Need help, friends agree w/ everything about Ron Paul- except Foreign Policy

[Hobez]

I got a couple of friends who I'm trying to convince that Ron Paul is the best choice out of all the candidates. They like everything about what the guy stands for but when it comes down to Foreign Policy they are turned off. They don't like they so call Romney the 1% communist, rich guy; Cain theperv or pimp;Perry the idiot.

Saying we need to support Israel, and if we withdraw too quickly it will leave a void for other countries to come in, take over, and
create chaos. They agree we need to get out of the middle east affairs but what about the main ones South Korea(will a war break out between the North/South), Germany, and Itatly.

I tried counter arguments such as our founding fathers warned us flirting with foreign affairs. They come back as this is not the 1770's
this is today, and it's more intertwined than ever before. I said multiple of times we are a Republic not a Empire, and look at Rome the moment they transition from a Republic to a Empire. Rome descended into corruption, and eventually self destructed, and collapsed within.
Mainly because they devalued their currency to support their welfare, and military. America is repeating the same mistakes.

I tried to use counter argument of "Power of Absence" that moment we withdraw from the world, it will remind everyone why they depend on us, and why they need us. They will come back kissing, and shinning our shoes.

I even tried to make a other counter argument, do you see China or Russia going around setting up military bases everywhere. Instead
they are simply establishing stronger alliances with the ones who are against us. Such as Iran(maybe correct me if I'm wrong) or Pakistan for example. I was talking to a other Ron Paul supporter he even had the same problem his dad believed we should keep our so called
"Empire"

The best advice I could give him tell his dad to play Rome/Medieval: Total War video game, and think of America at the same time. See how building, and expanding a Empire will work like a double edge sword. The more you expand your empire, the harder it gets keeping everyone happy. While you have camp your military on the borders everywhere, and at the same time you weaken your core as you expand, and makes easier enemy troops can strike a devastating blow. On top of that if the cities within your core are not well defended or occupiedby troops they can easily go into a revolt. As you expand-forcing you to depend on taking more lands for more money, and resources you create more enemies. So it's like a catch 22.

Now compare how I described playing Rome Total war as in what is happening today in America. We are expanding our Empire, and over
spending ourselves that we have to steal from our own people to provide these cost. We know we cannot afford both welfare/military expansion so we print more money.Within the core of America's Empire is growing weaker with riots(OWS),revolts,being more
divided over ideology. Since we cannot pay off countries that we owe, we pretty much have to whore ourselves out to the world. Letting them up buy our land,real estate, businesses, and worst buying politicians.

It's sad but America is almost a reflection of the Fall of Rome. We have barbarians(illegal aliens)invading our country, our money pretty
much worthless,the general populace now is depending on the govt for help, and foreigners are now calling the shots. Do I need to go on. Does the American people have any say anymore?

The point is of this thread, I just cannot show my friends to understand the consequences of over extending ourselves, and supporting a so called America Empire that we cannot afford. Can anyone help me to make other people to support Ron Paul and overcoming the
"Foreign Policy" argument. Sorry for the long thread btw.

[bluesc]

China will not let NK go to war with SK, because SK would win and would then share a border with China. The US keeps pressure on Japan not to build aircraft carriers and any other powerful war machines, so there is the very proof of the US involvement making the so called "protected" counties more vulnerable, and more dependent on the US forces.

There is 0 threat of Germany being attacked. The Cold War ended a long time ago, and they are allies with the entire EU, which is richer than the US.

Israel has hundreds of nukes, and would bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities, as they did with the Iraqi ones.

Once again, there is absolutely 0 threat to Italy. Part of the EU and has a very capable military.

France and the UK are developing and building advanced aircraft carriers and the UK has arguably the best trained forces in the world, the UK and France would fight off those commies in Russia quite easily, with the help of Spain, Poland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and all of the smaller EU states. You see how unlikely it is for Russia to attack now? Russia is quite happy getting rich by selling its oil to them.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Show them this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The Constitution was based on it. It's not America's job to become the aggressor, because then that makes us the murderers.

[CableNewsJunkie]

"American Foreign Policy!!! Because it works so well domestically!!!"

[garyallen59]

A little on Israel I used to refute an argument someone made:

The question was: Can any Christian support Ron Paul's stated policy to withdraw all US aid from this beleaguered people of God? It is the main Biblical reason he cannot be supported, in my view.

My answer: Firstly, the reason Israel is beleaguered is because the US will not let them defend themselves the way they see fit. This is a stipulation that comes with the money we give them. We tell them how and when they can defend themselves. Israel can take care of and defend themselves and they want to. Secondly, we give Israel's enemies more financial aid than we give to Israel. How can that be helpful to Israel? Ron Paul wants to cut all foreign aid to all countries not just Israel. We continue trade with Israel and lax the tariffs into this country for a more free trade, this will help stimulate Israel's economy. Our federal monetary aid to Israel makes up only 1% of their annual GDP. Thirdly and finally, we are bankrupt as a nation and can no longer borrow money from other countries and take money through taxation from our people to give other countries money. Bankruptcy can never be solved by borrowing more money and spending. Ron Paul has said of foreign aid that in a lot of cases it is taking money from poor people in a rich country to give to rich people in a poor country. If a group of Christians feel the need to give monetary aid to Israel, I would suggest they get together and begin collecting charity for them. It is not morally correct for the US federal government to take taxes from everyones income to give to other countries. There are many humanitarian efforts from private organizations that can continue to provide monetary aid to countries by US citizens voluntarily donating to these causes, and in a nation with less taxation much more revenue would be freed up from peoples personal earnings who then could donate more freely to these causes. If I want to support the St. Jude Fund it is not moral for me to take money from my brother to give to them, neither is it moral for a government to do the same to its citizens.

Also:

http://ronpaulronpaul.com/img/2012-Q3-graph-top-tier-reps.jpg

[AlexMerced]

Make these two points

- The more of our troops we lose, the more homes that our broken, which destroys the family and emboldens the demand for entitlements

- Running Deficits will kill the economy... raising taxes will kill the economy... so if we do so to go to war, it better be without a doubt for OUR defense, not even in our interest (like pursuing OIL), American lives should not be dispensed on anything but to defend lives, not to defend the oil industry, not to defend other nations, OUR defense

[parocks]

Yeah, Likely Republican Primary Voters don't like Ron Paul on foreign policy.

Consider changing the subject away from foreign policy.

If you have to, you can point out that the guy after Ron Paul can just start up the wars again.

Do we really need both the Democrats and the Republicans 100% war, 100% of the time.

We have severe money problems, and we need to make cuts whereever we can, and that includes military.

Say yes, it's a risk. The cost of making things a tiny bit less dangerous is astronomical. We just can't afford it. There are a lot of things that we like that we just can't afford any more.

I, personally, am not afraid of being attacked by other countries. I know that some are. I'm not. And I don't feel like 1/4th of my federal taxes (whatever the data is) should go to making someone else feel less scared.

I understand that the people who make the bombs, the people who sell the bombs to the government want to continue to make as many bombs as they can. But I don't want to buy bombs right now. I'd rather cut spending.

[Jingles]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU

[CaptUSA]

It's been my experience that arguing with people about this in the hopes that you will get them to agree with Paul is mostly fruitless. If you are really good, you may make one or two of them come on board, but the others will probably be turned away even more. You don't wat to argue them away.

Instead, use the Rand Paul tactic. Instead of arguing about disagreements, just say something like, "well even if you think our foreign policy now is best, don't you believe we should follow the constitution before we do things? At least with Ron Paul, you know he will consult the Congress before he does anything. The rest of these guys decides what will be politically expedient and then talk to their lawyers to find a way to do whatever they want outside the Constitution. Ron Paul would never do that!"


You have to remember that these people have been brought up to believe interventionism is a great thing. You're probably not going to convince them otherwise before the primaries. This tactic gets you out of the realm of arguing policy and into the realm of debating the process. Most people will agree with you that the process should be followed. Then you have them, since Ron Paul is the only one who has the character to follow the process no matter what!"

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

It's been my experience that arguing with people about this in the hopes that you will get them to agree with Paul is mostly fruitless. If you are really good, you may make one or two of them come on board, but the others will probably be turned away even more. You don't wat to argue them away.

Instead, use the Rand Paul tactic. Instead of arguing about disagreements, just say something like, "well even if you think our foreign policy now is best, don't you believe we should follow the constitution before we do things? At least with Ron Paul, you know he will consult the Congress before he does anything. The rest of these guys decides what will be politically expedient and then talk to their lawyers to find a way to do whatever they want outside the Constitution. Ron Paul would never do that!"


You have to remember that these people have been brought up to believe interventionism is a great thing. You're probably not going to convince them otherwise before the primaries. This tactic gets you out of the realm of arguing policy and into the realm of debating the process. Most people will agree with you that the process should be followed. Then you have them, since Ron Paul is the only one who has the character to follow the process no matter what!"

I've realized through my recent new found understanding of what God applies to the message of Life and Liberty, that you can quickly remind a Christian Conservative that supports the Middle East wars that God did not wish for it, and that it was considered blasphemous.

[Miss Annie]

This video helped me to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy, even though it is talking about Islam and the stance of supporting / not supporting Israel a great deal. Short, simple and straight to the point. Exactly what I needed to understand.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

[Fermli]

Tom Woods comments on those who say, "I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk

[parocks]

See Balfour Declaration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

Let them figure it out.

[69360]

Israel, South Korea, Germany and Italy all have enough weaponry to destroy their respective enemies many times over. Do your friends understand that?

[groverblue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqdH6y4-8xU

Great video. Someone on here recently another one that was good:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4770988975023965161

[revgen]

1) We can't afford it. China is no longer loaning us money. We have to print the money, which creates inflation. Watch the prices at the gaspump and the grocery store go up big time. That spells Wiemar Republic right here in the USA.

2) Iran can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. They have oil, but few refineries.

3) Israel has plenty of nukes to defend herself. She doesn't need our help. Even the Israeli prime minister told the congress so earlier this year.


My friends, you don't need to do nation building in Israel. We're already built. You don't need to export democracy to Israel. We've already got it. You don't need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2011/Speech_PM_Netanyahu_US_Congress_24-May-2011.htm

4) We can't afford it.

5) The Iranians hate the mullahs. Imagine if some blowhard like Pat Robertson was a dictator of this country. Well the Iranians hate it too. Especially the young people.

The only reason the Mullahs stay in power is due to fear. Whether it was us killing their elected leader and instituting the Shaw in 1953, our puppet dictator Saddam attacking them in the 1980's, or us threatening them now. As long as there is an outside threat, the Mullah's stay in power.

Get out of the middle east. Bring our troops home. Stop propping up dictators and bombing innocent civilians. The Iranians will eventually grow sick of the Mullahs and get rid of them.

6) China is their ally. We don't need to go to war with China.

7) We can't afford it. We're broke. <--- They cannot argue against this point at all. Keep reminding them this over and over and over.

[Captain Shays]

Democrats were the party in power duringt the start of the Indian War while Andrew Jackson sent the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. The first and second Mexican Wars. Half the Civil War and they were on the side that wanted to keep slavery in place. Bolivia. The Spanish=American War. WWI. Woodrow Wilson established the policy of meddling and using our forces to "make the world safe for democracy. Note. Ben Franklin said that "democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Liberty is two wolves and a well armed lamb contesting the vote". Jefferson said "democracy is tyranny but of the majority where 51% of the people can vote away the rights of the other 49% may it never be". Also it was FDR who got us into WWII by arbitarily cutting off the oil and steel to Japan while they were in a bloody war against China. Japan saw that as a preemption. So would we if we were in a bloody war and a third country cut off our oil and steel. It was a Democrat who was the first and only party to nuke civilian populations in two different cities. Then it was a Democrat who got us into our first foreign war in Korea against a country that never attacked us or threatened us and where there was no legitimate value relative to our national security or protection of our liberties and this is also quite siginicant. It was our first undeclared war as per Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution. Truman instead circumvented Congress by claiming that our treaty wuth the UN gave him full authority. Then Vietnam the second time that happened. Then Bosnia, Serbia, Somalia, Kosovo, C lainton kept 30,000 troops in Columbia for 6 years ( google U'wa Tribe and Fusarin) and kept us in Iraq for 8 years bombing them over 400 times killing 1,000+ Iraqi's and another 500,000 with the sanctions (youtube Albright said it was wirth it). The Democrats are the original police the world party. They are the League of Nations and United Nations and one world government party. They are the stick our noses into the business of other countries party. NOT Republicans.....of old. The old style conservative modeled the foreigh policy of the founding fathers who modeled our foreign policy after Switzerland not Great Briton. The founders wrote letters to Switzerland calling them "our sister nation" because at the time of our Constitutional Convention Switzerland was entering their 400th year of peace since the Swiss Convention when they declared their neutrality. That policy of neutrality was based on the Christian Just War Principles meaning that the only just war is a war of self defense. It was baded in scripture which gives only four instances in the bible where a person could kill another and not be in violation of the Commandment that says "Thou shall not murder"
1) By accident
2) capital punishment
3) self defense
4) defense of your loved ones.

So they figured that if there was an invading army on the border of your country, if they penetrated your country's border they would certainly cause harm to you and your family so in that case it would be justified to take up arms and join the army because you would be defending your family and your own life. But all attempts at peace must first be exhausted. A formal and outward declaration must be given to the other country to give them an opportunity to turn back and stop their aggression. The response must always be in proportion to the threat. In other words after you fend off the invasion you wouldn't be justified to then invade their country and start killing their families. You shouldn't take pleasure in killing nor should you try to cause more pain and suffering than what is necessary to mitigate the threat. If your enemy is wounded you should tend to his wounds. If he is hungry you should feed him. If he is thirsty, give him water. If he is naked,, clothe him. If he is out in the elements, give him cover.
The Democrats never expressed very much respect for the Christian Just War Principles but the old style conservatives and the founders did. The new style of conservative is more like the Democrats/progressives.
Ron Paul respects and adheres to the Christian Just War Principles and they certainly comport with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

We must always acknowledge that there have a;ways been and probably always will be radical Muslims who want to establish a global caliphate and kill un-submissive infidels. We must also acknowledge that there isn't a single Muslim lead country that isn't dysfunctional or successful in protecting the rights of man. It isn't hard to see that most if not all of their cultures are whacked out and their religion is also kind of crazy to many of us. But they are still humans who don't like invadding forces in their country any more than we would tolerate Iraqi or Syrian or Iranian and Saudi aircraft carrier battle groups off the coast of New Jersey or California or have them set up bases in Canada or Mexico.

The foreign policy we engage in now is against the strong advice of our founding fathers, is not allowed in the Constitution and most Americans disagree with it.

[lucent]

This video helped me to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy, even though it is talking about Islam and the stance of supporting / not supporting Israel a great deal. Short, simple and straight to the point. Exactly what I needed to understand.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

YouTube version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3N0s_Ibau4

[klamath]

Seems to be a recurring theme.....The really sad part about this is RP doesn't even have to completely sell them on his foreign policy but to reassure them enough their strong support on the domestic side will tip them to RP votes. The campaign is badly letting the grassroots down on this because until they get a solid defense stategy put out no matter how much pleading and arguing the grassroots do, it is not going to change a voters mind. This issue is going to kill the campaign unless they get their act together.

[1836er]

Seems to be a recurring theme.....The really sad part about this is RP doesn't even have to completely sell them on his foreign policy but to reassure them enough their strong support on the domestic side will tip them to RP votes. The campaign is badly letting the grassroots down on this because until they get a solid defense strategy put out no matter how much pleading and arguing the grassroots do, it is not going to change a voters mind. This issue is going to kill the campaign unless they get their act together.

Agree. My experience over the last year or so is that the conservatives/Republicans who have come to support Ron Paul recently (since the beginning of the Tea Party movement - Spring 2009) do so almost exclusively because of his domestic rather than his foreign policy. They support Ron Paul because they've come to realize that he's the only candidate who truly intends to follow the Constitution, the only one who really intends to begin dismantling the United States government (namely the welfare state and commercial regulations), and because he's the only one willing to actually push for significant spending reductions.

In fact, in the circle of people I've been subtly nudging in Paul's direction over the last couple years, many of them support Ron Paul in spite of his foreign policy positions simply because he's so good on domestic policy that they're willing to grudgingly accept his foreign policy non-interventionism as a "necessary trade-off."

That being the case, the more we can keep foreign policy on the back-burner, IMO, the better.

[kill the banks]

Tom Woods comments on those who say, "I like Ron Paul except for his foreign policy." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLUoWhWsOWk

beat me to it ... but really even I got swallowed up in neocon propaganda on the tube once ... they have to step away and think for themselves / research a bit

and that includes this fiction that bible says this as well ... the devil is in the church we are warned ... beware

[Akus]

I got a couple of friends who I'm trying to convince that Ron Paul is the best choice out of all the candidates. They like everything about what the guy stands for but when it comes down to Foreign Policy they are turned off. They don't like they so call Romney the 1% communist, rich guy; Cain theperv or pimp;Perry the idiot.

Saying we need to support Israel, and if we withdraw too quickly it will leave a void for other countries to come in, take over, and
create chaos. They agree we need to get out of the middle east affairs but what about the main ones South Korea(will a war break out between the North/South), Germany, and Itatly.

I tried counter arguments such as our founding fathers warned us flirting with foreign affairs. They come back as this is not the 1770's
this is today, and it's more intertwined than ever before. I said multiple of times we are a Republic not a Empire, and look at Rome the moment they transition from a Republic to a Empire. Rome descended into corruption, and eventually self destructed, and collapsed within.
Mainly because they devalued their currency to support their welfare, and military. America is repeating the same mistakes.

I tried to use counter argument of "Power of Absence" that moment we withdraw from the world, it will remind everyone why they depend on us, and why they need us. They will come back kissing, and shinning our shoes.

I even tried to make a other counter argument, do you see China or Russia going around setting up military bases everywhere. Instead
they are simply establishing stronger alliances with the ones who are against us. Such as Iran(maybe correct me if I'm wrong) or Pakistan for example. I was talking to a other Ron Paul supporter he even had the same problem his dad believed we should keep our so called
"Empire"

The best advice I could give him tell his dad to play Rome/Medieval: Total War video game, and think of America at the same time. See how building, and expanding a Empire will work like a double edge sword. The more you expand your empire, the harder it gets keeping everyone happy. While you have camp your military on the borders everywhere, and at the same time you weaken your core as you expand, and makes easier enemy troops can strike a devastating blow. On top of that if the cities within your core are not well defended or occupiedby troops they can easily go into a revolt. As you expand-forcing you to depend on taking more lands for more money, and resources you create more enemies. So it's like a catch 22.

Now compare how I described playing Rome Total war as in what is happening today in America. We are expanding our Empire, and over
spending ourselves that we have to steal from our own people to provide these cost. We know we cannot afford both welfare/military expansion so we print more money.Within the core of America's Empire is growing weaker with riots(OWS),revolts,being more
divided over ideology. Since we cannot pay off countries that we owe, we pretty much have to whore ourselves out to the world. Letting them up buy our land,real estate, businesses, and worst buying politicians.

It's sad but America is almost a reflection of the Fall of Rome. We have barbarians(illegal aliens)invading our country, our money pretty
much worthless,the general populace now is depending on the govt for help, and foreigners are now calling the shots. Do I need to go on. Does the American people have any say anymore?

The point is of this thread, I just cannot show my friends to understand the consequences of over extending ourselves, and supporting a so called America Empire that we cannot afford. Can anyone help me to make other people to support Ron Paul and overcoming the
"Foreign Policy" argument. Sorry for the long thread btw.
say that yes, we should support israel, the way to do that is to stop military and financial aid to hostily muslim countries surrounding it, which is times and times greater then the aid to israel
tell them also that many times we restrained israel's freedom of defending itself. be sure to site specific examples though
tell them that us not being in the ME will divide different factions that hate us, as they hate each other, too and their common hatred for america is the only glue that keeps them together

[moreliberty]

My family can be the same way. But as time goes by they are coming closer to realizing that we cannot fund this aggression. This is one of the last spots many republicans are going to come around on.

[EBounding]

Unfortunately, it's up to Ron Paul to persuade conservative voters in regards to foreign policy. There's nothing we can do until he re-frames his message to persuade conservatives instead of anti-war leftists. He can do this without changing his beliefs, but he's not doing so.

His foreign policy message is one of education and what he won't do. He needs to give details about what he will do to defend this country. He's mentioned in bits and pieces how he would be proactive against threats (likes hostiles in the Panama canal). He's explained that he would go to Congress for a Declaration and take care of the threat quickly. That's good stuff. Unfortunately, that's not his main message though. The prominent message is Iran doesn't have nukes and wouldn't be a threat anyway if it did, and to bring our troops home. This makes sense to us, but it makes ZERO sense to most conservative voters.

[acptulsa]

Dubya said, '...no nation building,' and the conservatives cheered. Then we got attacked by nineteen Saudis led by a Saudi royal family member, and in response we attacked Iraq because they didn't have yellowcake uranium and Afghanistan because that same Saudi royal was in the country next door. Now we're in Libya not because Congress said so, but because the U.N. said so.

If this is the best job we can do of policing the world, then we really, really need to stop pissing people off and let them police themselves. How obvious can it possibly be that these wars are over oil and natural gas pipelines? And how obvious can it be, seeing as how every time a new middle eastern war is announced the price of gas goes up and up, that despite the fact that we're doing the oil companies these huge favors they are determined to screw us for it?

No, their arguments won't fly. Debate them under the table and move on. Even if they don't get it right away, your words will haunt them...

Lord. I guess I just need to save this spiel somewhere so I can copy it into every one of these identical threads.

[klamath]

Agree. My experience over the last year or so is that the conservatives/Republicans who have come to support Ron Paul recently (since the beginning of the Tea Party movement - Spring 2009) do so almost exclusively because of his domestic rather than his foreign policy. They support Ron Paul because they've come to realize that he's the only candidate who truly intends to follow the Constitution, the only one who really intends to begin dismantling the United States government (namely the welfare state and commercial regulations), and because he's the only one willing to actually push for significant spending reductions.

In fact, in the circle of people I've been subtly nudging in Paul's direction over the last couple years, many of them support Ron Paul in spite of his foreign policy positions simply because he's so good on domestic policy that they're willing to grudgingly accept his foreign policy non-interventionism as a "necessary trade-off."

That being the case, the more we can keep foreign policy on the back-burner, IMO, the better.
Unfortunately he has to address foreign policy/defense because he is stuck at 10% because of it. He just has to sell to them that it will work though maybe not to their complete liking. If he doesn't get this done Gringrich is going to be the anti Romney.

[Eric21ND]

Can you get them to watch a video? If you can, let Michael Scheuer do the work for you.

Neocons are fairly easy to convert once you give them all the information from a source that isn't Ron Paul. Simply send your friends this video and tell them that Scheuer would be Paul's choice for Secretary of State. Then follow up and ask them if he'd feel safer with Scheuer as Secretary of State or Hillary Clinton. The trick is to present someone they deem credible, like Scheuer, who has a vast amount of experience hunting terrorists. Allow them to make the connection that Paul reiterates a lot of what Scheuer speaks about, thus Paul gains the credibility they invested into Scheuer. The conclusion they'll eventually reach is that Ron Paul has a tremendous grasp of foreign policy, since "he sounds like the CIA guy".

Game, Set, Match.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk

[JamesButabi]

If they agree with a balanced budget, then they must agree with a sensible foreign policy. Inflation and debt has caused people to not analyze costs or consequences.

[Eric21ND]

Here's another helpful video that compliments the previous one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qffUUbMJyag


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMOtC9zGQHI

[seapilot]

Its almost impossible to change views that have been implanted for over a very long time. It takes time to get them to be open to other views.

Focus on talking about the things they agree with him on not the things that they disagree. That way they think about that rather than the one thing they disagree with him on.

[Steve-in-NY]

Ive gotten quite a few tea party types with the following:

"Let Israel do whats best for Israel"

"We can bomb anywhere on the planet in a matter of hours, maybe minutes if we need to, we dont need all these bases anymore, we arent talking about WWII prop planes anymore"

"I dont want my tax dollars going to build mosques in Pakistan"

"If you need to cut some program to save another, I say cut some program we're paying for overseas. Why should we be paying for Iraqs roads and schools?"

In regards to the "Iran will get nukes, or nuke Israel" nonsense

"You really think Israel is going to let that happen?"

"Israels best weapon is her location. Iran is not about to launch a nuke and kill all the Palestinians and wipe out most of the muslim holy lands and sacred whatevers. Not a chance."

Seriously, Ive had success with those. Use at own risk, modify message to suit.

[Birdlady]

For me the war is a moral issue, but if someone has different moral values, then it's going to be a hard sell.

Who are we to self-elect ourselves as the police of the world?

If someone has decided that this war is justified, then I think it's going to be quite tough. You have to really sell your soul or be uninformed to justify retaliation on nations that are barely developed. Do they believe 9-11 was caused by Iraq? Iran? If so, then they need a history lesson as well.

You said they agree with Ron Paul on everything else? How about personal liberties? If they believe that the government of this nation should respect its citizens rights to choose what they do with their lives (without harming another), then how can we project our views on human beings in other countries? Regardless of what their governments are doing to their own people, we should not partake in more killing. End doesn't justify the means.

[tfurrh]

Ask them to read 1984.
Seriously. It will make a difference.


And this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

[european]

I got a couple of friends who I'm trying to convince that Ron Paul is the best choice out of all the candidates.
<snip>
They agree we need to get out of the middle east affairs but what about the main ones South Korea(will a war break out between the North/South), Germany, and Itatly.
<snip>


As being European myself, what are Germany and Italy doing in that list? I really don't get it. Noone will get in war with Germany for sure. And what about Italy? Who ever wants to invade that country? Its broke + the mafia controls the streets so even if you invade the country, you still have to pay the mobsters protectionmoney hahaha.
Last few months I have been in both countries and noone is talking about war there. Its a non-issue.

Maybe we should send our armies to the USA to protect you guys? I think you are more of a target then the European countries.


serious: South Korea, Germany and Italy looks to me as the list Sudan, USA, Canada would look to you.

[klamath]

As being European myself, what are Germany and Italy doing in that list? I really don't get it. Noone will get in war with Germany for sure. And what about Italy? Who ever wants to invade that country? Its broke + the mafia controls the streets so even if you invade the country, you still have to pay the mobsters protectionmoney hahaha.
Last few months I have been in both countries and noone is talking about war there. Its a non-issue.

Maybe we should send our armies to the USA to protect you guys? I think you are more of a target then the European countries.


serious: South Korea, Germany and Italy looks to me as the list Sudan, USA, Canada would look to you.Yeaw I kind of scratched my head when I saw that too.

[idiom]

When it comes to non-US nationals I have had 100% instant support for Ron Paul from people who have never heard of him before with the following video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Universal response: I WANT RON PAUL TO BE PRESIDENT! Every single person.

Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Protestants.

[Jingles]

Ask them to read 1984.
Seriously. It will make a difference.


And this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

I can never get over my amazement after seeing him speak in 1999/2000 as compared to his actual presidency with Afghanistan and Iraq. It makes me think "Wow, I probably could have voted for Bush in 2000" which scares the hell out of me considering what has happened during his actual presidency. That being said, I don't really know much about his record as governor and if I held the same views I do now I would probably still vote Libertarian. BUT WHY, WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE JUST HELD TRUE TO WHAT HE SAID IN THIS VIDEO!? We would be in such a better spot as a nation. =[

Plus, Harry Browne ran in 2000. That guy was amazing.

[klamath]

I can never get over my amazement after seeing him speak in 1999/2000 as compared to his actual presidency with Afghanistan and Iraq. It makes me think "Wow, I probably could have voted for Bush in 2000" which scares the hell out of me considering what has happened during his actual presidency. That being said, I don't really know much about his record as governor and if I held the same views I do now I would probably still vote Libertarian. BUT WHY, WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE JUST HELD TRUE TO WHAT HE SAID IN THIS VIDEO!? We would be in such a better spot as a nation. =[

Plus, Harry Browne ran in 2000. That guy was amazing. because GW collapsed under the pressure of 9/11 and Chaney took over running the country behind the scenes and sometimes not so behind the scenes.

[tfurrh]

GWB was elected on the same foreign policy that makes Ron Paul unelectable? :confused: :mad:

[eleganz]

so much fail....if they can't understand the message our military is trying to tell us, then they will never understand why Ron Paul's foreign policy is the best one.

[roversaurus]

It's the economy, Stupid.
That's what you tell them.
Everything boils down to the economy. Even our ability to fight wars.

Is their war more important to them that the economy? Just how much do they agree with the other candidates on?
Do they want a big government and a bad economy, but war? Or do they want small government a good economy but no war?

Thankfully there is no country on earth that can destroy the America so they can put off a war for 4 or 8 years.

[jmdrake]

This video helped me to understand Ron Paul's foreign policy, even though it is talking about Islam and the stance of supporting / not supporting Israel a great deal. Short, simple and straight to the point. Exactly what I needed to understand.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=351761

+rep! That's like the best video I've seen on Ron Paul's foreign policy. It needs to go viral! Yes it all comes down to two words WE'RE BROKE!

[EBounding]

It's the economy, Stupid.
That's what you tell them.
Everything boils down to the economy. Even our ability to fight wars.

Is their war more important to them that the economy? Just how much do they agree with the other candidates on?
Do they want a big government and a bad economy, but war? Or do they want small government a good economy but no war?

Thankfully there is no country on earth that can destroy the America so they can put off a war for 4 or 8 years.

Yeah, I agree with this. Several months ago I was one of those "except his foreign policy" people. But it was obvious all the other candidates were weren't serious about addressing the real problems (spending, the Fed). So I just decided to hold my nose and start supporting him. Since I had an open mind now and invested myself into supporting him, I read his foreign policy with a brand new perspective. Suddenly it all clicked.

Conservatives that are serious about fixing the economy will eventually come around. The question is when will they? Hopefully its before February.

[acptulsa]

Ask them to read 1984.
Seriously. It will make a difference.


And this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc

Outstanding vid. Suppose the Andrew McDonald would let us also add a Monroe quote, then show Dr. Paul and mention that he's saying the same thing and has been keeping his campaign promises for twenty-three years right at the end?

What Dubya promised and didn't deliver, Ron Paul will deliver!

[BlackTerrel]

You cannot seperate foreign policy from his other positions. If you spend a trillion dollars waging war we'll always be bankrupt.

[Miss Annie]

+rep! That's like the best video I've seen on Ron Paul's foreign policy. It needs to go viral! Yes it all comes down to two words WE'RE BROKE!

I thought so too Jim! It's not a youtube video though so it cant be imbedded and even wouldn't begin to know if that can be addressed! But I pass that one everywhere I can! To me, it is a perfect explanation! :)

[69360]

Yeah, I agree with this. Several months ago I was one of those "except his foreign policy" people. But it was obvious all the other candidates were weren't serious about addressing the real problems (spending, the Fed). So I just decided to hold my nose and start supporting him. Since I had an open mind now and invested myself into supporting him, I read his foreign policy with a brand new perspective. Suddenly it all clicked.

Conservatives that are serious about fixing the economy will eventually come around. The question is when will they? Hopefully its before February.

They'll come around when there is no other viable candidate besides Ron and Romney.