, Testament, Kreator, Sepultura et al to commercialize their sound. Pantera became the standard bearer for metal in the 90s, and a decade+ long drought of viable, commercially-available metal comes to fruition thanks to the Black Album spawning bands like Korn, Slipknot and other nu-metal artists

Goldwater's movement culminated in Ronald Reagan, whose movement culminated in '94/2000/today.

Ron should stick with what he's been doing all along, as watering his message down will - I repeat - will bring along less attractive followers in his wake.

If we win, but do not get America to examine what the role of government ought to be, it will be ultimately fruitless for the liberty movement and extremely destructive to the nation at large.

[Sola_Fide]

I didn't say anything about watering down the message.:)

I said make positive arguments about what he WOULD do with the military, as opposed to only talking about what we are doing wrong.

What if Ron could take back and redefine the military message by using the very arguments hawks make?

[Brett85]

I didn't say anything about watering down the message.:)

I said make positive arguments about what he WOULD do with the military, as opposed to only talking about what we are doing wrong.

What if Ron could take back and redefine the military message by using the very arguments hawks make?

According to some people here having any kind of defense at all is "watering down the message."

[Yieu]

I didn't say anything about watering down the message.:)

I said make positive arguments about what he WOULD do with the military, as opposed to only talking about what we are doing wrong.

What if Ron could take back and redefine the military message by using the very arguments hawks make?

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be about cutting spending. It may be a good point for him to say what he would do with the military (in addition to, not opposed to, saying what we shouldn't do with it), but if he doesn't come out very strongly against the wars -- and ending them should be the #1 objective to do on Day 1 in office -- then he won't look as principled. There can be no liberty as long as the wars continue. The fact that he was the only one truly speaking out against the wars is how I knew he was the real deal. We could lose the vote of the young people if he does not come out strongly against the wars.

[Brett85]

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be about cutting spending. It may be a good point for him to say what he would do with the military (in addition to, not opposed to, saying what we shouldn't do with it), but if he doesn't come out very strongly against the wars -- and ending them should be the #1 objective to do on Day 1 in office -- then he won't look as principled. There can be no liberty as long as the wars continue. The fact that he was the only one truly speaking out against the wars is how I knew he was the real deal. We could lose the vote of the young people if he does not come out strongly against the wars.

He didn't say anything about that. Aqua Buddha was saying that Ron should come out and say that we should bring our troops home from around the world and use our troops to defend our own country, so that our own defense will be stronger.

[Yieu]

He didn't say anything about that. Aqua Buddha was saying that Ron should come out and say that we should bring our troops home from around the world and use our troops to defend our own country, so that our own defense will be stronger.

Well, that's a great argument and I hope he uses it. Although I made that argument to someone I know, and they responded that applies to border skirmishes only, and wars "aren't fought that way anymore". Hopefully that is not an opinion many have.

[nayjevin]

369,000 troops around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#cite_ref-siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil_1-21)

plane tickets $1,000

369,000 x $1000 = $369 million

Yearly defense budget = $663.8 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)

[Feeding the Abscess]

He didn't say anything about that. Aqua Buddha was saying that Ron should come out and say that we should bring our troops home from around the world and use our troops to defend our own country, so that our own defense will be stronger.

Ron said that during his last presidential campaign. I don't know what campaign or debates you guys watched.

Everything I'm referencing is a rejection of Ron using Rand's rhetoric. Had Rand Paul been the one running in 2007, with his Republican-lite talking points, snake-in-the-grass approach, he would have fared hardly any better than Ron, and there would have been no movement like the one that exists today. Rand was able to win using his approach because of Ron.

Ron spawned Rand (putting aside the literal sense, here), Amash, potentially Mike Lee. Rand's Republican-lite approach will spawn Republicans in the vein of DeMint. See: results of Reagan's movement in '94, 2000, and now.

I know which message I'd rather adhere to, and it's not the one that spawns more Republicans.

NOTE: I'm cool with Rand. He's invaluable in the Senate. But his brand of messaging is not going to advance the liberty movement, provided he continues to sound Republican-lite. IE, he won't be the leader of the liberty movement, but he'll be a hell of a contributor. He rode in on Ron's coattails, not the other way around.

[Yieu]

369,000 troops around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#cite_ref-siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil_1-21)

plane tickets $1,000

369,000 x $1000 = $369 million

Yearly defense budget = $663.8 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States)

Good post.

Edit: +Rep now that I have some to give again.

[matt0611]

I agree 100%, instead of talking about how our troops are deployed now are costing too much money and making is unsafe he should be saying the way he would deploy our troops would INCREASE our defense, secure our borders, and save us money.


It really is the most important thing. Ron needs neo-con support to win, I know we don't like it, but its the truth.
Ron differs one main issue with neo-cons, and thats defense/military.
If he fixes this he will gain much more support.