Ron Paul absolutely MUST clarify his position on national defense.

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

We've all come to understand where RP stands on war, but to the casual observer he's sounding like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency. More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents. During the debate, he should have stressed that national defense is indisputably afforded by the Constitution and that he is indisputably the Constitutional candidate. I realize that he has limited time in these debates and that he was responding to specific concerns about Iran. However, RP needs to offer potential supporters a scenario that would prompt him to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. He needs to assure them that he is well aware that war IS sometimes unavoidable and that, given proper justification and authorization, he would be fully empowered to unleash our military with overwhelming force and that he would not hesitate to do so in any part of the world. You can argue that he has already done this, but the cloud of doubt persists and it will follow this campaign through every state, starting with Iowa.

If he doesn't take the time to make this crystal clear to potential voters, he truly will have a ceiling of support. I believe he needs to issue a press release immediately regarding this matter. I would even suggest that he release a YouTube message about this so it can be looped by the media or linked and forwarded as needed by the grassroots, bloggers, etc. This policy position is undermining everything else we're doing.

[Publicani]

Good idea.
He should make a general statement of foreign policy and strategy, not get involved into who said what and when. And from this general framework he should go on attack of his blood thirsty opponents.

[Shellshock1918]

I keep hoping that he'll bring up the Weinberger Doctrine. That was the conservative criteria that had to be met before going to war.

[revgen]

He made it clear yesterday that we should only go to war by a declaration though congress.

[69360]

He did last night. He's fine. Only the ultra-right faux media is even making a big deal. Voters already know where he stands and the majority even within the GOP don't support another war.

[newbitech]

We've all come to understand where RP stands on war, but to the casual observer he's sounding like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency. More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents. During the debate, he should have stressed that national defense is indisputably afforded by the Constitution and that he is indisputably the Constitutional candidate. I realize that he has limited time in these debates and that he was responding to specific concerns about Iran. However, RP needs to offer potential supporters a scenario that would prompt him to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. He needs to assure them that he is well aware that war IS sometimes unavoidable and that, given proper justification and authorization, he would be fully empowered to unleash our military with overwhelming force and that he would not hesitate to do so in any part of the world. You can argue that he has already done this, but the cloud of doubt persists and it will follow this campaign through every state, starting with Iowa.

If he doesn't take the time to make this crystal clear to potential voters, he truly will have a ceiling of support. I believe he needs to issue a press release immediately regarding this matter. I would even suggest that he release a YouTube message about this so it can be looped by the media or linked and forwarded as needed by the grassroots, bloggers, etc. This policy position is undermining everything else we're doing.

I just disagree with this on so many levels.

First off would you mind clarifying what YOU mean in the quote? "like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency"

As far as national defense and the Constitution, he has said that, and if I am not mistaken, he said that last night too.

Please tell me why does anyone need to offer scenarios to go to war? Especially Ron Paul when he is running as the peace candidate and gets much of his support for that very position? And besides, he has said that if America is attacked, he will defend the country. That is the only scenario for war. Period.

Why do you feel like Ron Paul needs to sound like he is so willing to go to war and stomp on other countries? It is pretty clear that the United States has the most powerful war machine the world has ever known. Do you really feel that people need to be reassured of this? I don't. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.

We need discernment in the White House, not naked aggression.

That cloud of doubt that persist will be erased when people let go of their fears of an outside power destroying America. Those fears are amplified and trumped up. What people should be afraid of is the internal collapse that is occurring largely as a result of reckless foreign policy.

I think his position is crystal clear. NO MORE WARS OF AGGRESSION. The United States is not under attack. However, the United States is LOSING the war that is going on in the minds of people across the globe, including right here in the "homeland". We need a leader who can restore a little bit of sanity without having to coddle chickenhawk cowards who would jump at a chance to blow people up from 6000 miles away by sending other people's kids, but are completely unwilling to do it themselves.

No the policy is what is separating Ron Paul from the status quo. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING!

[randomname]

He did say something like "if we go to war, we should declare it and get it over with" but it gets lost in the message due to the delivery... I bet most viewers missed what he REALLY meant with that. Even I almost missed it if it werent because I recognized the soundbyte and knew what he meant by that.

[EBounding]

I'm glad Ron didn't compromise anything yesterday. I was started getting worried though when he started out by saying "Anyone here can beat Obama".

But in addition to what he said yesterday about Iran and our defense, he needs to frame his argument from a position of strength. Like this:

1) Instead of "It's understandable why Iran would want a nuclear weapon", just say "Iran is a weak country. We do not need to fear them."

Fighting Iran is like walking several miles just to smash open a bee hive. Saying something like that puts him in a position of strength. Right now, he's being portrayed as someone who wants to compromise our national defense to the "great, powerful, and radical" Iran. Radical? Yeah (through the government's own doing, but that's another story). Great and powerful? Hardly.

2) Instead of "We need to stop the militarism" just say, "Occupation and foreign bases are outdated, costly and ineffective for defense. "

By saying this, he provides an alternative to the argument. When conservatives hear "stop the militarism" they think "good lord, he wants to end the military!". Investing in advanced military technology such as submarines, hypersonic weapons, and missile defense systems are much more effective for defense. He's said this several times in interviews, but never mentions it in debates.

I disagree though about offering up scenarios of war. That just accepts the premise that there is a threat worth going to war over. It's also not very statesmanlike. Can you imagine if Russia or China started coming up with different scenarios where they would go to war with the US. Not good.

[Elwar]

Perhaps he could clarify it with a bomb...


A TEA PARY MONEYBOMB!

Go here to see it in action: http://www.ronpaul2012.com

[nasaal]

I'm not sure how much more clear he can be. Last night alone he stated how we needed congress to declare war, and under him we would go to war and win it as quickly as possible and bring the troops home. If you don't agree with it then that is another topic altogether. But I think he made it very clear.

[klamath]

I keep hoping that he'll bring up the Weinberger Doctrine. That was the conservative criteria that had to be met before going to war.
So True. The pillor of Reagan sucessful foreign policy.
The Weinberger doctrine:


The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

Two unconnected events led to Weinberger's speech. One was his wanting to respond to the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks at Beirut airport on October 23, 1983, in which 241 United States marines and soldiers died. U.S. forces were in Lebanon as part of an ill-fated U.S. peace enforcement mission undertaken, despite the reportedly vigorous opposition of the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who argued that its purpose was never clearly defined and that the chaotic, violent situation in Lebanon could not be brought under control by any outside force. They further argued that any U.S. military contingent entered into the Lebanon conflict would become a convenient and prominent target for the various factions in the civil war.[citation needed] The second event was the invasion of Grenada on October 25, 1983. U.S and allied forces invaded Grenada after a pro-Soviet military coup ousted the constitutional government.

An older event, but one which probably had a stronger influence on US foreign policy, Presidential powers, and the commitment of US military forces which may have precipitated articulation of the Weinberger Doctrine, was the legacy of the Vietnam War. From 1975 and the fall of South Vietnam to communist forces, U.S. foreign policy had avoided the use of military force, without any officially stated policy for how to employ those powers.

[Brett85]

This is what I've said as well, and have been attacked mercilessly for it.

[Matthew5]

Honestly, why bother? If a person hasn't gotten it by now, then they're either too

A: Ignorant
B: Stubborn
C: Close-minded/Biased
D: Stupid

I can't tell you how crystal clear Dr. Paul has made it. Strong national defense, not intervening in country's affairs, and only ensuring that Congress can declare wars, that's simple. And when they do declare war, you fight them to the absolute best of your ability and end it as soon as possible. No more of this "nation-building" BS or subsidizing other nation's security.

I talked to one of the aforementioned people above after the debate last night and he was babbling on and on about how a Ron Paul presidency would mean WW3 and we'd all die. He said we needed to flatten Iran to the ground because we're at a war with Islam and they hate us for our freedoms. He then said we needed to protect our national sovereignty but at the same time, give billions in aid and give more militaristic welfare to our allies (Germany, England, Israel). Ron Paul cannot make his foreign policy ANY clearer to these war mongers. Their hatred for this straw-man is so deep, nothing will satisfy them until everyone is either living in a dictatorship or we're all dead.

I think it's important to know when to cut your losses. Now when I engage people like this, I merely say, "Well, looks like you and Ron Paul won't agree on foreign policy. But let me ask you something. Are you willing to go to sign up for the military and fight these wars you're asking for?" The answer is always an excuse..."Ok, well, neither am I. So I just listen to what our soldiers and veterans want. And you know what they're saying in a big way? That Ron Paul is right." I then proceed to tell them about the donations and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but Dr. Paul has already made it crystal clear and no additional efforts are needed, IMHO.

[Elwar]

Perhaps he should just clarify it with this:

http://goo.gl/x9eAX

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

I just disagree with this on so many levels.

First off would you mind clarifying what YOU mean in the quote? "like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency"

As far as national defense and the Constitution, he has said that, and if I am not mistaken, he said that last night too.

Please tell me why does anyone need to offer scenarios to go to war? Especially Ron Paul when he is running as the peace candidate and gets much of his support for that very position? And besides, he has said that if America is attacked, he will defend the country. That is the only scenario for war. Period.

Why do you feel like Ron Paul needs to sound like he is so willing to go to war and stomp on other countries? It is pretty clear that the United States has the most powerful war machine the world has ever known. Do you really feel that people need to be reassured of this? I don't. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.

We need discernment in the White House, not naked aggression.

That cloud of doubt that persist will be erased when people let go of their fears of an outside power destroying America. Those fears are amplified and trumped up. What people should be afraid of is the internal collapse that is occurring largely as a result of reckless foreign policy.

I think his position is crystal clear. NO MORE WARS OF AGGRESSION. The United States is not under attack. However, the United States is LOSING the war that is going on in the minds of people across the globe, including right here in the "homeland". We need a leader who can restore a little bit of sanity without having to coddle chickenhawk cowards who would jump at a chance to blow people up from 6000 miles away by sending other people's kids, but are completely unwilling to do it themselves.

No the policy is what is separating Ron Paul from the status quo. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING!

I was here for the last campaign, like so many others here. I remember how we were so confident that we were winning the debate and that, despite all the criticism, our message was resonating with the voters. We were confident that they fully understood RP's positions and that we would take Iowa by storm.

And what was the result? We placed 5th in the 2008 Iowa primary. We followed that with a 5th place in New Hampshire. In other words, we had not accomplished what we thought we had.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I think we owe a lot of our current success to learning from past mistakes. We cannot just "assume" that the voters get it.

Ron Paul is nailing it on the economy, but he is cancelling out that edge with his perceived weakness on national security. There is no shame in acknowledging this. The other candidates are going out of their way to clarify certain positions. Ron Paul needs to be willing to do the same.

[newbitech]

I was here for the last campaign, like so many others here. I remember how we were so confident that we were winning the debate and that, despite all the criticism, our message was resonating with the voters. We were confident that they fully understood RP's positions and that we would take Iowa by storm.

And what was the result? We placed 5th in the 2008 Iowa primary. We followed that with a 5th place in New Hampshire. In other words, we had not accomplished what we thought we had.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket. I think we owe a lot of our current success to learning from past mistakes. We cannot just "assume" that the voters get it.

Ron Paul is nailing it on the economy, but he is cancelling out that edge with his perceived weakness on national security. There is no shame in acknowledging this. The other candidates are going out of their way to clarify certain positions. Ron Paul needs to be willing to do the same.

I don't disagree with you as far as learning from past mistakes. I just don't think now is a good time to back down from standing for peace just to answer some what if question that plays into people's fears. His position is clear. The only thing that is not clear at this point is if voters will vote for more war, or if voters are ready for peace.

[EBounding]

Ron's message on foreign policy is spreading, but it is spreading too slowly. For me, it took four years to actually listen to him. And the only reason I bothered listening to him was because all the other candidates were so awful. He doesn't need to change his message at all either. He just needs to frame it from a position of strength and say what he will do for defense in addition to what he won't do.

[No Free Beer]

I disagree,

He clearly stated last night, if we want to go to war, do it the constitutional way with a DOW.

Neocon's will never learn.

Think about it, Ron cited the CIA, Israeli Intelligence Chief, and said we need a DOW...yet they still scorn him. You will never be able to sway hypocrites...

[Cinderella]

people are responding very well to Rons comment about Iran being just like Iraq...that hits a core with alot of people, families, mothers, sisters, grandparents.....

[Pete Kay]

Well, hopefully Ron Paul will create an ad that will clarify his position on national defense. A well produced 1 minute ad will push the message more clearly into people's minds. So let's donate big today so he can do that.

[Butchie]

Honestly, why bother? If a person hasn't gotten it by now, then they're either too

A: Ignorant
B: Stubborn
C: Close-minded/Biased
D: Stupid

I can't tell you how crystal clear Dr. Paul has made it. Strong national defense, not intervening in country's affairs, and only ensuring that Congress can declare wars, that's simple. And when they do declare war, you fight them to the absolute best of your ability and end it as soon as possible. No more of this "nation-building" BS or subsidizing other nation's security.

I talked to one of the aforementioned people above after the debate last night and he was babbling on and on about how a Ron Paul presidency would mean WW3 and we'd all die. He said we needed to flatten Iran to the ground because we're at a war with Islam and they hate us for our freedoms. He then said we needed to protect our national sovereignty but at the same time, give billions in aid and give more militaristic welfare to our allies (Germany, England, Israel). Ron Paul cannot make his foreign policy ANY clearer to these war mongers. Their hatred for this straw-man is so deep, nothing will satisfy them until everyone is either living in a dictatorship or we're all dead.

I think it's important to know when to cut your losses. Now when I engage people like this, I merely say, "Well, looks like you and Ron Paul won't agree on foreign policy. But let me ask you something. Are you willing to go to sign up for the military and fight these wars you're asking for?" The answer is always an excuse..."Ok, well, neither am I. So I just listen to what our soldiers and veterans want. And you know what they're saying in a big way? That Ron Paul is right." I then proceed to tell them about the donations and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but Dr. Paul has already made it crystal clear and no additional efforts are needed, IMHO.

You keep believing that. I agree with the OP completely, to say he's made it crystal clear is just not true. Besides, I think alot of you spend to much time with other RP supporters, do you consider that last night was the first time alot of people heard him speak? Most voters I know of might spend a whopping 5 minutes actucally looking into the candidates, but so many of you continue under this notion that people are going to go do all these hours of research to figure out what Ron really meant, bottom line I live in a mostly Republican town and while I hesitate to call most of them NeoCons the only thing they got from Ron last night was that he would "give peace a chance", regardless of whether or not their fears are justified, alot of people fear Iran, and his answer did not satisfy them.

[newbitech]

You keep believing that. I agree with the OP completely, to say he's made it crystal clear is just not true. Besides, I think alot of you spend to much time with other RP supporters, do you consider that last night was the first time alot of people heard him speak? Most voters I know of might spend a whopping 5 minutes actucally looking into the candidates, but so many of you continue under this notion that people are going to go do all these hours of research to figure out what Ron really meant, bottom line I live in a mostly Republican town and while I hesitate to call most of them NeoCons the only thing they got from Ron last night was that he would "give peace a chance", regardless of whether or not their fears are justified, alot of people fear Iran, and his answer did not satisfy them.

I know how frustrating it is. I have a few "nuts" that just won't crack in my neck of the woods too. There is just nothing you can say to these people if they are not willing to spend more than 5 minutes to understand what is happening in the world. A lot of people do fear Iran, but the solution to fears about anything requires confronting the source of the fear. If those folks aren't satisfied with going the peaceful route to resolving their fears, then the solution of peace will only become obvious to them once they realize that the source of their fear is on the other side of the mirror.

[Matthew5]

You keep believing that. I agree with the OP completely, to say he's made it crystal clear is just not true. Besides, I think alot of you spend to much time with other RP supporters, do you consider that last night was the first time alot of people heard him speak? Most voters I know of might spend a whopping 5 minutes actucally looking into the candidates, but so many of you continue under this notion that people are going to go do all these hours of research to figure out what Ron really meant, bottom line I live in a mostly Republican town and while I hesitate to call most of them NeoCons the only thing they got from Ron last night was that he would "give peace a chance", regardless of whether or not their fears are justified, alot of people fear Iran, and his answer did not satisfy them.

No additional efforts are needed by Ron Paul. The burdens falls on us as supporters to help clarify.

[rawful]

Forget Iran and all this other stuff. He just needs to mention that the troops donate more to him than all the others combined. That's how he neutralizes any smears. I'm not sure why this isn't a constant talking point of his.

[newbitech]

No additional efforts are needed by Ron Paul. The burdens falls on us as supporters to help clarify.

ding ding ding +rep. Good that you noticed this. Just keep in mind that this idea too will be a hard message to "clarify" because people really do need to realize these things on their own. The best we can do as supporters is understand that message to it's core and live our lives by it. That shining example speaks so much louder than words.

[LEK]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

All people need to do is read...

[newbitech]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

All people need to do is read...

Right?

[Butchie]

No additional efforts are needed by Ron Paul. The burdens falls on us as supporters to help clarify.'

To a point, but eventually they need to hear it from Ron, I can only get them to listen, and I do, I have watched on more than one occassion where I've had people interested then he starts in with his "Iran wants to feel safe" and I watch any support I've built drain right out of the room. I WISH Ron would talk about foreign policy like I do, or even as I've seen him do himself in interviews, he would have so many more votes.

[V3n]

This is the buzz of the day.. No doubt Jay Leno will ask him about it tonight and he'll have another national audience without unfair moderators and other candidates attacking him.

Don't forget where he is tonight. No worries.

[Matthew5]

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

All people need to do is read...

That can easily be done in the five minute attention span window. :)

[Okie RP fan]

It would help if Ron Paul made soundbite remarks during debates like "I do NOT support Iran" or "Israel is our great ally and friend, but let's quit keeping them dependent through our foreign 'aid.'"

Or, "I want endless wars on all Muslims" that should help win over some supporters...

It's up to us now to educate our family and friends, and people through the Internet (although, don't spend too much time doing that) about Ron Paul's foreign policy and how all the other candidates want endless wars and sky high debt.

[seawolf]

The Campaign needs to roll out an Ad FAST on Ron Paul's foreign policy. The other Candidates and especially media are going to go after him big time as being outside of the Republican mainstream, unwilling to defend America's interests and being an isolationist.

We all know this is dead wrong, however it is up to Campaign Braintrust to compliment Ron Paul with a hard hitting ad explaining how endless wars are destroying our country, that are military is broken after ten years of wars, and that Presidents have to follow the Constitution.

Also, highlight that the Troops Support Ron Paul's Foreign Policy position.

Without a hard hitting commercial our momentum will be slowed.

Serial Hypocrisy has run its course on the air.....

[hazek]

Half of people in this thread who think Ron did ok last night are victims of the curse of knowledge. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

The problem of the curse of knowledge is that we understand what Ron meant while the masses lack this knowledge and probably and most likely misunderstood Ron's answers for pacifism. Especially after the MSM is done with smearing him.


Ron needs to realize that when he speaks to broader audiences he needs to step away from specific examples such as the nuclear Iran trap and approach it more broadly. I really hoped his answer to the Iran question would have been something like this:

What would you do if you received info Iran has a nuke tomorrow?

"Two things. First I'd follow the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. So if the information was credible and there was a real threat I'd present it to the congress and if they thought it was a real threat I'd ask them to declare war and then I'd be all out, I'd fight it with all the military power we have, win it and get it over with fast.
Second I'd do my best to exhaust all the other diplomatic options first by talking to who ever would threaten us and try and resolve a conflict before it escalates into dragging us into another war that would cost us American lives and worsen our financial situation. As for your example of Iran, I'd make use of our 12000 diplomats and I'd try and talk to them and reason with them before anything else. Besides there's no evidence currently that suggest they are making a bomb or want to attack our country."


I guarantee you, an answer like that would go over much better than what he did last night specifically because people only heard the last part and lack the knowledge of what he would do facing an actual threat. That's the real question they asked anyway... What would you do facing a real threat to national security? It's just that they wrapped it into the Iran nuclear issue and Ron fell for it and went and argued whether or not Iran actually is a threat instead of clarify how he would deal with any potential threat.


I sincerely hope someone from the campaign reads this and relays this message to him because after last night I'm sure the soft votes will get scared and switch.

[Okie RP fan]

The Campaign needs to roll out an Ad FAST on Ron Paul's foreign policy.
Without a hard hitting commercial our momentum will be slowed.

Serial Hypocrisy has run its course on the air.....

Agreed. They need to make a quick foreign policy ad that shows he is not isolationist and define how he is different. Quit running "serial hypocrisy" and run an ad on foreign policy.

I hope it's not too late, and hopefully, this money bomb today pulls in enough money that they may have enough left over to do so.

Let's get to promoting!

[raystone]

Honestly, why bother? If a person hasn't gotten it by now, then they're either too

A: Ignorant
B: Stubborn
C: Close-minded/Biased
D: Stupid

I can't tell you how crystal clear Dr. Paul has made it. Strong national defense, not intervening in country's affairs, and only ensuring that Congress can declare wars, that's simple. And when they do declare war, you fight them to the absolute best of your ability and end it as soon as possible. No more of this "nation-building" BS or subsidizing other nation's security.

I talked to one of the aforementioned people above after the debate last night and he was babbling on and on about how a Ron Paul presidency would mean WW3 and we'd all die. He said we needed to flatten Iran to the ground because we're at a war with Islam and they hate us for our freedoms. He then said we needed to protect our national sovereignty but at the same time, give billions in aid and give more militaristic welfare to our allies (Germany, England, Israel). Ron Paul cannot make his foreign policy ANY clearer to these war mongers. Their hatred for this straw-man is so deep, nothing will satisfy them until everyone is either living in a dictatorship or we're all dead.

I think it's important to know when to cut your losses. Now when I engage people like this, I merely say, "Well, looks like you and Ron Paul won't agree on foreign policy. But let me ask you something. Are you willing to go to sign up for the military and fight these wars you're asking for?" The answer is always an excuse..."Ok, well, neither am I. So I just listen to what our soldiers and veterans want. And you know what they're saying in a big way? That Ron Paul is right." I then proceed to tell them about the donations and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but Dr. Paul has already made it crystal clear and no additional efforts are needed, IMHO.




He has made it crystal clear to you because you are looking for it. You underestimate the bias (or refer to your D. above) of a large percentage of Fox viewers/GOP primary voters. We need those votes.

Here's a comment quote from a conservative facebook page. This is what we are dealing with. These people are loud, and they will prevent enough conservatives from being confident enough to vote Ron Paul.

"I thought Dr. Paul was doing well at first until he imploded into an uncontrolled rant on foreign policies....felt sorry for him. Regardless of what one might think about his views, he should step aside as the icon for Libertarianism...his time came and passed on the public stage."

Grassroots is already on overtime trying to clear up Dr. Paul's foreign policy
.
If Dr. Paul would just say what he said last night (twice) that he will go to war with a Congressional Declaration of War a little clearer, in a standalone statement, and at a 5th grade level of understanding.

Having said that, my most effective method for bringing warmongering conservatives around is posting information on troops donating twice as much to Ron Paul as all other GOP candidates combined. It makes their heads spin.

Also, when the warmongers start calling us Paul supporters derogatory names, ask if they are referring to our military men and women as they support Ron Paul 2 to 1 with donations.

[newbitech]

'

To a point, but eventually they need to hear it from Ron, I can only get them to listen, and I do, I have watched on more than one occassion where I've had people interested then he starts in with his "Iran wants to feel safe" and I watch any support I've built drain right out of the room. I WISH Ron would talk about foreign policy like I do, or even as I've seen him do himself in interviews, he would have so many more votes.

I understand where you are coming from. Part of the problem and please don't take this personally, but part of the problem you may be having is that you are watching MSM war propaganda attacks against Ron Paul and you are hearing his response to it. I have trained myself to filter out propaganda. This didn't occur overnight, in fact it's been about hmm going on 9 years now that I have given up watching television.

Some people don't have that problem tho. Some people are semi-immune to it, like younger people. I am 34 for a point of reference. No one is totally immune so it's best to treat TV like a bio hazard and only approach it with the proper personal protective equipment.

I would encourage you to take a slightly different approach when dealing with potential converts. Blow off the MSM like the MSM blows off the ideas we are embracing. Make the conversation personal by relating to everyday life here in the United States. Everyone has someone in their neighborhood who is always going around to the neighbors with gossip. These nosy people are tolerated, but not really liked. Well imagine if that nosy neighbor started going around taking a crap in everyone's yard instead of starting gossip. Eventually, someone is going to get tired of shoveling the shit and start building a crap flinging machine to launch the crap right back at them.

The United States is the nosy neighbor taking a crap in everyone's yard. Iranians are sick of it, and they are not alone. Russia is sick of it. Pakistan is sick of it. China is sick of it. Venezuela is sick of it. So there is a coalition of neighbors building up against that nosy neighbor who can't seem to figure out that crapping in other people's yards is a bad idea. If people are really that afraid of what Iran might do. Just think, Iran is just the easiest country to keep shitting on because their crap flinging machine can't make it across the street.

[cavalier973]

He did last night. He's fine. Only the ultra-right faux media is even making a big deal. Voters already know where he stands and the majority even within the GOP don't support another war.

This. Those of us who support Ron Paul already know his foreign policy positions. If it hasn't been a deal-killer (even if we disagree to some extent) before last night, it's not a deal-killer now. It's not like Ron Paul has kept his foreign policy view hidden, and that now a bunch of people are surprised and hurt after listening to the debate last night.

[extrmmxer]

Great conversation in this thread. Ron Paul supporters are the best.

He needs to emphasize on Leno tonight, he gets the most donations from the military and he voted to go after those responseable for 9/11. He needs to show strength without being a warmonger. He did mention last night, he'd go to war with a legal declaration. He needs to figure out a better explaination to why Iran wants a nuke. Don't just say "of course they want a nuke, look whats around them....Pakistan, Israel, India, etc." To the educated Paul supporter we know what he means, however for the casual listener it could be a cause of concern.

I think comparing the push for war with Iran and the propaganda that resulted in the Iraq war is a good strategy.

[febo]

He should simply say that the US should not waste the lives of any of its citizens eliminating a potential threat - the US has ample nuclear deterrence. As in the Cold War, so now - no nation would dare attack with nuclear weapons.

[Indiana4Paul]

More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents.

I agree completely with this. To me this is the biggest problem.

Ron Paul's camp needs to be the one defining Ron Paul on the issues. I think a major move by the campaign to redefine the Foreign Policy issue is warranted.

[icon124]

What else do you want this man to say? Should he start touting fear mongering information to everyone? I mean come on what do you need to hear?

Something to the effect of yea we should kill everyone if they attempt to mess with us? This crap is old...everyone is tired of this same old bomb first ask later talk.

We know where he stands....

The only thing he missed last night was military donations, but he tossed enough out there...and if people still support endless wars after comparing Iraq to our current situation then you cannot change them by now.

[newbitech]

He should simply say that the US should not waste the lives of any of its citizens eliminating a potential threat - the US has ample nuclear deterrence. As in the Cold War, so now - no nation would dare attack with nuclear weapons.

the only problem with that tho, is you will then hear, well Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. You'll get the complaint that Santorum gave. People are afraid of martyrdom. Meaning, people think that Iran as a nation would being willing to commit suicide to kill the United States.

This is a retarded way of thinking because it will take a lot more than one 3rd world nuke to destroy the United States. So that theory really relies on some individual getting a nuke over here on their own. People don't realize that the 9/11 attack didn't include a bomb. That is because the terrorist didn't need to take the risk of bringing over a bomb to kill people. They used our machines as weapons against us.

The more obvious and sinister threat that gets ignored is tainting of the water supply. No one talks about that because it is not "Shock and Awe". American's had "shock and awe" engraved in their foreheads, and now when American's think of an attack, they can only think of a nuke.

Anyways.. No, Iran won't attack the United States with a nuke. More likely they would hit one of our carriers with it.

[Publicani]

Half of people in this thread who think Ron did ok last night are victims of the curse of knowledge. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

The problem of the curse of knowledge is that we understand what Ron meant while the masses lack this knowledge and probably and most likely misunderstood Ron's answers for pacifism. Especially after the MSM is done with smearing him.


Ron needs to realize that when he speaks to broader audiences he needs to step away from specific examples such as the nuclear Iran trap and approach it more broadly. I really hoped his answer to the Iran question would have been something like this:

What would you do if you received info Iran has a nuke tomorrow?

"Two things. First I'd follow the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution. So if the information was credible and there was a real threat I'd present it to the congress and if they thought it was a real threat I'd ask them to declare war and then I'd be all out, I'd fight it with all the military power we have, win it and get it over with fast.
Second I'd do my best to exhaust all the other diplomatic options first by talking to who ever would threaten us and try and resolve a conflict before it escalates into dragging us into another war that would cost us American lives and worsen our financial situation. As for your example of Iran, I'd make use of our 12000 diplomats and I'd try and talk to them and reason with them before anything else. Besides there's no evidence currently that suggest they are making a bomb or want to attack our country."


I guarantee you, an answer like that would go over much better than what he did last night specifically because people only heard the last part and lack the knowledge of what he would do facing an actual threat. That's the real question they asked anyway... What would you do facing a real threat to national security? It's just that they wrapped it into the Iran nuclear issue and Ron fell for it and went and argued whether or not Iran actually is a threat instead of clarify how he would deal with any potential threat.


I sincerely hope someone from the campaign reads this and relays this message to him because after last night I'm sure the soft votes will get scared and switch.

Well said.

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

I haven't suggested in any way that Ron Paul "change" his position, I've only suggested that he CLARIFY it instead of trusting everyone else to do it. The media isn't going to clarify his position. His opponents certainly aren't going to do it. And I disagree that it's our job to do it. Our name won't be on the ballot. We won't be answering the 3am phone call in the White House. I am constantly clarifying Ron Paul's positions -- and I will continue to do so -- but some people won't be convinced unless they hear it from Ron Paul himself.

Most voters are tired of all the wars and they know we're going broke. But, let's be real. Most voters are not as politically informed as the typical Ron Paul supporter. The average voter is forming opinions based on sound bytes and biased media reporting. We all know that Ron Paul is so knowledgeable that he often tends to speak over the heads of some people. He understands the Constitution, our pattern of failures in foreign policy, the business cycle, etc.. The average voter doesn't have the perspective to rationalize his positions. They respect his integrity and consistency, but his antiwar sentiments raise serious questions in their mind regarding his willingness to confront any threat to our national security. He needs to break it down for them and package it so they can understand it well enough to feel confident about supporting it.

You can't do this in a debate. You can't do it in a news interview. Doing it at a rally is simply preaching to the choir (we're already with him). He needs to use a venue that will allow him to take all the time he needs to carefully make his points. I can't think of a better way than through a written press release or a videotaped You Tube message. This will allow him to reflect, revise and critique it as necessary prior to making it a public statement.

[hazek]

I haven't suggested in any way that Ron Paul "change" his position, I've only suggested that he CLARIFY it instead of trusting everyone else to do it. The media isn't going to clarify his position. His opponents certainly aren't going to do it.

Exactly!

[Southron]

The main mistake I think he made was when he didn't refute the assertion that he was "to the left of Obama on foreign policy."

I thought he started the debate well though.

[acptulsa]

And I disagree that it's our job to do it. Our name won't be on the ballot. We won't be answering the 3am phone call in the White House. I am constantly clarifying Ron Paul's positions -- and I will continue to do so -- but some people won't be convinced unless they hear it from Ron Paul himself.

Well, then, Red Skelton's Clown, why not play them some of the many videos of Ron Paul saying exactly what you suggest he say again? Because, frankly, his strategy is to not let the neocons distract people from the fact that these wars have destroyed the economy by scaring the hell out of them with Iranian man, woman and baby boogiemen all wanting to destroy us even if it means they die down to the last dog and cat. And you know what? I want him to keep voters focused on the economy, too, because to respond to this insanity out of Santorum and Bachmann would not only distract from the economy (which is an issue on which we can win this thing) but it would give a degree of credence to the insanity that it in no way deserves.

And as for whether or not it's 'not my job', we are informed voters in a republic. Like it or not. When the ostriches bury their heads in the sand, it's our job--nay, our moral duty--to go around to the exposed end and kick them. Period.

Anyone care to help Red out with links to the thousands of vdeos of Ron Paul repeating himself on the defense subject? Thanks.

[CFLrutherfordtn]

I think this clarifies his position decently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNeT7eNIdDo

[Badger Paul]

"and at a 5th grade level of understanding."

Really? So the people we're trying to appeal to are no smarter than a 5th grader? Are you kidding me?

[Butchie]

It would help if Ron Paul made soundbite remarks during debates like "I do NOT support Iran" or "Israel is our great ally and friend, but let's quit keeping them dependent through our foreign 'aid.'"

Or, "I want endless wars on all Muslims" that should help win over some supporters...

It's up to us now to educate our family and friends, and people through the Internet (although, don't spend too much time doing that) about Ron Paul's foreign policy and how all the other candidates want endless wars and sky high debt.

NO, IT IS HIS JOB, it is our job to get people to listen to him, which I do, very well, however, I can talk all I want, there comes a point when they want to hear it from him, period, everything I see people saying about "well, I went back and watched the debate a few times" or "here's a great article on this", I'm sorry, but most people will not watch the debate again, most barely watched it once, they will not go read books or any of that other stuff, WE do these things, but we are not the average voter, yes Ron is gaining support, but I know just from my community he could have 10x that much if he would just say things he himself has said brilliantly in interviews, he was given a very generous portion of time on this question to explain himself and he just kept going on about how "Iran wants to feel safe".

[newbitech]

NO, IT IS HIS JOB, it is our job to get people to listen to him, which I do, very well, however, I can talk all I want, there comes a point when they want to hear it from him, period, everything I see people saying about "well, I went back and watched the debate a few times" or "here's a great article on this", I'm sorry, but most people will not watch the debate again, most barely watched it once, they will not go read books or any of that other stuff, WE do these things, but we are not the average voter, yes Ron is gaining support, but I know just from my community he could have 10x that much if he would just say things he himself has said brilliantly in interviews, he was given a very generous portion of time on this question to explain himself and he just kept going on about how "Iran wants to feel safe".

I just re-watched. Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vhbGL3F8r4c
Please tell me where "he just kept going on about how 'Iran wants to feel safe'". I know the part you are talking about, but I believe he cited an Israeli official that said that.

[Elwar]

I just re-watched Ron Paul getting...

$1 million in today's Moneybomb!!!!!

[Butchie]

I understand where you are coming from. Part of the problem and please don't take this personally, but part of the problem you may be having is that you are watching MSM war propaganda attacks against Ron Paul and you are hearing his response to it. I have trained myself to filter out propaganda. This didn't occur overnight, in fact it's been about hmm going on 9 years now that I have given up watching television.

Some people don't have that problem tho. Some people are semi-immune to it, like younger people. I am 34 for a point of reference. No one is totally immune so it's best to treat TV like a bio hazard and only approach it with the proper personal protective equipment.

I would encourage you to take a slightly different approach when dealing with potential converts. Blow off the MSM like the MSM blows off the ideas we are embracing. Make the conversation personal by relating to everyday life here in the United States. Everyone has someone in their neighborhood who is always going around to the neighbors with gossip. These nosy people are tolerated, but not really liked. Well imagine if that nosy neighbor started going around taking a crap in everyone's yard instead of starting gossip. Eventually, someone is going to get tired of shoveling the shit and start building a crap flinging machine to launch the crap right back at them.

The United States is the nosy neighbor taking a crap in everyone's yard. Iranians are sick of it, and they are not alone. Russia is sick of it. Pakistan is sick of it. China is sick of it. Venezuela is sick of it. So there is a coalition of neighbors building up against that nosy neighbor who can't seem to figure out that crapping in other people's yards is a bad idea. If people are really that afraid of what Iran might do. Just think, Iran is just the easiest country to keep shitting on because their crap flinging machine can't make it across the street.

Don't worry, I don't take anything personally :) Actually tho, I don't watch the news much, most I know don't, that's part of my point, they don't know what's going, and I can't blame them, prior to April this year I was no different, I'd see politics and I'd run the other way, they are just busy with their jobs and what not, don't care about politics, but, I do have poker parties on debate nights things like that. They are just really discouraged by his seeming refusal to acknowledge that there will always be dangers in the world, regardless of how peaceful we are, he just comes off as someone who is going to be a total pacifist, speaking about trying the peace and diplomacy route is great, but you have to let people know that you are not going to sit there if a real threat comes, quickly saying "I'd go to Congress" is not enough, the people I was with were done listening to him by the time he got to that part.

[newbitech]

I just re-watched Ron Paul getting...

$1 million in today's Moneybomb!!!!!

I know, I know. I have already reached out to my local group. I will badger them later today. I'll be dropping my pledge once I am comfortable with the debate digestion that is taking place. =) Also need to get out to the neighborhood. Sucks, being unemployed AGAIN. But at least I have a little more time and energy to do some local work on the campaign. ;)

[Deborah K]

Here's what Mike Scheuer wrote back in Sept. about how the media will treat Ron. The point is, no matter how succinct, or clever, or snappy Ron relays his message, it's his message that is the REAL problem for the war machine and its propaganda arm (media).

http://non-intervention.com/996/interventionists-ready-a-media-lynching-for-ron-paul/


Interventionists ready a media lynching for Ron Paul

By mike | Published: September 4, 2011


The past ten days have seen a spate of pieces on Google News damning Congressman Ron Paul for “blaming” America for the 9/11 attacks. This is just the start of what will become a wave of ever-more shrill and lie-filled attacks on Mr. Paul as long as he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and continues to find growing public support. The attacks on Mr. Paul are and will be the work of the Neoconservatives, the Israel-First fifth column of U.S. citizens, and AIPAC and those it controls in the Congress, media, and academy.

Mr. Paul, of course, never blamed the United States for the war the Islamists started and are now waging on the United States. What he did say is merely what is true beyond any credible challenge: Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home. Mr. Paul bravely and clearly delivers this essential message to U.S. voters, and as long as he tells this truth he will receive the venom and slander of the above mentioned people and organizations.

And worse is yet to come. On 1 and 2 September 2011, Commentary Magazine — long Israel-First’s flagship publication — identified Mr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Islamic world as a “bizarre and twisted interpretation of events” and described him and his supporters as taking Osama bin Laden’s statements as their bible. Commentary went on to damn Mr. Paul and his supporters as follows:

“[Congressman] Paul seems intent on blaming America for the burning [Islamist] hatred directed against us, to the point that he has to disfigure history to justify it. It’s a peculiar citizen who would do such a thing. I suppose I understand why most Republicans (with the fine exception of Rick Santorum) have not taken on the noxious ideology of Representative Paul. But the dirty little secret is Ron Paul holds views that are disgraceful. It seems to me that conservatives, in the name of reaching out to those who inhabit the loony fringes of the libertarian movement, shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”

If this sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the kind of attack that was used against the America First organization when it sought to prevent America from entering the European War that began in September, 1939. Interventionists in both parties; much of the media; senior members of the Roosevelt Administration; leaders of Britain’s pro-intervention covert action program in the United States; and spokesmen for Jewish-American organizations all slandered America First members as disloyal citizens who were ignorant of the world. Together these entities misidentified distinguished Americans who were using 1st Amendment rights to defend what they saw as U.S. interests as traitors, madmen, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-Semites. In their words this week, the articles in Commentary and elsewhere have identified Dr. Paul and the millions who agree with him as “peculiar” citizens (traitors?); madmen (“loony fringes”); and bin Laden sympathizers.

If Mr. Paul continues telling the truth and his support keeps growing, Israel-First’s next step will be to begin smearing him as an anti-Semite, just as Charles Lindbergh and other America First leaders were falsely identified in the late 1930s by the sorts of people noted above. And such attacks on Mr. Paul probably will be more vicious than those on Lindbergh, et al. Some of those who opposed America First, for example, conducted a sharp but fair-minded debate over a clearly substantive and legitimate question: “Does Nazi Germany pose a threat to genuine U.S. national interests?”

Today, however, Mr. Paul’s attackers know they have no legitimate, defensible issue on their side of the debate, only their malevolent desire to see America fight all of Islam on Israel‘s behalf. Indeed, they know the United States and its interests are in large measure threatened and attacked by Islamists because of the U.S. government’s relentless and unquestioning intervention on Israel’s behalf. Thus, the combination of the fact that Mr. Paul’s words are gaining traction with some Americans, and that the Israel-First position is built on sand — that is, it is clear no U.S. interest is served by the current U.S.-Israel relationship — means that Mr. Paul’s attackers use any and every kind of slander to defame him and to ensure the United States will fight to protect Israel against the rising and uncontrollable tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is being produced by the so-called Arab Spring.

In this vein, Commentary’s description of Mr. Paul’s “noxious ideology” is a first step that probably will lead to a systematic Israel-First effort to identify Mr. Paul and those who support him as anti-Semites simply because they do not want to see America’s soldier-children die fighting in an irrelevant Israel-Muslim religious war in which no genuine U.S. interests are at risk

[newbitech]

Don't worry, I don't take anything personally :) Actually tho, I don't watch the news much, most I know don't, that's part of my point, they don't know what's going, and I can't blame them, prior to April this year I was no different, I'd see politics and I'd run the other way, they are just busy with their jobs and what not, don't care about politics, but, I do have poker parties on debate nights things like that. They are just really discouraged by his seeming refusal to acknowledge that there will always be dangers in the world, regardless of how peaceful we are, he just comes off as someone who is going to be a total pacifist, speaking about trying the peace and diplomacy route is great, but you have to let people know that you are not going to sit there if a real threat comes, quickly saying "I'd go to Congress" is not enough, the people I was with were done listening to him by the time he got to that part.

Ok, good to hear you say that. I think lots of people start out that way. As far as responding to real threats, we have a real threat going on. You know what that is. So maybe lets deal with that issue when people think Ron Paul is not tough on threats. He exposed the FED RES for crying out loud. Unarguably the most powerful "visible" institution in history. The fed res has caused more damage to our country than Iran every will. And Ron Paul is leading the charge against that "terrorist" organization. ;)

[Butchie]

I just re-watched. Here is the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vhbGL3F8r4c
Please tell me where "he just kept going on about how 'Iran wants to feel safe'". I know the part you are talking about, but I believe he cited an Israeli official that said that.

You don't understand, why does he even bring it up? I don't care if Iran feels safe, no one does. He could have spent the time talking about how China and Russia depend on Iranian oil, do we really think they would just sit by and do nothing? Do we want to risk a war with them? If he was going to bring up Israel (which he should have) he could have said "Well I'd get out of Israel's way and let them defend themselves, Iran wouldn't last 5 minutes in a war with Israel", he could have asked the obvious question of how would we pay for a war with Iran, where would we get the men, should we start the draft like in Vietnam? He could have asked how are we so worried about nations across the globe when our own border is wide open. Why bring up Libya either? Hey, if you feel he did OK, great, I'm just telling you the everyday people I deal with and what they are saying, do we want to win or don't we?

[newbitech]

If we really want to change perception, we need to create meme.

Stop calling it Foreign Policy and start calling it Dr. Paul's Global Relations Strategy. Or something to that effect.

[acptulsa]

You don't understand, why does he even bring it up? I don't care if Iran feels safe, no one does.

Butchie, Butchie, Butchie.

Now, do I need to threaten to kick your ass right ere on the forum, have you react naturally, and then turn around and use your natural reaction to prove my point that you're inherently evil and should be banned? Do I really need to do that? Because when you point a gun and a camera at someone, and you're careful to aim the gun at their head and aim the camera in such a way that you can't see the gun on the video, buddy, I'm here to tell you that you'll get a pleasantly skewed impression of that person to show the world.

No one cares if Iran feels safe. Cool. Now that we have two psychos on stage, given all the weight of being presidential candidates and telling the world that every Iranian down to the last babe in arms is some kind of kamikaze who would rather see their whole nation wiped out than suffer us to live, the way is clear for the Final Solution. You go set up The Ovens and I'll go get the poisonous gas. Maybe after we round up and wipe out the whole damned nation halfway around the world who couldn't deliver a nuke to their next door neighbor even if they had one, then maybe we can stop getting distracted and talk about our real problem which is the damned economy.

[newbitech]

You don't understand, why does he even bring it up? I don't care if Iran feels safe, no one does. He could have spent the time talking about how China and Russia depend on Iranian oil, do we really think they would just sit by and do nothing? Do we want to risk a war with them? If he was going to bring up Israel (which he should have) he could have said "Well I'd get out of Israel's way and let them defend themselves, Iran wouldn't last 5 minutes in a war with Israel", he could have asked the obvious question of how would we pay for a war with Iran, where would we get the men, should we start the draft like in Vietnam? He could have asked how are we so worried about nations across the globe when our own border is wide open. Why bring up Libya either? Hey, if you feel he did OK, great, I'm just telling you the everyday people I deal with and what they are saying, do we want to win or don't we?

Well that is a good question. He actually headed of the Israel question by mentioning how divided the views on Iran are in BOTH countries. That is what I am saying. Ron Paul didn't bring it up actually. He is giving the reason for Irans motive to build a nuclear weapon if in fact that are really trying to do that, which we have no evidence of.

It was an Israeli official that he cited that has the understanding that Iranians want to be safe and that is the motive for their actions. The warmongers and propaganda is all based on the false premise that Iran wants to start a war to spread some religion (sounds like other popular religions right?). Iran does not want to start a war, and the only reason Iran talks tough is to let the vastly superior "enemy" understand that Iran will not ball up in to a fetal position if the US initiates violence. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE SAFE! THEY DON'T want to be nuked, and they don't want to be cut off from the world! They just want control of their own damn resources that they have to live in a friggin' dessert to exploit!

I don't sympathize with killers and mass murders and governments that use people as pawns in war games. This includes people from my own government. And another thing, I do care about the Iranian people because they have a unique culture, a culture that has given so much to civilization. I would hate to see it wiped off the face of the earth just as much as I would hate to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth.

What I really don't care about? Is the bullshit reasons people want to keep talking about for justifying yet another damn WAR,!@ Don't even want it brought up!

Just talking seriously about starting a new war while our country is suffering from an economic aneurysm, puts the country at much greater risk.

[Seth]

"and at a 5th grade level of understanding."

Really? So the people we're trying to appeal to are no smarter than a 5th grader? Are you kidding me?

We are trying to win the Republican nomination...

[newbitech]

We are trying to win the Republican nomination...

so lets insult them...

[raystone]

"and at a 5th grade level of understanding."

Really? So the people we're trying to appeal to are no smarter than a 5th grader? Are you kidding me?


No, not kidding. Presidential speech grade level has been dropping for decades.

Do you think all GOP primary voters have a greater than average IQ ? ;)

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

You ever think maybe Americans deserve what they get?

Warmongers will never vote for Paul, the end.

[ryanmkeisling]

I say to these people that want war, let them have it. Let them serve and see what war is like 1,000's of miles from their home. Let them see what it does to the economy. Let them lose their jobs. Perhaps it will take more time before Americans can really wake up and until then they will get what they vote for. The further destruction of their once great country.

It isn't about winning at any cost for Ron Paul, it is about remaining peaceful and principled. People can only live in fear for so long before it destroys them. These are the people being alluded to in this thread. They will reap what they sow.

[acptulsa]

You ever think maybe Americans deserve what they get?

No, I don't. I think they deserve better than to get fooled, over and over, even if they are complicit in their own foolishness. They work hard and can't afford what's being stolen from them while they're distracted by this b.s.


Warmongers will never vote for Paul, the end.

True. But Joe Sixpack can be cured of his warmongering if someone takes the time and effort to show him the light.


I say to these people that want war, let them have it. Let them serve and see what war is like 1,000's of miles from their home. Let them see what it does to the economy. Let them lose their jobs. Perhaps it will take more time before Americans can really wake up and until then they will get what they vote for. The further destruction of their once great country.

It isn't about winning at any cost for Ron Paul, it is about remaining peaceful and principled. People can only live in fear for so long before it destroys them. These are the people being alluded to in this thread. They will reap what they sow.

We have already reaped what they have sown. Some people refuse to wake up at all. A great many are already awake. The time has come. All we have to do is sound an alarm call, and we can wake up enough this round to put this thing over and stop the destruction of our country.

[sofia]

Our line of attack should be the NON EXISTANT nukes and the 1000's of US troops who dies for a pack of lies.....Close by bringing up the military donations.


They cant defend against such an attack.

[Feelgood]

How many different times, how many different ways, how much clearer can Ron Paul make his foreign policy for you? I mean honestly, if there is not enough material from Ron and others on exactly what his foreign policy IS, then YOU are the problem. There is plenty of material on the internet and elsewhere about his foreign policy.

Molotov did a GREAT job of explaining it here, if that helps...

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

[Butchie]

Butchie, Butchie, Butchie.

Now, do I need to threaten to kick your ass right ere on the forum, have you react naturally, and then turn around and use your natural reaction to prove my point that you're inherently evil and should be banned? Do I really need to do that? Because when you point a gun and a camera at someone, and you're careful to aim the gun at their head and aim the camera in such a way that you can't see the gun on the video, buddy, I'm here to tell you that you'll get a pleasantly skewed impression of that person to show the world.

No one cares if Iran feels safe. Cool. Now that we have two psychos on stage, given all the weight of being presidential candidates and telling the world that every Iranian down to the last babe in arms is some kind of kamikaze who would rather see their whole nation wiped out than suffer us to live, the way is clear for the Final Solution. You go set up The Ovens and I'll go get the poisonous gas. Maybe after we round up and wipe out the whole damned nation halfway around the world who couldn't deliver a nuke to their next door neighbor even if they had one, then maybe we can stop getting distracted and talk about our real problem which is the damned economy.

Not sure how you got that out of anything I said.

[acptulsa]

Not sure how you got that out of anything I said.

Some people, Ron Paul included, seem to suffer under the delusion that diplomacy is finding out if two peoples have common ground and meeting there. But if you don't care about the other's position at all, if you don't care if an entire nation is afraid, or if that entire nation has good reason to be afraid, that isn't a quest for common ground.

That's what diplomacy is...


"You take diplomacy out of war and the thing would fall flat in a week."--Will Rogers 1928

We are not after an excuse for war, here. Once upon a time the United States of America kicked the world's ass by inventing things the world needed and selling them to the world. Some of us would like to get back to that point. But in order to do that, we have to make Americans once again red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from salmonella so that private enterprise can be entrepreneurial again without begging the government for fifteen dozen permits, and we have to make Americans red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from people halfway around the world who couldn't deliver a nuke to us via UPS.

And you're not helping.

[affa]

the foreign policy message of a president should be able to be distilled to 'this is how I plan to avoid us needing to go to war', not 'these is when I'm gonna start bombing'.

Ron Paul is on message. It's the people that need to come around, not him. And most already have. Only the media keeps the flag of war up in the air - don't for a second believe they represent the will of the people.

[Deborah K]

No, not kidding. Presidential speech grade level has been dropping for decades.

Do you think all GOP primary voters have a greater than average IQ ? ;)

uhh...those women in that picture look like transvestites to me.....just sayin'.

[vodalian]

We've all come to understand where RP stands on war, but to the casual observer he's sounding like a pacifist that is too opposed to violence to be trusted with the Presidency. More importantly. he's being portrayed as such by the media and his opponents. During the debate, he should have stressed that national defense is indisputably afforded by the Constitution and that he is indisputably the Constitutional candidate. I realize that he has limited time in these debates and that he was responding to specific concerns about Iran. However, RP needs to offer potential supporters a scenario that would prompt him to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war. He needs to assure them that he is well aware that war IS sometimes unavoidable and that, given proper justification and authorization, he would be fully empowered to unleash our military with overwhelming force and that he would not hesitate to do so in any part of the world. You can argue that he has already done this, but the cloud of doubt persists and it will follow this campaign through every state, starting with Iowa.

If he doesn't take the time to make this crystal clear to potential voters, he truly will have a ceiling of support. I believe he needs to issue a press release immediately regarding this matter. I would even suggest that he release a YouTube message about this so it can be looped by the media or linked and forwarded as needed by the grassroots, bloggers, etc. This policy position is undermining everything else we're doing.

I find it to be pretty sickening how many people now associate murdering people in other countries with strong defense and "good foreign policy".

[silentshout]

I think his position is very clear, and resonates with the majority of Americans.

[abruzz0]

It really sucks how we have to dumb everything down for the general public, but that's the sad reality of things. I think Ron needs to continue emphasizing that he's for a strong national defense, not militarism. Keep repeating this over and over. Somehow boil it down into a sentence or two what the difference is between DEFENSE and MILITARISM. That's the key issue here. What the neo-cons want is militarism, what RP wants is defense. Providing a contrast like that is a good start.

[Todd38]

How many different times, how many different ways, how much clearer can Ron Paul make his foreign policy for you? I mean honestly, if there is not enough material from Ron and others on exactly what his foreign policy IS, then YOU are the problem. There is plenty of material on the internet and elsewhere about his foreign policy.

Molotov did a GREAT job of explaining it here, if that helps...

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

It isn't about us not getting it, it is that not enough of the public gets it. They don't understand that Paul is not anti-war, he's against unnecessary wars that can be avoided.

[Todd38]

I think his position is very clear, and resonates with the majority of Americans.

Majority of Americans yes, majority of Republicans no.

[Todd38]

I find it to be pretty sickening how many people now associate murdering people in other countries with strong defense and "good foreign policy".

It is because Fox News and neocon am radio have created the idea that "we've got to kill them before they kill us" which instantly assumes that they obviously want to kill us and the "they" is 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.

[ryanmkeisling]

uhh...those women in that picture look like transvestites to me.....just sayin'.

LMAO. I agree, I cannot imagine Ron Paul actually sat for that photo!

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations. Jingoism does not serve this policy at any juncture.

He has been crystal clear in his views that free markets and peace accomplish more for national defense than war and jingoism, anyone not understanding this is willingly not listening to him.

[abruzz0]

The neo-cons should just come out and say it already: nuke all 1.2 billion Muslims. That's what gets them off at night when nothing else can. It's what they truly want, and the only thing that would satisfy them. They're total psychopaths.

[tbone717]

I agree that the campaign needs to run a well produced TV ad. Paul is not outside of the mainstream on this issue, however I have always felt that his explanation of his policy is lacking. As someone said earlier in the thread, instead of "We need to stop the militarism" just say, "Foreign bases are outdated, costly and ineffective for defense. "

[Butchie]

Some people, Ron Paul included, seem to suffer under the delusion that diplomacy is finding out if two peoples have common ground and meeting there. But if you don't care about the other's position at all, if you don't care if an entire nation is afraid, or if that entire nation has good reason to be afraid, that isn't a quest for common ground.

That's what diplomacy is...



We are not after an excuse for war, here. Once upon a time the United States of America kicked the world's ass by inventing things the world needed and selling them to the world. Some of us would like to get back to that point. But in order to do that, we have to make Americans once again red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from salmonella so that private enterprise can be entrepreneurial again without begging the government for fifteen dozen permits, and we have to make Americans red-blooded enough not to hide under their beds from people halfway around the world who couldn't deliver a nuke to us via UPS.

And you're not helping.

Can I ask what in the world are you talking about? Your statement is full of silly statements that have nothing to do with anything I said. My stance is we just plain don't need to be in Iran or the Middle East at all for that matter, whether or not they feel safe or Israel feels safe, or Libya feels safe, or Iraq, etc, etc, is not my problem nor is it America's and it certainly is not something that will sway warmongering Republicans to your cause. I'd say for some reason you're working under the assumption I'm some kind of NeoCon.

[raystone]

uhh...those women in that picture look like transvestites to me.....just sayin'.



Where are you hanging out to see Ron Paul supportin' transvestites ?

[Deborah K]

Where are you hanging out to see Ron Paul supportin' transvestites ?

I have eyes. Those 'ladies' look men in drag, well except one.

[dagnybell]

I'm glad Ron didn't compromise anything yesterday. I was started getting worried though when he started out by saying "Anyone here can beat Obama".

But in addition to what he said yesterday about Iran and our defense, he needs to frame his argument from a position of strength. Like this:

1) Instead of "It's understandable why Iran would want a nuclear weapon", just say "Iran is a weak country. We do not need to fear them."

Fighting Iran is like walking several miles just to smash open a bee hive. Saying something like that puts him in a position of strength. Right now, he's being portrayed as someone who wants to compromise our national defense to the "great, powerful, and radical" Iran. Radical? Yeah (through the government's own doing, but that's another story). Great and powerful? Hardly.

2) Instead of "We need to stop the militarism" just say, "Occupation and foreign bases are outdated, costly and ineffective for defense. "

By saying this, he provides an alternative to the argument. When conservatives hear "stop the militarism" they think "good lord, he wants to end the military!". Investing in advanced military technology such as submarines, hypersonic weapons, and missile defense systems are much more effective for defense. He's said this several times in interviews, but never mentions it in debates.

I disagree though about offering up scenarios of war. That just accepts the premise that there is a threat worth going to war over. It's also not very statesmanlike. Can you imagine if Russia or China started coming up with different scenarios where they would go to war with the US. Not good.

I agree with everything you've said above - you need to be working for the campaign!!

[Clem Kadiddlehopper]

"I disagree though about offering up scenarios of war."

There would be nothing wrong with Ron Paul referencing Pearl Harbor as an example scenario where a fierce military response would be consistent with his respect for the Constitution and the Christian theory of just war. He could assure the audience that he would be fully supportive of war in such instances and would spare no effort to insure a swift, decisive and successful outcome. He could then contrast that event with the current futility of waging war with an ambiguous enemy, using a capricious strategy to pursue an undefinable victory. He could further assure his audience that he would always resist such a reckless expense of American lives and American treasure.

[ryanmkeisling]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations. Jingoism does not serve this policy at any juncture.

He has been crystal clear in his views that free markets and peace accomplish more for national defense than war and jingoism, anyone not understanding this is willingly not listening to him.
This^

The neo-cons should just come out and say it already: nuke all 1.2 billion Muslims. That's what gets them off at night when nothing else can. It's what they truly want, and the only thing that would satisfy them. They're total psychopaths.

and this^ + rep to both of you.

[Paulitics 2011]

Electability?

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.