At debates, RP should reframe foreign policy questions into:

[GML3G]

Debate questions about foreign policy quickly devolve into something like "Ahmadinejad has overstepped his bounds; clearly we need to bomb him." Not at all very forward thinking, and Ron Paul needs to point that out. I would first quickly make the distinction between the regime in charge there, and the pro-western people that are trying to make changes there. Sanctions and bombs do nothing but increase anti-Western attitude so that they coalesce around Ahmadinejad and strengthens him, making war inevitable. If this party truly wants to take down Ahmadinejad with minimum cost of lives and money, then they should create the necessary environment under which the people are able to topple the regime on their own.

This has for a long time been the preferred policy of this camp, but the language and presentation needs to shift, perhaps as seen above, to maximize votes. Otherwise RP is viewed as someone who will let the country be stepped on, which we all know not to be the case.

In 2007, the debate approach was a primer in the concept of "blowback." Unfortunately, the GOP interpreted this as, "America is at fault. You, Congressman, are blaming America." That didn't go very well over. RP won over those with any sense of reason, but that's where we hit a temporary plateau in supporter count.

In 2011-12, the conversation changed to "the Golden Rule." And how did much of the crowd react? That RP is soft on America's enemy's and will let this country get stepped on. Certainly not the case.

The language of the discussion needs to change from one where the GOP is scolded on its wrongs, to one where the crowd understands that RP too thinks Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man, BUT that if we want to see him in a position where he no longer poses a threat to us, the approach we need to take is _______.

 

[jacmicwag]

Maybe said a little differently but I like your track.

 

[GML3G]

Maybe said a little differently but I like your track.

That's exactly what this whole conversation needs to be about - language. We all know the RP foreign policy; the audience doesn't. And the delivery of the position must be such that it is not easily distorted/misinterpreted.

In 2007, the debate approach was a primer in the concept of "blowback." Unfortunately, the GOP interpreted this as, "America is at fault. You, Congressman, are blaming America." That didn't go very well over. RP won over those with any sense of reason, but that's where we hit a temporary plateau in supporter count.

In 2011-12, the conversation changed to "the Golden Rule." And how did much of the crowd react? That RP is soft on America's enemy's and will let this country get stepped on. Certainly not the case.

The language of the discussion needs to change from one where the GOP is scolded on its wrongs, to one where the crowd understands that RP too thinks Ahmadinejad is a dangerous man, BUT that if we want to see him in a position where he no longer poses a threat to us, the approach we need to take is _______.

 

[tennman]

Right, Paul is being interpreted as blaming America and sympathizing with our enemies. I know this from conversations I've had with people.

Like with the Osama bit. Why did he even go into that? It's difficult for many people to grasp and while he's right that it could've been handled differently, Paul only hurt himself by talking about it.

He should stick to the small government stuff and stay away from foreign policy except to say that we're spending too much and sending out aide to our enemies. Say we're too in debt to do that and shouldn't be doing it anyway. And stop talking bout it.

 

[Enforcer]

Right, Paul is being interpreted as blaming America and sympathizing with our enemies. I know this from conversations I've had with people.

Like with the Osama bit. Why did he even go into that? It's difficult for many people to grasp and while he's right that it could've been handled differently, Paul only hurt himself by talking about it.

He should stick to the small government stuff and stay away from foreign policy except to say that we're spending too much and sending out aide to our enemies. Say we're too in debt to do that and shouldn't be doing it anyway. And stop talking bout it.

The problem is, you cannot dodge the foreign policy questions in a debate and Ron Paul needs clever sound bytes that take seconds to deliver, but have as much punch as a Muhammad Ali punch could deliver in his prime.

 

[rjmmd]

There is a limited resource of money the federal government can spend based on taxation. There is virtually an unlimited amount of money our federal reserve can print out of thin air, but doing so threatens our country's future economic security. The world's faith in the American dollar is lessened each time the federal reserve does so. Since there is no genuine accountability by the Federal Reserve to the american people nor to Congress it's a daunting task to reign in careless inflationary practices by the federal reserve. The more we spend beyond our means the more we borrow from countries like Saudia Arabia or China or increase inflation so that our individual retirement and savings accounts lose relative value each day that goes by.

How can we speak of worldwide spending on miliary projects without it jeopardizing our future? We've enough nuclear weaponry such there's no country that could overrun our shorelines unless we sell the shorelines to the lenders overseas. Our future's security is based on our economic stability. We threaten to weaken our very fabric each time we resort to external sources to pay our debt. What are external sources will become external forces intruding into our lives as time unfolds. There are other forces at work drawing us into a tangled web.

Our politicians have a long history of kowtowing to lobbying interests representing other countries. Ron Paul has said something publicly that has been long, long overdue and it takes a courageous man or woman to do so. It appears the more there's at stake for a politician the less his/her courageous acts or perhaps was never a courageous person to begin with. We need to rethink our practices of gift giving to countries like Israel for the past fifty years. I would be curious to know what is the present day value of every dollar given to Israel since its our involvement with them. What amount of that money has filtered back as lobbying efforts to influence, bribe and intimidate our politicians? George Ball was the Undersecretary to Kennedy and wrote a book so worth reading. It is titled, "The American Attachment." G. Ball details many important events such as Israel's purposeful attack of an American Naval warship (USS Liberty) so they could temporarily blind the US while violating a cease fire and overrun Golan. George Ball mentions Eisenhower was the only President who stood against Israel when he learned of Israel's intent to take over the Suez Canal. G. Ball notes Eisenhower couldn't get support from Congress since our Congress was fearful of the Jewish lobbyists' reaction. G. Ball describes in the best source I've come across in truly understandinng what has happened these past 50+ years that we as the American voter have been shielded from seeing, from knowing and from understanding. It is hard to say history was forgotten by the American majority when much of what has gone on was never known by us to begin with.

What appears to represent the Ron Paul supporter in comparison to other candidates is our thirst to know and understand. Conventional wisdom in our two parties is probably more a matter of living within the boundaries established by the lobbying interests who have shown a remarkable track record of influencing, intimidating and bribing our elected officials. I use the word "our" very loosely since I question who our elected officials represent after the lobbying interests get their grappling hooks into them.

As we learn the facts and the history we should've known all along we realize which candidate is ours and which are those of the lobbyists and special interests. A large contributor to Romney and Obama has been Goldman Sachs for example. "Follow the money" and perhaps the choices for the next Presidency is really only one choice for us, the not-so-silent majority who've become a Ron Paul supporter. Our deeper understanding of the issues explains why we don't waffle in our support. We understand where we can trust no longer. The best interest of foreign lobbying groups and the military industrial complex is not our best interest and we don't support a politician who can charmingly talk the talk but no longer walks the walk for us and our future.

 

[rjmmd]

I respectively suggest you check out a book written by George Ball, The Passionate Attachment. G Ball was the undersecretay to Kennedy and discloses many events kept from the eyes and ears of the American voter. The book is easy to read and details events such as one of the most damaging traitors within our ranks...Pollard and the secrets he sent to Israel. Out of curiosity I've asked many an American moslem if they heard of the Deir Yassin massacre commited by Israeli commandos. It appears all heard of an attrocity passed from generation to generation we were purposefully kept from knowing. How many of us heard of the purposeful attack by Israel on an American warship off Israeli waters so they could temporarily blind America from seeing Israel violate a cease fire and overrun Golan? These are just a few of the events hidden from the American voter.

I think you are probably right however in Ron Paul picking and choosing his political battle ground to discuss a topic. Ron Paul needs quite a bit more time than what seems almost a sound bite period of time to educate the American voter. Unfortunately, there is probably some education that will never take place. You can take a horse to water but it doesn't mean he will drink from it. I suppose there are some voters who are too pig-headed to learn and would rather be blissfully ignorant than to bother to educate themselves. I have faith though in the American voter. As Confuscious once said, "Only the very wisest and stupidest of men will never change." For most of us, there's room for improvement and we will.

 

[acptulsa]

And then the neocons say, 'If we want to see him in a position where he poses no threat to us, kill his ass.' And the audience wakes up and laughs and cheers.

They will fearmonger. And I fear the only way to counter the fearmongering is to tell them who the real threat is. Which is why I say this:

Trials reveal truth. Funerals bury it.