"Dangerous": How Ron can put the other candidates in their place!

[No Free Beer]

Now, I have read many threads on how Ron Paul should handle the foreign policy questions.

My answer takes a bit of everyone's and mashes it together. I consider myself a pretty good debater. This is how I would approach any questioning or remark on my (Ron's) foreign policy and how it is considered "dangerous".

http://i39.tinypic.com/312cx0n.png
This would be Dr. Paul's face while saying the following:

"You know, I find it funny how some people and candidates on this stage label my foreign policy views as 'dangerous'. How is following the Constitution and rule of law dangerous? You know, I get more money from our military men and women than all the GOP candidates COMBINED! I even get more money than our current president. Our men and women like my views on foreign policy. Are you willing to claim that their views are 'dangerous'? I find it funny, with Rick Perry as an exception, I am the only one on this stage who has actually served in the military. Rick Santorum never served. Jon Huntsman never served. Newt Gingrich never served. Mitt Romney never served. Yet, they have the gall to tell me and our service members whose foreign policy views are dangerous! I think we need to listen to the men and women who are on the ground and what their feelings are with regards to our foreign policy. They want to defend this country, defend the Constitution, and stop being the policemen of the world!

It is simple and it uses
- Our military donations
- Points out that none of the other candidates actually served (except Perry)
- talks about defending this country
- defending the Constitution
- no policing of the world.

GAME OVER!!!!!!

[TheNewYorker]

Eh but he won't. Ron is not one for sounbytes, nor home run type statements

[JJ2]

Eh but he won't. Ron is not one for sounbytes, nor home run type statements

Yes. And that may cause him to lose the nomination. :(

The time for the traditional "slow growth" of his support is now over.

[blazeKing]

I think it would be better to just turn it around and label them dangerous for not having a good economic policy to take control of the debt and balance the budget. The Soviet Union wasn't destroyed by militaries it was destroyed by economics. Our threat is economic. The other candidates are DANGEROUS for not addressing the cripping debt.

[jsem]

He should flip this issue and call the other candidates out, because THEIR foreign policy is what causes danger to the entire world.

[No Free Beer]

Eh but he won't. Ron is not one for sounbytes, nor home run type statements

that's the problem

[coffeewithgames]

Yes. And that may cause him to lose the nomination. :(

Welcome to the forums. This is a point I don't understand, and it makes no sense to me. RP admits he isn't the best at deliverying the message, and it baffles me why the campaign and RP does not have a speech coach follow him around 24/7 to go over words/phrases. The only way to get better at something, is practice. If RP admits his delivery needs help, a speech coach could greatly help. I honestly believe that if RP had a speech coach/tweaked just a few things MONTHS ago, he would be #1 and being attacked like crazy, because his debate performances would then match up with his record...of awesome.

[Revolution9]

Eh but he won't. Ron is not one for sounbytes, nor home run type statements

Not phony ones that are pre-scripted but back this man in the corner and he produces historic soundbyte and knocks it over the fence. RP already has said what the OP sated..except with more precision and less words. I would call that a soundbyte and it was historic when delivered. To have him speech coached won't happen. For those of you with average minds this may work well. For advanced mutlithreaded, mega-tangential minds it is the epitome of boring and lacks the quality of exploratory exclamation which invites revelation.

Rev9

[rblgenius]

Yes. And that may cause him to lose the nomination. :(

The time for the traditional "slow growth" of his support is now over.

This. He needs to do the sound bites. His message is the right one. The delivery however is key

[No Free Beer]

Not phony ones that are pre-scripted but back this man in the corner and he produces historic soundbyte and knocks it over the fence. RP already has said what the OP sated..except with more precision and less words. I would call that a soundbyte and it was historic when delivered. To have him speech coached won't happen. For those of you with average minds this may work well. For advanced mutlithreaded, mega-tangential minds it is the epitome of boring and lacks the quality of exploratory exclamation which invites revelation.

Rev9

I would agree and also disagree with you.

First, I agree that for a lot of voters, Paul's answers are too complex. A part of me likes that about him because it shows that he is giving detailed answers. I would also agree that it is frustrating when I hear any of the other candidates give very generic answers, such as, "we need to lower taxes and get rid of regulations." I want to pull my hair out. In fact, Ron Paul even addressed this in one of the debates by saying (paraphrasing): "I think we all on this stage are for lowering taxes and getting rid of regulations..." then he went on to explain the Fed. So, on that front we agree.

This is where I disagree: There is a difference between generic answers and in depth answers that have a little mustard behind them. The quote I wrote above is an argument that goes into detail about why his foreign policy isn't dangerous and is supported by a lot of service members. It also puts the candidates on the spot when he asks them if they think the troops point of views are dangerous. Furthermore, it pushes back at this notion that Ron Paul is a pacifist and "doesn't understand" by pointing out that they are all chicken hawks. Again, there is a difference between generic, dumb-downed answers and an in depth zinger.

[jay_dub]

RP needs to point out the LIE of the other candidates when they promote more military spending and a reduced debt. You simply can't have it both ways. We will be looking at $16 trillion debt come election time. This point needs to be hammered home. We HAVE to cut back on spending. He needs to point out that Romney wants to double the Navy (unnecessary and expensive) and Santorum is already calling for air strikes on Iran (ill-advised knee jerk and dangerous).

These things can be said in a short answer in the debate. It doesn't need to be a soundbite but the average voter needs to understand the LIES of the other candidates and that RP is telling the TRUTH. The real dangerous policy is one built on lies.

RP needs to quit answering the loaded questions and use his time to get his message out. There's no time to waste on philosophy. This is an election, dammit.

[donnay]

Eh but he won't. Ron is not one for sounbytes, nor home run type statements

Flashback:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk

[blazeKing]

Flashback:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk

Haha that was beautiful...I remember that one quite well

[coffeewithgames]

Flashback:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8TkmE5t1Pk

The issue, these responses are more of the exception than the rule with RP, and he admits it himself about his delivery...which again, if he admits it, why doesn't the campaign have a speech coach/team with him 24/7?

[Liberty74]

I would talk about how dangerous their spending has been and is. How dangerous our foreign policy of interventionism is - creates terrorism and creates poverty here at home. The middle class becomes poorer too because we have to tax, print or borrow the money to pay for the interventionism. How dangerous it is to rush to war with Iran who has Russia and China backing them.