What Ron Paul Needs to Say at Tuesday's CNN Debate

[walt]

Get back to the basics. In 2007-2008, Ron discussed the need to eliminate the TSA every chance he got. In 2010, he introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act...He needs to state that he introduced a bill to eliminate the TSA...so many of the people considering him now don't know his long history on this issue.



What do you think Ron needs to be sure to say in Tuesday's debate?

[robskicks]

I don't think he NEEDS to say any one certain thing.

Ron Paul has said that he learned from running for president last election, that it doesn't come down to one certain answer or even one debate. In fact, these are rather small events in the grand scheme of things.

[DavidScott]

He is seen as weak by some hesitant voters. I think he needs to repeat what he said in the previous foregin policy debate, which is something along the lines of "if we must go to war, we get congressional approval, go in, take care of business, and GET IT OVER WITH." He seemed to do well with that assertion. People need to realize that America will still be strong under Paul. He needs to paint a picture of America surrounded by big guns manned by our troops who are right here on our soil where they belong, ready to defend us at any time, and compare that to the current situation.

[pauliticalfan]

"I love America just as much as anyone else here on stage, I just happen to have a different idea about the best way to protect her."

Voters are moved by these kind of sound bites.

[Sentinelrv]

He is seen as weak by some hesitant voters. I think he needs to repeat what he said in the previous foregin policy debate, which is something along the lines of "if we must go to war, we get congressional approval, go in, take care of business, and GET IT OVER WITH." He seemed to do well with that assertion. People need to realize that America will still be strong under Paul. He needs to paint a picture of America surrounded by big guns manned by our troops who are right here on our soil where they belong, ready to defend us at any time, and compare that to the current situation.

Yeah, I remember Ron saying that in an interview with Krauthammer and he looked shocked. Too many people think that Ron Paul would stand by and let our asses get kicked. He would gain a lot more supporters if he reassured everyone that he will do what's necessary to protect the country.

[DavidScott]

"I love America just as much as anyone else here on stage, I just happen to have a different idea about the best way to protect her."

Voters are moved by these kind of sound bites.

Absolutely. A condensed foreign policy outline from Paul would help him with the people who would agree with him if only they could follow what he is saying.

[J_White]

He needs to hammer the fact that he warned/predicted the recession of 07-08 in a speech in Congress in 2002. People still dont seem to know about that. And he needs to keep clarifying his policy which is based on a just war principle and that he will take care of America. MSM portrays him as weak on defense and the sheeple buy it, without checking the facts. He could even mention that letter of marque thing that he had against Osama.

[wstrucke]

You are all assuming he will get more than one or two 30 second opportunities for rebuttal or follow-up.

[AlexAmore]

I'm far from a neocon but my friend is a neocon yet a Ron Paul supporter thanks to me, but he still hasn't changed his neocon views. So I know very well how he thinks. I like when he mentions his submarine plan. Pretty cool and different. He should talk more precisely about how he would militarily protect America in an emergency. That stuff is pure gold and does not stray from his views at all.

[Miss Annie]

You are all assuming he will get more than one or two 30 second opportunities for rebuttal or follow-up.

He only needs 89 seconds to make a miracle! I am sure he will probably get a couple more than that this time around! :)

[wistfulthinker]

Maybe not so much the what as the how. Paul's been on the outside so long that he's not had much practice on the inside. That fact is that he's leading poles and shaping the GOP platform this time around. But he's still sounding like the outsider -- still fighting the last war, in his own vernacular.

So, Ron, this time, keep your shoulders back, keep your voice low and slow. You are NO LONGER the outlier. Don't act like one. Fight THIS war; the one in which millions of us long for a leader who will take us another direction.

Speak like a leader, not like the guy who's used by being ignored and is oh-so-happy just to get his point across. ASSUME we get your point and spend your 89 seconds casting a vision of it.

Be happy to be your debate coach. Just PM me.

[pulp8721]

Ron should bring up that he introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act:

Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law including background check (http://www.thugsearch.com/) activity;
Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

[Adam West]

"I love America just as much as anyone else here on stage, I just happen to have a different idea about the best way to protect her."

Voters are moved by these kind of sound bites.

Very nice, wordsmith.

[futfut]

They're gonna ask him about the cbs interview. " Did you really blame America..." Beck and O'Reilly are already using that interview to bash him
This will be the most perilous debate for Dr.Paul. He can lose a great part of the republican base if he's not careful how he words his arguments. Remember when he got booed at the tea party debate?
I think their minds changed a little bit after spending trillion $ in endless wars with little result to show.
People are just tired of the wars. The last thing they want is another war in the middle east for imaginary wmds.
He absolutely needs to say that he received 3 times as much military donations as all the others gop candidates put together. That will sell like gold.
And if only he could smack down Newt on the constitution, that would be great.
Good luck sir! :)

[parocks]

One or more of these things. But I wouldn't say need.

1) Terrorism is never justified.

2) Terrorism is always unjustified.

therefore

3) It's always the terrorists fault.

4) The terrorists are always to blame.

And then he can say something like "but that doesn't mean we can't think about minimizing the risk that those terrorists, who are always to blame, will kill us."

Some people seem to have turned their brains off. Yes, sometimes in foreign affairs, actions have consequences. Causes have effects. It appears that any time anything goes bad, foreign policy wise, we're now prohibited from discussing how we can prevent it from happening again, because it's "blaming America" to do so.

No. No it isn't blaming America. We can place 100% of BLAME on terrorists. Now that's put aside, we move on to thinking.

[Butchie]

Ron should bring up that he introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act:

Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law including background check (http://www.thugsearch.com/) activity;
Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.


Sorry, but that is not anything a room full of neocons want to hear, I'm not suggesting Ron should lie, just that there are parts of his foreign policy that people will get on board with and other parts that he should save till the general, it's a game of chess, no need to make a wrong move.

[ZanZibar]

You are all assuming he will get more than one or two 30 second opportunities for rebuttal or follow-up.Given the people putting on the debate, the audience, and the traps that will be snared, that would be a blessing.

[Oddone]

ZanZibar, I was used to the big cigar.. Now I have to keep my eye out for a palm tree.

[pulp8721]

Sorry, but that is not anything a room full of neocons want to hear, I'm not suggesting Ron should lie, just that there are parts of his foreign policy that people will get on board with and other parts that he should save till the general, it's a game of chess, no need to make a wrong move.

Here are some good ones:Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2007: Prohibits issuance without presidential review of a student, training, or vocational visa, or diversity visa to an alien who is a national of: (1) Saudi Arabia; or (2) a country that repeatedly supports terrorism or is not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts ("designated country"). (Iran would fall under that category.)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007- To end membership of the United States in the United Nations. (Endorsed by Conservative Caucus)

[parocks]

I blame the terrorists.

It's the terrorists fault.

The guilt belongs to the terrorists.

The terrorists are the guilty ones.

But we must simply understand that we live in a world of guilty terrorists.

And if we just understand this we can be a lot safer.

We cannot be foolish in the use of our strength. We want to avoid pissing off the guilty terrorists.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Geez.... Another debate today? I wish these people would stop this so I could at least pretend to have a life.

[parocks]

We're talking about 2 different things here. We're talking about Explaining why things happened, and we're talking about Blaming the people who are guilty.

Let's talk about Blaming. The terrorists are to blame. The terrorists are at fault. The terrorists are guilty.

Let's talk about Explaining. Sometimes we do things that make the guilty, at fault, terrorists mad at us.

We are not Morally wrong. But it can be dangerous if we ignore the real threats that come from pissing off the

We have to stop thinking that our actions can never make us unsafe. Actions do have consequences. Causes do have effects.

[unknown]

Newt has done some damage control but Dr. Paul needs to expose him as he exposed Perry.

Expose his voting record on the DOE, GATT, NAFTA, the WTO, the UN. His support for both Obamacare and climate change. The only way Newt gets away with his Liberal, globalist policies is because he's able to verbally berate people.

[affa]

Yeah, I remember Ron saying that in an interview with Krauthammer and he looked shocked. Too many people think that Ron Paul would stand by and let our asses get kicked. He would gain a lot more supporters if he reassured everyone that he will do what's necessary to protect the country.

People actually think he'd stand by and "let our asses get kicked"? I don't get this. I mean, really? He's a vet and he loves the country.

I just don't get it. Like, it takes seriously twisted thinking to think anyone running for president would simply sit back if we were attacked. That's just illogical.

[freeforall]

Speak like a leader, not like the guy who's used by being ignored and is oh-so-happy just to get his point across. ASSUME we get your point and spend your 89 seconds casting a vision of it.


I like this advice knowing that if Ron takes it to heart he will do so in his own brilliant and consistently true to himself way.

[jasonxe]

Wolf: Ron, you get 89 questions but only 1 second to answer them....starting now!

[BUSHLIED]

Maybe not so much the what as the how. Paul's been on the outside so long that he's not had much practice on the inside. That fact is that he's leading poles and shaping the GOP platform this time around. But he's still sounding like the outsider -- still fighting the last war, in his own vernacular.

So, Ron, this time, keep your shoulders back, keep your voice low and slow. You are NO LONGER the outlier. Don't act like one. Fight THIS war; the one in which millions of us long for a leader who will take us another direction.

Speak like a leader, not like the guy who's used by being ignored and is oh-so-happy just to get his point across. ASSUME we get your point and spend your 89 seconds casting a vision of it.

Be happy to be your debate coach. Just PM me.

It's rare to see Ron speak that way...in fact, Ron can sound different from one speech to the next...there is a lot of variance...I thought his most recent (not so recent anymore) CPAC 2011 speech was pretty good, if he slowed down a bit it would have been really good.

[AlexAmore]

We're talking about 2 different things here. We're talking about Explaining why things happened, and we're talking about Blaming the people who are guilty.

Let's talk about Blaming. The terrorists are to blame. The terrorists are at fault. The terrorists are guilty.

Let's talk about Explaining. Sometimes we do things that make the guilty, at fault, terrorists mad at us.

We are not Morally wrong. But it can be dangerous if we ignore the real threats that come from pissing off the

We have to stop thinking that our actions can never make us unsafe. Actions do have consequences. Causes do have effects.

That sounds like we have to tip toe around and not disrupt the terrorists for fear of making them angry. My Ron Paul supporting neocon friend sometimes half jokingly says we should just bomb the entire middle east. They're all poor and miserable anyway. Does he give a thought to how the rest of the world would react? Of course not. We're the USA and we're #1 and everyone else can f*** o** is my reading between the lines. We shouldn't have to bend or yield to the terrorists, we'll do what we want.

How our actions make us unsafe? Solution...kill them faster. Honestly this is what we're dealing with. Ron Paul already has done it and needs to do it more where he talks about our military might being used against hostile nations. Republicans love that and will eat it all up. They just want to know he'll protect us with our vast military power. Mentioning military donations would be a huge bonus.

[Tinnuhana]

Newt's into history. Maybe have some ready for him. Ron made speeches way back before 9-11, and immediately after it. The earlier speeches are part of the congressional record, as are the ones afterward. On pages 139 to 146 of Ron's book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, we get a prophecy (Feb 8/2001 Potential for War) and, from right after 9-11, a call for a letter of marque and reprisal (Sep 14, 2001 Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force).

[hazek]

I would love to see him say something to the effect:
"Yes, I want all of our troops here back at home, I want to close all of our bases around the world and end all these undeclared, unconstitutional wars. But... At the same time I'd make it clear to the world, that they'll pay dearly if they take my actions as a sign of weakness and try any sort of aggression against our country. I'd make sure the world knows that we're willing to be friends and trade with whoever is willing to do so but we are also prepared to defend this country against whoever might want to do us harm."

[Butchie]

Newt's into history. Maybe have some ready for him. Ron made speeches way back before 9-11, and immediately after it. The earlier speeches are part of the congressional record, as are the ones afterward. On pages 139 to 146 of Ron's book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, we get a prophecy (Feb 8/2001 Potential for War) and, from right after 9-11, a call for a letter of marque and reprisal (Sep 14, 2001 Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force).

I'd leave Newt alone, remember how everyone got all worked up about Perry, we probably wasted 2 whole moneybombs on that useless commercial putting it on FOX after the debates no less, and for what? All we had to do was sit back and wait till that fool opened his mouth and it was all over for him, Newt will implode on his own, just like Bachmann, Perry, and Cain, we should focus our efforts on Iowa and New Hampshire.

[EBounding]

I want to hear him say something to the effect of

"Foreign bases and occupation are old, expensive, and dangerous ways of protecting our country. I support investing in new proven technologies and tactics for defense."

And then name those specific things, like he did on Sunday but more so.

[trey4sports]

what he NEEDS to say is that he will blow Iran to shreds if they pose a threat to the United States.

[eok321]

Iran is not a threat worthy of thrusting our troops into another endless war for, If needed Israel could wipe Iran out without batting an eyelid. My policy of curtailing foreign aid actally has a net benefit to israel as it does not finance her enemies.

The same propaganda that has got us into countless wars since WW2 is alive and well today and is looking to get us bogged down in another mindless and endless war that will result in the death and destruction of another couple of hundred thousand lives, It is driving our nation into economic oblivion and we ought to wake up.

When the American people realize they have been lied to they will see sense and vote to step back from this madness that has got us where we are today.



That should just about fill up his 60 seconds this evening.

[wistfulthinker]

We're talking about 2 different things here. We're talking about Explaining why things happened, and we're talking about Blaming the people who are guilty.

Let's talk about Blaming. The terrorists are to blame. The terrorists are at fault. The terrorists are guilty.

Let's talk about Explaining. Sometimes we do things that make the guilty, at fault, terrorists mad at us.

We are not Morally wrong. But it can be dangerous if we ignore the real threats that come from pissing off the

We have to stop thinking that our actions can never make us unsafe. Actions do have consequences. Causes do have effects.

Yes!

[limequat]

Blah, blah, blah.

Anybody interested in facts is already here.

RP needs to get the emotional voters now. Project strength and likeability. That's it.

[CaptUSA]

I posted this in another thread, "I don't want Iran to get a nuke! Why should we have a policy that prevents Israel from defending itself? Right now, our policies seem intent on making sure that Iran gets a nuke. In their minds, they'll gain our respect if they get a nuke. Hell, they probably think we'll give them foreign aid! It's no wonder their trying so hard to get one! I'll stop all aid. I'll take the handcuffs off Israel. And I'll stop agitating the middle east by having our military DEFEND our country instead of meddling in their business. This is why I have so much support from active military members. They understand what our politicians don't."

On the whole "blame the US" thing. He could put it as simply as, "If a man kills his neighbor because his neighbor's dog kept digging up his rose bushes, there is no question that the killer is the one responsible. But the owner of the dog could have prevented this crime by understanding the motivation of his crazy neighbor. That's all I'm suggesting. Even the 911 commission suggested that we understand the motivations of these killers."

[steve7]

I know it's not Ron Paul's style, but I hope he starts getting more aggressive in debates to get more speaking time. I believe a lot of people like Newt because of the way he debates, not his substance, which is a problem in itself. However, the more aggressive he is, more people will start paying attention to what he says. Hopefully someone is communicating this to Ron Paul, that there are a lot of supporters, who want him to step it up in the debates, but also remain classy. Just my 2 cents. Keep up the great work everyone!

[Butchie]

I posted this in another thread, "I don't want Iran to get a nuke! Why should we have a policy that prevents Israel from defending itself? Right now, our policies seem intent on making sure that Iran gets a nuke. In their minds, they'll gain our respect if they get a nuke. Hell, they probably think we'll give them foreign aid! It's no wonder their trying so hard to get one! I'll stop all aid. I'll take the handcuffs off Israel. And I'll stop agitating the middle east by having our military DEFEND our country instead of meddling in their business. This is why I have so much support from active military members. They understand what our politicians don't."

On the whole "blame the US" thing. He could put it as simply as, "If a man kills his neighbor because his neighbor's dog kept digging up his rose bushes, there is no question that the killer is the one responsible. But the owner of the dog could have prevented this crime by understanding the motivation of his crazy neighbor. That's all I'm suggesting. Even the 911 commission suggested that we understand the motivations of these killers."

I LOVE THIS!!!!! Could you get on the campaign staff please.

[EWM]

He needs to bring out the brass balls tonight and talk tough. He's gonna be in the lion's den, so he can't be soft on anything. Mike Church believes he's gonna get a neocon ambush tonight so he can't play nice. He'll need to stick to his principals but also command respect and explain his points clearly. He needs to show everyone what CBS was so afraid of.

[trey4sports]

He needs to bring out the brass balls tonight and talk tough. He's gonna be in the lion's den, so he can't be soft on anything. Mike Church believes he's gonna get a neocon ambush tonight so he can't play nice. He'll need to stick to his principals but also command respect and explain his points clearly. He needs to show everyone what CBS was so afraid of.


I have a feeling tonight will be a big make or break type night.

[EWM]

I have a feeling tonight will be a big make or break type night.

Tonight's very important, especially if they powers that be have a plan to attack him. If he can kick some ass tonight, people will see he can stand up to Obama and the establishment.

[Todd]

If a TSA or liberty question comes up fine...mention the TSA.

But the focus should be on the economy, Foreign policy and how they effect each other.

A person hurting for a job does not care about the TSA ....imo.

[nyrgoal99]

Tonight is the biggest debate in Ron Paul's life. It is a topic he is well versed in and he needs to kill it.

In terms of topics, I think getting back to talking about torture will really make Ron stand out from the other candidates.

[civusamericanus]

He needs to mention the fact he's polling near 1st place in Iowa and New Hampshire. I'd like him to ask the other candidates if they agree congress should declare war.

[JamesButabi]

I'd like for him to point out how the super committee is a failure and the ridiculousness of Panetta crying over the devastating cuts to defense which in actuality aren't cuts at all.

All this debate and drama over cuts. In reality the "cuts" mean the Pentagon budget only goes up only 16% instead of 23%.

[MikeM39]

He's going to be confronted with the Israel/Iran issue and I want him to go back to what he was frequently saying in the 2008 debates which it seems he has gotten away from: Mention that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and the leaders of Iran know this so they certainly aren't going to do anything which would cause their nation to be destroyed by Israel. Republicans need to have this point put into their heads again and again that Israel is strong not weak, popular neocon media promotes the idea that Israel is so vulnerable to the numerous big bad Muslims in the region and that just isn't how the real geopolitical situation lines up. Paul has a chance to make the whole "Fear Iran" crisis look foolish and artificially created by the media, and this could cause some voters to break ranks with Romney or Gingrich and join us.

[EWM]

I think it is important for Paul to not minimize the threats of extremists. I agree with him when he says our government's actions have contributed to acts of aggression, but he also needs to acknowledge that there are in fact people who are bat shit crazy and want us dead because they see us as infidels. If he doesn't show an understanding of that, he's gonna get hurt. It's okay for him to say he doesn't believe certain countries like Iran currently pose a threat, but he shouldn't rule out the possibility that they may one day be crazy and stupid enough to attack. And should that happen, Paul needs to assure Americans that he won't sit on his hands. That much isn't war mongering, it's giving people a sense of security.

[parocks]

That sounds like we have to tip toe around and not disrupt the terrorists for fear of making them angry. My Ron Paul supporting neocon friend sometimes half jokingly says we should just bomb the entire middle east. They're all poor and miserable anyway. Does he give a thought to how the rest of the world would react? Of course not. We're the USA and we're #1 and everyone else can f*** o** is my reading between the lines. We shouldn't have to bend or yield to the terrorists, we'll do what we want.

How our actions make us unsafe? Solution...kill them faster. Honestly this is what we're dealing with. Ron Paul already has done it and needs to do it more where he talks about our military might being used against hostile nations. Republicans love that and will eat it all up. They just want to know he'll protect us with our vast military power. Mentioning military donations would be a huge bonus.

What you're calling "tip toe" is exactly what Ron Paul's position is.

I just want Ron Paul to say something that makes it sound like he is AGAINST TERRORISTS.

It is the TERRORISTS FAULT.
I BLAME the TERRORISTS.

Because the msm's idea is to say Ron Paul blames America.

[parocks]

I posted this in another thread, "I don't want Iran to get a nuke! Why should we have a policy that prevents Israel from defending itself? Right now, our policies seem intent on making sure that Iran gets a nuke. In their minds, they'll gain our respect if they get a nuke. Hell, they probably think we'll give them foreign aid! It's no wonder their trying so hard to get one! I'll stop all aid. I'll take the handcuffs off Israel. And I'll stop agitating the middle east by having our military DEFEND our country instead of meddling in their business. This is why I have so much support from active military members. They understand what our politicians don't."

On the whole "blame the US" thing. He could put it as simply as, "If a man kills his neighbor because his neighbor's dog kept digging up his rose bushes, there is no question that the killer is the one responsible. But the owner of the dog could have prevented this crime by understanding the motivation of his crazy neighbor. That's all I'm suggesting. Even the 911 commission suggested that we understand the motivations of these killers."

this part "that the killer is the one responsible". Add the words FAULT and BLAME and GUILTY.

Usually rape gets brought up. Blaming the Victim. The rapist is at FAULT, is to BLAME, is GUILTY.

Ron Paul has been blind to the emotional aspect of this, the moral aspect. He should say something to make it clear that he thinks the TERRORISTS are the BAD GUYS. Not the US.

[asurfaholic]

I've heard a couple people say "make or break" tonight. I disagree, as those who are on the fence may well come over, but anyone who is aleady a Paulite will stay regardless of performance or media attack.

So either we gain a lot, or we gain a few. But definitely no significant losses at this point in the game.

[CaptainAmerica]

Israel has nuclear weapons, and no one bats an eye at them or questions the legality of how they obtained those weapons.With Israeli intelligence watching Iran like a hawk there is no way Iran will develop nuclear capability let alone become a threat to their surrounding neighbors,their military is geared only for defensive procedures not offensive.The sanctions we place on Iran and any other nation are just as immoral as committing a holocaust,through starvation and bombing of innocent bi-standers all because of a suspicion that a few politicians conjure up.

[Simple]

Marques and Reprisals for the win! This is the glaringly obvious portion of Ron Paul's foreign policy that has never made it to the debates. If we want to go after bad guys we do it Constitutionally, openly, and in accordance with international law. We don't need to use overwhelming force for every threat.

I've heard Ron mention Ross Perot and the special forces he hired to free hostages from Iran as an example of how modern marques and reprisals might work. This issue needs to come into the debate at some point.

[LawnWake]

Free bananas!

[Feeding the Abscess]

If he's able to replicate the "we borrow money from China to protect a military dictatorship in Pakistan while fighting an undeclared war to promote democracy in Iraq" line somehow, that would be the holiest of holies.

[Freedom of Speech]

His regular views on foreign policy, with better delivery though.

BUT, I'd really like to hear him say..."I have received more than double the donations from U.S. Military than all the people on this stage COMBINED."


Too bad we couldn't have had this ad run throughout the debate...


www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qVmVJJaLkM

[KramerDSP]

Ron Paul could use Letters and Marque by comparing it to how Israel went after the Munich terrorists after trying them in absentee.

[walt]

Great ideas! Keep em coming...

[pen_thief]

Personally, I think he should say "I'm sick of this feces-pudding style debates." :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEjmwLy9_M
*when the video goes viral on their official channel, I will be so excited*

No, but seriously, I hope he has some of that fiery spirit tonight that we saw on Face the Nation!

[wistfulthinker]

So many of my family and friends like Paul, but get hung up when it comes to his foreign policy. When I talk to these folks, I get the sense that they are just waiting for an excuse to trust him. But in interview after interview and debate after debate, he's so focused on the logic of his position, he misses communicating to the fears and desires of his audience -- those Republicans who kinda want to wrap their arms around him but are afraid of such a drastically different approach to an areas of vital importance.

I'd like him to take a different tact and tone in the following areas.


1. Stress his thoughtful approach to changing our F.P. During in-depth interviews, I've heard him say, rather quietly, that he'd first pull troops from left-over WWII bases. That's not so scary. I've heard him say that he'd approach our F.P. in the Arab World with military insight, with the wisdom to look at the battle from the enemies' perspective. That's not so scary. Here I want him to showcase a thoughtful, measured, and gradual approach to what will be a sweeping change in our F.P. tactics.

2. Just blast this whole notion that it's American-bashing to look at root causes and understand the enemy when crafting F.P. Here I want to see an attack dog. No high-voice defensiveness. Those who fail to understand root causes have handicapped themselves.

I want: We will not let rogue religious and political elements dictate to us how we will respond to that world. We are strong and smart enough to look at root causes. To look at real and lasting solutions rather than continue letting terrorists and the threat of terror call the shots. We've been doing that for too long.

And: It is irresponsible to be unwilling or unable to examine the mindset of the enemy, to examine root causes. Such thinking — or failure to think critically — is dangerous. And to mock such critical thinking, well…I don’t know…that’s not the sort of approach I would bring to the White House. Sun Tzu said that if you “know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles.” I’m not afraid to really understand the enemy’s mindset. The American people are not afraid. It’s time our leaders showed a little more military wisdom and a lot more intellectual courage.

3. One can get a lets-join-hands-and-get-along vibe from some of the comments Paul makes. Once you get to know how tough and persistent a fighter he is that sort of language doesn't raise wimp flags. But he's got to win over those who are not familiar with the decades of courageous stands he has made. Wish I could remember some of the actual quotes, but when Paul speaks about Iran, for example, he can come across as Kumbaya. His line of reasoning could just as well be phrased in terms of "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." It's wordplay. But, I think, word play that a massive Rep. audience is waiting to hear.

Paul needs to show that he can move folks who want to move but, gosh, that step is a tough one to make. I just got off the phone with my two sisters, who have been exploring Paul's ideas since I converted and began emailing them links. Both of them said variations of, "I like a lot of his ideas, but he just doesn't seem Presidential about them. It feels like he's asking us rather than inspiring us."

I hope that Paul takes to heart the recent pole that puts him ahead in Iowa. (Makes my heart happy.) I hope he takes it to heart, after all those years of bucking the system, to let it sink in that he's not bucking anymore. The ground has shifted beneath him and he's standing in a different spot. Act like it. It's not about ideas anymore, most of us are convinced. It's about whether THIS MAN is capable of leading us through the first small phase of that change.

Yes, I wish he'd also stress that he can't and won't make this shift in even eight years, but that he can, with integrity, lead us toward (and perhaps back) to what we are supposed to be. Guess that goes back to #1. Paul can't change our F.P. or our monetary policy or anything else overnight. He's offering himself up as a president who can open this door and let us proceed in our American lumbering way.

[yeshuaisiam]

I dunno what he should say.... He's routinely asked the same questions pretty much on interviews as in "debates" (I like to call them question sessions).


The one point I'd love to see him make is

"Fellow Republicans, my campaign has received almost 3 times the donations from active duty military than all the others on this stage combined".


If they outcast him I hope he walks off. In any case HE HAS TO DO SOMETHING! Even if that means tooting his own horn at his campaign donations. The "same ol" will keep him in the "same ol" rankings.

He also has to emphasize "if Iran messes with Israel that Israel will turn Iran into a crater. If Iran messes with the USA the USA will turn Iran into a sheet of glass, but we don't need our troops there, we need them here at home spending money and protecting our border."

I've so many times want to plug words into his mouth... ;o) But its not really fair.

In any case he pretty much should ASSUME the questions he will be asked and practice answering in a clear - distinct - presidential manner.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If is going to be such a HIT PIECE debate against Ron Paul

From Obama signing new sanctions against IRAN and now their OIL PETROLEUM products, which is basically an act of war against their number one livelihood of GDP in Iran.

Timothny Giethner and Hillary Clinton teaming up for a dual press release against IRAN and the only reason they didn't completely shutdown the IRAN Central Bank was NOT BECAUSE of the Iranian people suffering, BUT BECAUSE, Giethner and Bernanke think there's a risk of systemic risk of collapsing the global BANKING Cartels!

How's that about FIAT paper crap central banks?

The there's Susan Rice In Libya today with all kinds of "HUMANITARIAN" diplomats to protect the people and broadcast across every social network the success of intervention in Libya. Social Media by government today has been non-stop.

The whole TPTB system planned this day very well against RP and his policies for this NEOCON debate.

[mrwaddlebottom]

Talk more on how we are all human beings and should be treated as such. At least unless we declare war.

[HarryBrowneLives]

Ron needs to change the game to get the rest off their rah rah talking points.

1. Iran .. be a policy wonk vs an idealist on this one: (A) bombing Iran would but thousands of Israeli and american lives at risk by Hezbola's new war in Lebanon that would surely start. Iran could mine the Strait of Hormuz and skyrocket gas prices. Lastly, we would have to occupy that huge country for many years, seach for WMD's (if any exist) and nation build. By the way, we're broke.

... It ain't pretty when you really discuss it and that's why Israel hasn't.

2. We have 175,000 troops in Germany, Japan, Korea, and Italy and they pay 2-3% of their own GDP on defense.

3. South Korea has 54 Times the GDP of the North, but we've had 30,000 troops on the DMZ since Ron was in high school.

4. Gingrich flipped on Libya saying we should invade, then after Obama did, he said he wouldn't have. Which one is it?

5. Does Herman Cain't still believe we have the Taliban in Libya?

6. The Pentagon can't account for $2.3 trillion dollars or 25% of their annual budget. Why can't we audit the Pentagon?

7. Why on earth is the President send 2,500 Marines to Australia? Rampaging Kangaroos? They don't have men who can shoot straight?

8. Go to Congress, declare it, Fight it, win it, get it over with (the lingering wars are not very popular) this is a powerful statement.

"I don't believe we should have to spend one more dollar of defense than it takes to properly defend the country" - Esinhower

[pen_thief]

Wow, just watched the debate and IMHO he nailed it.

The cuts others have proposed are "just talk"
We should just "mind our own business"
Epic face when Herman Cain called Wolf Blitzer "Blitz" - someone PLEASE make a GIF. lol
Etc.

He's doing a very good job at identifying with the average American and not going over their heads like he can tend to do :P
(Ron Paul is too intelligent for his own good sometimes! lol)