PDA

View Full Version : Santorum v Paul- Iran war debate coming




nyrgoal99
01-06-2012, 03:32 PM
Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

hammy
01-06-2012, 03:33 PM
Could be Saturday

this is going to be massive

I can't wait till frothy chokes on all his WMD lies.

The One
01-06-2012, 03:37 PM
Sure hope RP is able to articulate his position well.

jsem
01-06-2012, 03:45 PM
Lincoln/Douglas debate on Iran between Santorum and Paul.

RP would completely dismantle every single argument of Santorum.

-:Undertaker:-
01-06-2012, 03:48 PM
Whenever Paul raises his voice (as sad as it is, thats what scores points) on the topic, he'll score easy.

hazek
01-06-2012, 03:53 PM
And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

ohgodno
01-06-2012, 03:53 PM
It's important that he doesn't appear weak - but maintains an agressive war is out of the question.

Dr. Paul must stress that if an attack on the US is imminent he will get a declaration of war, fight it, win it, and eliminate the threat, Constitutionally.

If the question is something like "what do you do if they HAVE a nuke?" - the answer shouldn't stay away from the perception out there of Dr. Paul: "do nothing…" it should focus on things like - working with the CIA and military to determine if they're an imminent threat to US security… if so, then - congress > declaration of war > win.

It's all about framing the response, but staying on-message of no agressive wars.

Koz
01-06-2012, 03:53 PM
I hope so, the last debate didn't go so well in my opinion. He needs to have a plethora of answers ready. Gingrich is going to hit him hard too.

rockandrollsouls
01-06-2012, 03:55 PM
I think Ron will tear into Santorum.

What he needs to do is make him EAT his words...

Santorum: "We need to defend Israel etc etc."
Paul: "Rick, I think it's odd you'd speak for the Israeli people. Prime minister Natenyahu of Israel has said, himself, that they do not want nor do they need American assistance. He has stated Israel can stand on her own. We are more eager to fight a war for Israel than Israel is to fight a war for Israel."

Santorum: "Terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, fear mongering, etc."
Paul: "Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit has actually endorsed me and agrees my policies are the best for countering and containing terrorism"

Santorum: "Iran nuclear weapons, Iran hates Jews, lie some more."
Paul: "Iran has the largest Jewish population among arabic nations. They do not hate Jews. Furthermore, were there any security threat I would provide congress with the necessary information to declare war. Were war declared, I would be sure I was entering with a clear objective against the proper individuals, take them out efficiently and effectively, and end it as soon as possible. Our men and women should not be exposed to prolonged periods of war, as this will weaken our defense."

If Santorum continues to argue after this, Ron just needs to say "I've presented you with the facts, and I find it disrespectful you are attempting to gain the highest office in America with fear mongering and lies. That, sir, is the definition of terrorism."

I just hope the campaign is briefing Ron in this manner.

On another note, Ron also needs to make it known he's the only candidate that was vehemently against the NDAA and SOPA

Freedom of Speech
01-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

rockandrollsouls
01-06-2012, 04:02 PM
^^^ That

And, that he was the only one that actually supported Israel's actions to take out nuclear reactors!

Havax
01-06-2012, 04:05 PM
Ron should call this prick a freedom-hater to his face right on the debate stage.

seapilot
01-06-2012, 04:06 PM
Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

email that to the campaign.

chickensguys
01-06-2012, 04:07 PM
Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

But Iran has bad guys there.
INVADE INVADE INVADE
*Inside the mind of a NEO-CON*

ohgodno
01-06-2012, 04:09 PM
The heart of the question is - would you protect the country. We know the answer is YES — the narrative in the media is he won't. He HAS to come away from that question with the perception that he will protect the country from harm—while stressing he will never fight a war of agression.

Also, while bringing up the two members of Mossad is valid, my problem is: most people don't know who/what the Mossad is… so an answer should not center on that - as a supporting fact, yes, but not the central theme.

So, the answer to the Iran question should focus on the determination of whether Iran poses an imminent threat to US security–and if so, protect the US Constitutionally.

thehungarian
01-06-2012, 04:11 PM
Don't forget that in Newt's post-Iowa caucus speech he basically promised to go after Ron Paul in the next debate. Hope he's ready.

Begood
01-06-2012, 04:11 PM
If they bring up Amahdinejad hatred for Israel, Ron needs to tell the world that this guy is only President and have no real power over the military.

Feeding the Abscess
01-06-2012, 04:12 PM
And when this debate comes I bet my every penny Ron will again get tricked into sounding like a pacifist against a perceived threat of Iran instead of distancing himself from the specific scenario and address it philosophically through the rule of law and the constitution. Gosh I wish I could have a private 30min chat with that man.

Ron's a dove and a peacenik, just get over it already. Said it himself in an interview on Nevada TV: he couldn't be convinced to pick up a rifle and shoot someone, so he went into the military as a doctor to heal and help people instead. Said in a Houston paper editorial interview that he would like to see fewer nukes around the world, and also isn't a fan of conventional weapons.

Promote what we have.

eugenekop
01-06-2012, 04:15 PM
Ron is who Ron is. And I think there is almost no scenario that justifies an attack on Iran, as long as they don't physically invade the United States. So Ron will never say America should attack Iran because he doesn't believe this is the right course of action no matter what. And I agree with him on that.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Ron is so close. If he wins this, it could put him over the top. What he needs to do is act like a politician, not like a professor. He needs to get his talking points, and frame his answers. Do not get tricked into answering specific scenarios that can make him look bad. Americans want a STRONG foreign policy, but not an aggressive one. People realize Paul won't be aggressive, but they do not need the strength. He needs to emphasize, that if there is a threat against the United States that he will act with brute strength. If the public believes that Paul will "wipe Iran off the face of the earth" if they actually become a threat, then his chance at becoming the next POTUS increases exponentially. If people continue to believe Paul won't act until a WMD is set off in the states, then he has no chance. He needs to frame his answers to look tough and strong.

Tyler_Durden
01-06-2012, 04:16 PM
This!!!!!!!

"To ensure regime survival, Iran's security strategy is based first on deterring an attack."

The document goes on to make this key statement, "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."


http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2011/12/19/pentagon-says-iran-concerned-primarily-with-deterring-an-attack-344

I've Drudged it. I'vs Circulated it. I've Spread it. The MSM and GOP references a vague 13pg IAEA Report as the basis for the iron grip and saber rattling, but NOBODY talks about this Report!!

Kevin Smyth
01-06-2012, 04:18 PM
Ron Paul needs to rattle off short bullet point responses...

- Netanyahu agrees with me (mentioning Netanyahu's speech)

- Head of the Bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer agrees with me.

- Mossad agreeing with him.

- The troops donate to him more than all other GOP candidates combined adding they don't want to be sent to war carelessly.

I agree with you 100%, bullet points are the only thing most Americans can understand because they have such short attention spans, Paul has to use his speaking time wisely and get right to the point.

eugenekop
01-06-2012, 04:19 PM
But RP doesn't believe Iran should be wiped off the face of the earth. He doesn't believe innocents should die. That's just not who Ron is, fortunately.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 04:19 PM
No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

Echoes
01-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Ron should pound home how the iraq war bankrupted us, lasted 10 yrs and was fought over WMD lies. Most americans believe this to be the case. Iran would be the sequal to iraq.

Feeding the Abscess
01-06-2012, 04:22 PM
No. You need to think like the American electorate. Ron Paul isn't a prof at some university. He was running for POTUS. People don't give a rats behind whether Amahdinejad has "power" or no power. People care if Ron will defend the United States of America with all its might. That is what people care about. If we focus on the million reasons why Iran is not a threat or may not be a threat, then we are a guaranteed loser. The focus needs to be on what Ron will do if they are a threat. What a "threat" is can be up for interpretation, he can stay vague there. But he needs to say it over and over again, if Iran is a threat to the USA or lays the tiniest of fingers on the USA, that he will blow them to the moon and back. That is what the electorate needs to hear. An academic speech on what a "threat" is will win us no votes at this point.

Ron is running for president to reverse course, and as such, runs on ideas. He doesn't want power; he wants us to be free.

Txrose4ever
01-06-2012, 04:23 PM
The heart of the question is - would you protect the country. We know the answer is YES — the narrative in the media is he won't. He HAS to come away from that question with the perception that he will protect the country from harm—while stressing he will never fight a war of agression.

Also, while bringing up the two members of Mossad is valid, my problem is: most people don't know who/what the Mossad is… so an answer should not center on that - as a supporting fact, yes, but not the central theme.

So, the answer to the Iran question should focus on the determination of whether Iran poses an imminent threat to US security–and if so, protect the US Constitutionally.

I agree. The bottom line is that the public needs to feel he is not afraid to be aggressive when legitimately needed and that he WILL protect America.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 04:24 PM
You can't fight a war, especially fighting in a way of "get in, win it, and get out", without having some collateral damage. It is beyond hypocritical. Surgically striking and taking out leadership without nation building can create a power vacuum that is extremely dangerous to innocents as well. Heavy bombing to take out military instalations and leadership creates the power vacuum as well as actual collateral damage. The fact is, any war is going to hurt innocents of a country you are fighting against. Either way, Ron will lose votes if his position is "If we get attacked/imminent threat we will pansy our way into a war because we don't want to hurt people". That just isn't what the American electorate wants.

jmdrake
01-06-2012, 04:25 PM
There's nothing to debate. We have Santorum on record saying that Iran doesn't want a bomb to attack Israel but that Iran wants a bomb to defend themselves. That's pretty much Ron Paul's position except that Ron isn't convinced that Iran is necessarily working on a bomb and Ron doesn't what to threaten Iran. So using Santorum's logic if Ron Paul was president Iran would quit working for a bomb because they wouldn't need to defend themselves.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347109-they-don-t-want-a-Nuke-to-bomb-israel-they-want-it-for-protection.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jRW30b_51KY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jsj18NO7IcE&feature=player_embedded

trey4sports
01-06-2012, 04:26 PM
Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.

PaulConventionWV
01-06-2012, 04:27 PM
It's important that he doesn't appear weak - but maintains an agressive war is out of the question.

Dr. Paul must stress that if an attack on the US is imminent he will get a declaration of war, fight it, win it, and eliminate the threat, Constitutionally.

If the question is something like "what do you do if they HAVE a nuke?" - the answer shouldn't stay away from the perception out there of Dr. Paul: "do nothing…" it should focus on things like - working with the CIA and military to determine if they're an imminent threat to US security… if so, then - congress > declaration of war > win.

It's all about framing the response, but staying on-message of no agressive wars.

He should keep doing what he's doing. He has said, many times, that he would fight a Constitutional war where danger to our national security was imminent. However, he shouldn't entertain specific scenarios of Iran actually getting a nuke and instead keep on fighting that whole perception by telling people there is no way they could be a threat to us and that there is no evidence they even have a weapon.

Many people here don't like it and think he should entertain those ideas, but the truth needs to be told.

Echoes
01-06-2012, 04:28 PM
Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.

Gingrich and Huntsman, too. Romney maybe to a lesser extent, but they're all gonna gang-jump him.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 04:28 PM
What does that even mean? If you look around one of the top 2 concerns about Ron is his foreign policy; more specifically how he'd defend this nation. Ron can't "reverse course" in terms of the POTUS not having the role of Commander in Chief. He needs to have "ideas" on how he would defend the nation as Commander in Chief. He needs to articulate those ideas to the American public. He can and does have different ideas than the current warmongers, but he needs to change the current perception that he doesn't care about our national defense.

PaulConventionWV
01-06-2012, 04:31 PM
email that to the campaign.

Do you think they don't already know?

Kevin Smyth
01-06-2012, 04:32 PM
If they bring up Amahdinejad hatred for Israel, Ron needs to tell the world that this guy is only President and have no real power over the military.

That doesn't make any sense because the Ayatollah Khamenei who is the actual ruler of Iran also hates Israel. No, what Paul has to do is to point out that Iran knows Israel has 300-400 nuclear weapons and they are well aware that Israel would nuke them if they attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. The typical Republican Fox News viewer does not know that Israel has nuclear weapons, I repeat, Republican neocon media does not allow their audience to know that Israel has nuclear weapons because knowledge of this fact would make the audience not view Israel as the victim being bullied by powerful Muslims. Nor does neocon media allow their audience to know anything else about the strength of Israel in comparison to their Muslim enemies, for example: Hamas and Hezbollah have no tanks and no Air Force but you'll never hear neocon media emphasize this. Ron Paul must use the TV debates to force Republicans to hear details about the Middle East that they've never been introduced to by neocon media thus strengthening his justifications for non-interventionism and proving his validity as the best/most informed candidate on foreign affairs/foreign policy.

roderik
01-06-2012, 04:33 PM
Ron is so ready for this. If Santorum really makes the mistake to try and score with knowledge...Ron will slaughter him.
76 years of stacked wisdom? Rick you'd better sit down and listen.

Svenskar_för_Ron_Paul
01-06-2012, 04:34 PM
http://www.apelsin.nu/classics/?url=bomb_iraq

Change Iraq to Iran, and Bush to Santorum.

Fits in perfectly imo

speciallyblend
01-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Ron is so ready for this. If Santorum really makes the mistake to try and score with knowledge...Ron will slaughter him.
76 years of stacked wisdom? Rick you'd better sit down and listen.

thread winner^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 04:35 PM
There is a difference between a movement and a campaign. Paul has a serious chance at winning, if he treats it as a campaign. That doesn't have mean he has to give up on the movement.

Saying he will "fight constitutional wars" and downplaying the Iranian threat is not a good campaign move. It just won't win any votes. He can and should frame the same answer in a way that projects strength and defense.

There is a huge difference in psyche between these two statements

1. "I'll fight wars constitutionally, getting congressional approval, when there is an imminent threat to the nation. Currently, Iran is not a threat because of X,Y,Z."
2. "If Iran posed an imminent danger to the United States I'll go to Congress with a declaration of War, and use the strength of this nation to make sure Iran would never pose another threat to the country".

Both statements say essentially the same thing, but the impacts to voters is tremendously different. Downplay the lack of Iranian threat, and play up the response if they become a threat. Don't answer what a threat is (and here I agree with the don't respond to "specific scenarios").

This isn't class. People believe Iran is a threat even when they aren't. People wont' respond to Paul lecturing on why Iran isn't currently a threat, but they'll respond to him saying he'll fight them when they do become a threat (which fortunately will most likely be never).

PaulConventionWV
01-06-2012, 04:38 PM
You can't fight a war, especially fighting in a way of "get in, win it, and get out", without having some collateral damage. It is beyond hypocritical. Surgically striking and taking out leadership without nation building can create a power vacuum that is extremely dangerous to innocents as well. Heavy bombing to take out military instalations and leadership creates the power vacuum as well as actual collateral damage. The fact is, any war is going to hurt innocents of a country you are fighting against. Either way, Ron will lose votes if his position is "If we get attacked/imminent threat we will pansy our way into a war because we don't want to hurt people". That just isn't what the American electorate wants.

What are you suggesting? That he adopt an interventionist policy?

trey4sports
01-06-2012, 04:42 PM
Gingrich and Huntsman, too. Romney maybe to a lesser extent, but they're all gonna gang-jump him.


yeah, my gut says Romney (regardless of whether it is the right move) is preparing for the general at this point and is NOT going to attack anyone, unless it is absolutely neccessary. Now, if Ron actually challenges him in some primaries and Romney is actually losing steam.... then we'll get attacked. If we would have won Iowa and eroded Romney's lead in NH, THEN we'd be getting attacked right now.

Tod
01-06-2012, 04:42 PM
I wonder why Russia or China doesn't just sell some nukes to Iran to take the issue (of Iran trying to get nukes) off the table?

jcarcinogen
01-06-2012, 04:44 PM
edit

kill the banks
01-06-2012, 04:44 PM
Ron is so ready for this. If Santorum really makes the mistake to try and score with knowledge...Ron will slaughter him.
76 years of stacked wisdom? Rick you'd better sit down and listen.

I'll pray for this

PaulConventionWV
01-06-2012, 04:45 PM
There is a difference between a movement and a campaign. Paul has a serious chance at winning, if he treats it as a campaign. That doesn't have mean he has to give up on the movement.

Saying he will "fight constitutional wars" and downplaying the Iranian threat is not a good campaign move. It just won't win any votes. He can and should frame the same answer in a way that projects strength and defense.

There is a huge difference in psyche between these two statements

1. "I'll fight wars constitutionally, getting congressional approval, when there is an imminent threat to the nation. Currently, Iran is not a threat because of X,Y,Z."
2. "If Iran posed an imminent danger to the United States I'll go to Congress with a declaration of War, and use the strength of this nation to make sure Iran would never pose another threat to the country".

Both statements say essentially the same thing, but the impacts to voters is tremendously different. Downplay the lack of Iranian threat, and play up the response if they become a threat. Don't answer what a threat is (and here I agree with the don't respond to "specific scenarios").

This isn't class. People believe Iran is a threat even when they aren't. People wont' respond to Paul lecturing on why Iran isn't currently a threat, but they'll respond to him saying he'll fight them when they do become a threat (which fortunately will most likely be never).

They don't say the same things. The second one gives legitimacy to the question of Iran even being a threat.

Regardless, though, can you tell me how you know one is better than the other? What qualifies you to make these claims?

ohgodno
01-06-2012, 04:46 PM
He should keep doing what he's doing. He has said, many times, that he would fight a Constitutional war where danger to our national security was imminent. However, he shouldn't entertain specific scenarios of Iran actually getting a nuke and instead keep on fighting that whole perception by telling people there is no way they could be a threat to us and that there is no evidence they even have a weapon.

Many people here don't like it and think he should entertain those ideas, but the truth needs to be told.

My issue with that is it will seem as a question dodge.

Again the reason that question would/could be asked is to find out if he will "protect" us from a threat (to enforce the narrative that he is weak on defense)– yes WE know Dr. Paul will protect us from a threat - but the message pushed in the MSM is he won't.

A question based on a hypothetical about Iran, while outlandish (because all the evidence points to them not acquiring a weapon), is an opportunity to smash this perception.

The goal of the debates is to educate on your positions and control how you're perceived.

I think Dr. Paul can both educate the viewers with facts that Iran is currently no threat to the US and isn't likely to ever become one - while also illustrating that he will protect the US if there was imminent threat to our national security.

We all know the hurdle is national security - and saw that in the run up to the caucuses in all of Rand's appearances that it was his focus to explain Dr. Paul's foreign policy.

Kevin Smyth
01-06-2012, 04:48 PM
I wonder why Russia or China doesn't just sell some nukes to Iran to take the issue (of Iran trying to get nukes) off the table?

I don't know why Putin doesn't just loudly declare a "hands off Iran" policy to the United States.

Kevin Smyth
01-06-2012, 04:50 PM
I agree. The bottom line is that the public needs to feel he is not afraid to be aggressive when legitimately needed and that he WILL protect America.

But why do they assume that he won't protect America?

ohgodno
01-06-2012, 04:52 PM
But why do they assume that he won't protect America?

I freaking wish I knew…

asurfaholic
01-06-2012, 04:53 PM
Ron better eat his wheaties cuz Santorum will be all over Ron.

And for this, I am excited. Ron does his best when people spew nonsense.

I love it when he says things like "thats absurd" and whatnot... lol

jkob
01-06-2012, 04:53 PM
Good, we'll win with this issue.

Feeding the Abscess
01-06-2012, 04:54 PM
My issue with that is it will seem as a question dodge.

Again the reason that question would/could be asked is to find out if he will "protect" us from a threat (to enforce the narrative that he is weak on defense)– yes WE know Dr. Paul will protect us from a threat - but the message pushed in the MSM is he won't.

A question based on a hypothetical about Iran, while outlandish (because all the evidence points to them not acquiring a weapon), is an opportunity to smash this perception.

The goal of the debates is to educate on your positions and control how you're perceived.

I think Dr. Paul can both educate the viewers with facts that Iran is currently no threat to the US and isn't likely to ever become one - while also illustrating that he will protect the US if there was imminent threat to our national security.

We all know the hurdle is national security - and saw that in the run up to the caucuses in all of Rand's appearances that it was his focus to explain Dr. Paul's foreign policy.

Questions about Iran aren't hypothetical, the people asking the questions are agitating for war propaganda.

ohgodno
01-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Questions about Iran aren't hypothetical, the people asking the questions are agitating for war propaganda.

100% agree they are propaganda. But a stupid question like that is an opportunity to both frame the debate in the context of the fact that it is war propaganda while also breaking down a perception that is pushed in the MSM daily.

SonofThunder
01-06-2012, 05:03 PM
I'd like Ron to frame it as Obama is clearly agitating for war with Iran as away to boost his sagging approval rating. We initiated the current conflict by creating sanctions that kill their economy, and they are responding in kind.

I don't know if that would play well, but it's the damn truth.

papitosabe
01-06-2012, 05:14 PM
There's nothing to debate. We have Santorum on record saying that Iran doesn't want a bomb to attack Israel but that Iran wants a bomb to defend themselves. That's pretty much Ron Paul's position except that Ron isn't convinced that Iran is necessarily working on a bomb and Ron doesn't what to threaten Iran. So using Santorum's logic if Ron Paul was president Iran would quit working for a bomb because they wouldn't need to defend themselves.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?347109-they-don-t-want-a-Nuke-to-bomb-israel-they-want-it-for-protection.


WTH!!! this video is perfect and definitely needs to be on another flip flopper ad...

jmdrake
01-06-2012, 05:54 PM
I don't see why nobody in this thread besides me gets it. All Ron has to do is to use Santorum's own words against him. Santorum said that he thinks Iran isn't trying to get a bomb to attack Israel but for "self defense". So then using Santorum's own logic if we quit threatening Iran they will no longer have an incentive to get a nuclear bomb. Case closed.

jmdrake
01-06-2012, 05:55 PM
WTH!!! this video is perfect and definitely needs to be on another flip flopper ad...

I spoke too soon. Someone else gets it. ;)

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 06:37 PM
What are you suggesting? That he adopt an interventionist policy?

No, not at all. The public knows he is a non-interventionalist, although they have it nailed in their brains that he is a weak isolationist as well. That is precisely the problem. People by and large know he wants congressional approval, close bases, and won't fight wars of aggression. The misconception is on when he will actually fight and defend. The way he says it is now the answer is implied, hence why we all know it. But the public doesn't dig deep enough, hence why the whole weak on national security thing. He needs to hammer it home that he will defend us in the face of a threat. That is where the votes are. The folks that understand and love his foreign policy are banked, we need to frame the same policy in a way that appeals to people that worry about defense.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 06:40 PM
They don't say the same things. The second one gives legitimacy to the question of Iran even being a threat.

Regardless, though, can you tell me how you know one is better than the other? What qualifies you to make these claims?

I disagree. You may be looking too far into it. But then again, that's the point of a campaign. We want voters coming out of the debate to know Paul will defend us against a threat. The current academic lecture won many votes, but it isn't working on the seniors. What qualifies me? Nothing besides looking at the polls. The public actually likes Paul's foreign policy, it's what they want, he is just not communicating it in their terms.

Matthanuf06
01-06-2012, 06:42 PM
I don't see why nobody in this thread besides me gets it. All Ron has to do is to use Santorum's own words against him. Santorum said that he thinks Iran isn't trying to get a bomb to attack Israel but for "self defense". So then using Santorum's own logic if we quit threatening Iran they will no longer have an incentive to get a nuclear bomb. Case closed.

Makes sense if this was a real debate. It's not. It's a bunch of politicians making sales pitches. Logic doesn't win. The best sales pitch wins. Sad state of affairs, but it is what it is

TheTexan
01-06-2012, 06:53 PM
And I think there is almost no scenario that justifies an attack on Iran, as long as they don't physically invade the United States.

I have to disagree with this. If they attack us in the Strait of Hormuz, it's go time. Of course, that won't ever happen. They aren't that stupid.

Yes, I know we put them in that position. Yes, I know they are just using the last bit of leverage that they have. But I don't think even Ron would sit by and let an attack on one of our ships go without incident.

Of course, I have to reiterate. This is not going to happen - Iran knows this, and is not suicidal. If it does happen, it'll probably be false flag to give us a reason to go to war.

CaptainAmerica
01-06-2012, 07:00 PM
Ron already schooled santorum on iran

Vet_from_cali
01-06-2012, 07:02 PM
Oh god, please be streaming online, I NEED to see this!!!

R.I.P frothy
you were a good troll