Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

[BlackTerrel]

You're never going to get a satisfactory answer to this.

There are 309 million Americans not everyone is going to agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

For the record among the people I hang out with most would agree with his foreign policy stance. It's the domestic stuff they have more of an issue with.

[Esoteric]

Two main reasons.. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

[Voluntary Man]

Why Do People Not like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy?

Why? Because the kids think empires are cool. It's like being a rockstar! You know: live hard, die young, leave a good-looking corpse, and all that.

[Lishy]

People assume things without knowing shit what they're talking about, so they assume Paul is a radical.

[NoOneButPaul]

The truth is people do like his foreign policy, it's the GOP voters who don't...

[WilliamC]

Because they are bloodthirsty animals and expect to suffer no personal consequences from the carnage of wars they expect others to fight and die in?

[Travlyr]

Corporatocracy

War pays corporations big bucks. "War Is A Racket" Global Hawk drone = $108,000,000.00.

War is paid for with inflation tactics that hide the true costs of war (counterfeiting). The propaganda arm continually promotes violence 24/7 on TV, radio, and through schooling as if it is normal, but they rarely show the true costs of actual war the death, destruction, and the bills.

[romacox]

I just don't understand people that like Ron Paul's fiscal policies but don't like his Foreign Policy. Why do people not like Ron Paul's foreign policy? Personally, I think Ron has the smartest foreign policy but most of the opposition is misinformed on his views. Why do these people want to fight wars so badly?

Don't forget, they were very much opposed to his fiscal policy for many years. It has taken years for people like you to reteach what the news media, and our educational system has taught. We face the same obstetrical with Ron's Foreign policy which is Constitutional (not dangerous or isolationist as the news media leads people to beliee).

The truth is that many in my generation are largely responsible for the condition we are in...not the young people. If they don't figure these things out soon, it will be too late, if it isn't already.

[BUSHLIED]

In absolute truth:

People don't actually understand the situations discussed at hand. Because Ron Paul is extreme" ideologically, people get the impressions he's "radical", and so the average American wants someone with a "balanced" set of views, just for the sake of "balance", because most people acquaint that with stability. Hence, most people are under the impression congress doesn't "work" because they argue and "don't get anything done."

So it really has nothing to do with what the people know. They just have this principle that everything must have "balance".

I guess that's a better way to put it?

People want our troops home, but at the same time, they don't, because they equate it with unbalance, because it's simply such a new idea to the American people.

I think Lishy is on to something. Ron Paul took what was perceived to be an extreme position at the time with the GOP. That set him up to be labeled as extreme, isolationist, crazy by his opponents and the media echoed that. Ron did not help his cause by his delivery of these ideas. My sense is that people Already predisposed to his views or against the war rallied behind him. In order to bring people in, Ron had to present a more balanced perspective...

[tbone717]

I think Lishy is on to something. Ron Paul took what was perceived to be an extreme position at the time with the GOP. That set him up to be labeled as extreme, isolationist, crazy by his opponents and the media echoed that. Ron did not help his cause by his delivery of these ideas. My sense is that people Already predisposed to his views or against the war rallied behind him. In order to bring people in, Ron had to present a more balanced perspective...

I think you are correct here. In my discussions with people on FP, I find that they aren't too far from where we are at ideologically. People do not want us being the policemen of the world, sticking our nose in every one else's business, propping up dictators, playing the global game of chess, having troops stationed all over the world, handing out foreign aid like it is candy, etc. I think though where we lose them is in Paul's presentation of that ideology and the means by which he wishes to achieve his goals. Bring all troops home immediately, cut all foreign aid immediately - those policy positions do come across as being radical and extreme, and are very easily painted by Paul's detractors as being so. I think a more balanced, pragmatic sounding approach would have put Paul in a better position. A gradual withdraw of troops and a gradual phase out of foreign aid still accomplishes the goal, but does so in a more reasoned sounding way. Essentially, it is all in how the message is presented and sold to the people - and that is where Paul has his greatest faults.