People just want to know RP will keep us safe (National Defense)

[JJ2]

I think a major reason why more Republican voters are not voting for Ron Paul is because they need to be able to trust him that he will protect this country and keep them safe. He needs to assure them of this in the debates. For example, he could say something like:

"As President, I will have the strongest national defense--stronger, in fact, than that of anyone else on this stage. How so? Because I will cut wasteful spending overseas, on foreign wars, foreign bases, foreign nation building, and foreign aid. Instead, I will protect this nation!"

Also, I love his line about defending our own border instead of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But he could also point out that the border issue is not just an illegal immigration issue but is also a national security/terrorism issue, and that he will prevent terrorists from coming into America.

Also, instead of just stating that he gets more military contributions than all of the other candidates put together, should turn it into a question. He could say: "If my foreign policy is 'dangerous' as my opponents like to claim, then I would like them to explain to the audience right now why I receive more contributions from active duty military than all of them put together?" Or even direct the question specifically to Santorum or Newt (I know Santorum called it "dangerous," not sure about Newt).

This would show that they don't trust/respect the military and are actually calling the soldiers' foreign policy "dangerous"!

[Schiff_FTW]

Unfortunately RP often assumes people fill in the blanks when they don't. Of course he would defend America from a legitamite threat. Of course getting rid of the department of education doesn't mean the end of public schools, etc., etc.

He omits things because he thinks they are obvious, but in reality most people are completely clueless and assume the worst.

[Travlyr]

Ron Paul says that national defense is a primary duty of the federal government. He says it all the time. I don't know why people don't hear it.

The U.S. Constitution includes national defense in Article I Section 8 (http://constitution.org/constit_.htm)

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Ron Paul makes it quite clear to anyone paying attention.

[rpwi]

Being safe...means simply minding your own business. Look at all the times Switzerland has been attacked? A genuine national defense that concentrates on protecting our borders instead of policing the world is so much cheaper, safer and more practical. When politicians yabber about having a strong military this is not to keep us safe but is code for having control over the rest of the world.

[freneticentropy]

Please take a look at my post in Campaign Suggestions entitled 'The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republicans on Foreign Policy'. I strongly believe the only way to put the foreign policy problems to rest is with a strong policy speech outlining his foreign policy in a way that presents it as simultaneously peaceful and STRONG. I hope I can people backing me on this idea and we can get the campaigns attention. I've seen other people make similar suggestions, but they never go anywhere. If you support this idea or have suggestions on talking points for such a speech, please post them in that thread. Thanks!

[everlasticity]

Unfortunately RP often assumes people fill in the blanks when they don't.

This is often a problem with libertarian philosophy. We just expect that people should act reasonably when there are other factors that need to be addressed. Ron Paul does not make it clear why his foreign policy would make us more safe. He needs to emphasize the types of actions he would do specifically at home to increase national security.

Bringing troops home so they can defend our borders. Increasing intelligence agencies to give them power to combat terrorism without threatening civil liberties. Working diplomatically with hostile countries.

[everlasticity]

Please take a look at my post in Campaign Suggestions entitled 'The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republicans on Foreign Policy'.

Link?

[freneticentropy]

Link?

The Paul Doctrine: Changing Perceptions of Republican Voters on Foreign Policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?354404-The-Paul-Doctrine-on-Foreign-Policy-Changing-perceptions-of-republican-voters.)

[jacmicwag]

Yep, if Ron could articulate his positions like Newt, we'd be 3 and 0 right now. I really believe foreign policy is Ron's strongest suit but he hasn't been able to sell his point yet. Maybe tomorrow.

[brandt]

It is his strongest suit. Of course we know that returning to fiscal responsibility would take care of many of those issues but that is far too esoteric for many voters to spend time researching.