Ron Paul is Smarter than the Conventional Wisdom

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul:


Paul cares little for calls that he "go more moderate" on foreign policy. He is who he is. "That would be the last thing I'm going to do … water down my beliefs.

"Others have argued 'Oh yeah, if Ron Paul would just go more moderate on this foreign policy all of the sudden he would get a broader audience' and that's isn't it," he said. "The more I've been talking about what I've been saying for a long time, the more people we have joining us."

Could this be our secret weapon? Ron sees something important that most people don't, including a lot of people on this forum.

Link: Ron Paul Won't 'water down beliefs' (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-29/ron-paul--iowa-caucuses-interview/52278332/1)

[blazeKing]

He doesn't need to water down his beliefs but he needs to reassure people that he would not roll over if attacked and that he would be a strong CIC. We all know he would be and that no nation really poses a threat, but a lot of people out there are really emotionally insecure and before they vote they need reassurance that the leader will keep them safe from the "outside enemy foreigner terrorist".

He needs to remind them that none of the candidates pushing for war with Iran have a way to pay for it. That he would not get in the way of Israel destroying nuke facilities if they feel threatened. Remind them that we are far more likely to be destroyed economically than by some weak nation like Iran. That we are better off securing our borders than nationbuilding.

What I'm saying is, a lot of the older generation want to feel emotionally secure with Paul as president. That he would not back down if we are attacked. That he isn't afraid to go to Congress for a declaration of war. He doesn't have to change his beliefs or moderate them, just explain them in a way that relieves the worries of some of the electorate that he isn't tough.

[SonofThunder]

If the campaign wants to woo older voters (and they do, because they vote) then they need to reinforce two messages:

1) Ron Paul will save Medicare an Social Security and keep your checks coming. In fact, he's the only one that will cut spending in other areas so we don't go bankrupt and the checks don't stop all together. (this is the #1 issue that they care about)

2) All this nation building and adventurism overseas is going to have to stop, especially if you want your checks to keep coming. This means we have to cool it with all the bomb this bomb that talk and start following the Constitution for our foreign policy.

[pinkmandy]

Maybe a lot of people don't have a good grasp on who declares war and why? The Iran stuff is annoying and seems like it could be easily cleared up if people understood that the founders set it up so that Congress declares war on behalf of the will of the people and if Congress should declare war on Iran then Paul would execute that war as would be his job as a constitutional president. It all boils down to Paul simply saying he would not attack another country unless it's the will of the people via a constitutional declaration of war by their representatives in Congress. Any other position is unconstitutional. The founders did not want a king given that's what they fought against and people today are just giving up their rights, their voices that the revolutionary army fought so hard for. I'm not trying to preach to the choir, just saying I think more would understand Paul's position if the reasoning behind his position were explained in a way that informs those who really don't know or understand the constitutional process and why it was set up the way it is. I don't think saying it's unconstitutional is enough for some (many?). Perhaps the older voting block that wants to bomb Iran has forgotten what they learned about this back in school and perhaps others never really learned it?