PDA

View Full Version : Talking Points on Military Spending, Foreign Policy, Foreign Aid, and Israel




Philosophy_of_Politics
01-27-2012, 06:26 PM
To people who think critically about Ron Paul, whether they be a supporter or against Ron Paul, they eventually realize that he's right. However, connecting these points together for people which are being closed-minded is a more challenging task. So I have a few suggestions that Ron Paul could use, to help these idea's resonate in their minds.


Military Spending + How It Affects Economy:

"You have to remember all of the expenditures we have to fund our policing of the world. We have to spend on guns, ammunition, food, technology, fuel for the war machines, and many other various things. Not only that, we have to pay even more just to export these expenditures across the world. If we adopted my constitutional foreign policy, the additional cost to export these expenditures would be abolished. This is one reason why policing the world goes against conservative values, because it creates wasteful spending, and we're not in a position to continue wasteful spending. We could better fund our defenses, if we eliminate the oversea's military spending."

This approach ties in the concepts of Offense and Defense, as well as fiscal responsibility. It reminds people of the cost of war, and why it's one of the largest reasons of our economic woes. This gets people to caution policing the world, and our financial condition.



Israel and Foreign Aid:

"Many people have distorted my stance on Israel. I'm not against Israel, in-fact, I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of Israel since I am a devout Christian. Look back in history. How did American's provide support of Israel before the government began providing Israel with foreign aid? People use to individually donate to organizations devoted to supporting Israel. My reasoning for this is, is because I want to preserve the rights of American's to have a freedom of choice. Not only that, but when you allow the government to tax and provide foreign aid, the money is not as wisely spent. The most important thing to remember, is that we give foreign aid to Israel's enemies as well--more than we give to Israel itself--I'm not just cutting foreign aid to 'just' Israel, I'd be cutting foreign aid to all countries. Prime Minister Netanyahu has even given a speech on the house floor a short while back, where he tells us we don't need to export democracy, nation-building, and unlimited foreign aid to Israel. You don't support your allies by just throwing money at them. We have to allow Israel to be their own adults, and respect their choices. That's what I would consider truly supporting your allies."

I feel this would win over many Christians. It reminds people of wasteful spending, throws in the fact to what Netanyahu has said, and it reminds people to let other nations be their own adults.


Isolationism vs. Non-Interventionism:

"People have this idea that because I don't want to invade every country in the world, that I'm an Isolationist. This is a false accusation. True Isolationism is when you close yourself off from communication, trade, and respect of other nations."

Used to destroy the Isolationist Smear.

Cortes
01-27-2012, 10:16 PM
+rep

LineHogs
01-28-2012, 02:33 AM
I think you have a decent idea. But the problem is your response to both categories will only appeal to people actually INTERESTED in anything but the lie of his foreign policy..... which is that he is somehow weak, a liberal democrat, or slighty crazy. So what you have to do is vehemently go afte the lie. With Passion and integrity you shock them with the root of their fear/disinterest by announcing the opposite. In Ron Paul's case it's the vote to go after Bin LAden. The idea of constitutionally voting for war. And proper use of defense isntead of lack of Team America World Police lol. Which is also exactly what he's doing.

I did some tests on this. My boss can't stand Ron Paul. He's a Good man, just not generally political ect ect strong conservative christian. He supports ginrich. Over the last few days I've slipped some of Ron PAul's foreign policy into my own views (which they generally are) to see his reaction. He also agreed that he liked the ideas and even took it a step further. Having two kids previously in the military and an Iraw War Vet on our crew the needless fighting bothered him. Over the next few days I was amazed to see my conservative christian dictate some of Ron Paul's strongest foreing policy positions. It's natural in other words. Most people think the same way but the RHETORIC is what creates a barrier between candidates.

Therefore the Rhetoric must be attacked. Actually it must be confronted as any lie is. From the front. An honest man doesn;'t need to hide behind words or fake emotion. Ron Paul is an honest man and has nothing more to be ashamed of than any of us. That is how he can bring people around to his foreign policy. By realizing it's theirs as well and finding a way to connect on a simple a level. Honest men recognize honest men. That's the first step to bringing in the conservative right wing and shifting the party. By bringing over those kind of people.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-28-2012, 04:18 PM
I think you have a decent idea. But the problem is your response to both categories will only appeal to people actually INTERESTED in anything but the lie of his foreign policy..... which is that he is somehow weak, a liberal democrat, or slighty crazy. So what you have to do is vehemently go afte the lie. With Passion and integrity you shock them with the root of their fear/disinterest by announcing the opposite. In Ron Paul's case it's the vote to go after Bin LAden. The idea of constitutionally voting for war. And proper use of defense isntead of lack of Team America World Police lol. Which is also exactly what he's doing.

I did some tests on this. My boss can't stand Ron Paul. He's a Good man, just not generally political ect ect strong conservative christian. He supports ginrich. Over the last few days I've slipped some of Ron PAul's foreign policy into my own views (which they generally are) to see his reaction. He also agreed that he liked the ideas and even took it a step further. Having two kids previously in the military and an Iraw War Vet on our crew the needless fighting bothered him. Over the next few days I was amazed to see my conservative christian dictate some of Ron Paul's strongest foreing policy positions. It's natural in other words. Most people think the same way but the RHETORIC is what creates a barrier between candidates.

Therefore the Rhetoric must be attacked. Actually it must be confronted as any lie is. From the front. An honest man doesn;'t need to hide behind words or fake emotion. Ron Paul is an honest man and has nothing more to be ashamed of than any of us. That is how he can bring people around to his foreign policy. By realizing it's theirs as well and finding a way to connect on a simple a level. Honest men recognize honest men. That's the first step to bringing in the conservative right wing and shifting the party. By bringing over those kind of people.

The idea of these talking points, isn't to appeal to voters. These talking points are meant to get people's common sense "cells" working again. To make them question their own beliefs.

Pericles
01-28-2012, 04:39 PM
A bankrupt country, will not have the money for any purpose, no matter how noble it may be.

Philosophy_of_Politics
01-31-2012, 12:08 PM
Bumping

J_White
02-01-2012, 02:02 AM
Can I say that if we mind our own business, we would not be back-stabbed as much.

We supported Saddam against Iran, he turned on us.
We supported AQ/OBL against Russia, they turned on us.
We supported Afghanistan against Taliban, they say if USA attacks Pakistan, they will side with Pakistan.
We "liberated" Iraq from Saddam, they dont want our army there anymore (no more amnesty for soldiers).
We "liberated" Libya from Gaddafi, now supposedly Al-Qaeda flag is flying in Benghazi.

We should protect America first, rather than keep meddling in other's affairs.