Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back

[cavalier973]

My parents and their friends (who were the basis of my OP) have no idea what the NDAA is.

Another opportunity for educating people. Rember, an objection is not a rejection, but rather a request for more information.

 

[Brett85]

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

I agree. I do know some people who are "warhawks" who would never vote for Ron even if he explained his fp views better. However, these people are now a minority within the GOP. The polls show that a majority of Republicans are opposed to endless war overseas. A CBS poll showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to pull the remaining troops out of Iraq, which shows you that the other GOP candidates are much more hawkish and interventionist than the average Republican voter. A majority of Republican voters at least agree with the foreign policy that George W. Bush ran on in 2000, which is a "humble, less interventionist foreign policy." There's no reason Ron couldn't reach out to these people and get their support.

 

[ohgodno]

Much of the objection I hear from people is that they feel RP is "anti-war" meaning against all war – even defensive ones according to just war theory.

It's not so much that they don't agree with removing troops from overseas - although the hardcore neocons disagree with that and we'll never convince them, it's that they fear he won't defend the country. Again this is anecdotal evidence so there's that.

 

[tbone717]

Another opportunity for educating people. Rember, an objection is not a rejection, but rather a request for more information.

Education is an option of course, but keep in mind that the majority of people spend very little time watching or reading the news. My group reference in the OP is a 55+ crowd living in a gated retirement community of 10,000. What is important to them is golf, canasta, tennis and what's on sale this week at Kroger. That's not to say that they are stupid, or misinformed at all - they simply live a much different life than those of us who are constantly consumed with news.

Issues like this take a lot of time to resonate. Look how long it took us for people to wake up to the Fed issue. In my opinion, we need to address the hot topics, not introduce new ones.

 

[Forty Twice]

The average voter has very little idea what's going on. But majorities can see they have not benefitted personally from the Mideast Wars. Elderly people are overwhelmingly concerned about their Social Security and inflation. What the elderly need to understand is that we cannot have all three of wars, social security, and low inflation. We can have two of these but not three. Ron Paul is the only candidate offering social security and low inflation.

The others are offering wars for sure and probably social security. That means we will have high inflation and your fixed income financial assets will lose real value over time.

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Corporate Media are owned by powerful interests who plan to make tremendous profits off of the wars. These powerful interests intend to steal our savings to buy wars for their benefit. Not to benefit elderly middle class Republicans.

 

[parocks]

Also, why does Ron let the moderators get away with saying that his foreign policy views "are to the left of Obama?" I can't believe that Ron seems to just accept that statement.

Agree with this. Explain who Robert Taft was and who Irving Kristol was. Give the history lesson.

I'd like to see a commercial called 1968.

In 1968, Irving Kristol supported the Democrat nominee Hubert Humphrey. Newt Gingrich supported Nelson Rockefeller, and was his southern director. He finished 2nd in delegates. Mitt Romney's dad, George finished 5th in delegates. Mitt was living in a castle in France as a Mormon Missionary. Ronald Reagan finished 3rd in delegates. Richard Nixon won. Ron Paul was in the Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Republican_National_Convention

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Committee PCC keyword Matt Collins Jesse Benton Doug Wead search

"My foreign policy is if we are actually threatened or attacked, we declare war and destroy the enemy worse than any enemy has ever been destroyed before, and leave them to rebuild themselves so they no longer pose a threat to us or anybody."

Reposted so as to increase the chance that the campaign sees this. Great idea Gunny

 

[coffeewithgames]

Agree with this. Explain who Robert Taft was and who Irving Kristol was. Give the history lesson.

I'd like to see a commercial called 1968.

No, RP does not have time to explain anything in a debate. He needs to talk in soundbytes. He needs to simply say, "You're wrong. I'm running to the right of President Obama, and my opponents up here are running to the left of the Constitution. President Obama has continued the foreign policy of President Clinton, and Al Gore."

 

[LibertyEagle]

No, RP does not have time to explain anything in a debate. He needs to talk in soundbytes. He needs to simply say, "You're wrong. I'm running to the right of President Obama, and my opponents up here are running to the left of the Constitution. President Obama has continued the foreign policy of President Clinton, and Al Gore."

That would be good.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I totally agree.

It is wrong of people on here to just call everyone who doesn't understand Paul's FP a warhawk. More than that, it is stupid. I love Dr. Paul, but he has not laid out his foreign policy well at all. Actually, it's been absolutely horrible, in my opinion.

It is not realistic to expect voters to read reams of Dr. Paul's speeches and read some books by foreign policy experts, so that they can understand what the heck he is talking about. It is up to him to explain it so that his audience can understand it. Tom Davis could do it in a short interview; Dr. Paul should be able to do it too.

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ron Paul says in every debate that he's for a STRONG national defense.

Can anyone tell me if he has ever explained what a Strong National Defense is in the debates? I don't think he ever has and that's his problem.

He's leaving his "strong national defense" statement up to the viewers to define. If the viewers think he's a isolationist peacenik, then that's lens they're going to view his national defense stance. But if he defines it himself and get's specific they can't use that lens and they suddenly have to question what they thought about Paul before.

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

 

[kylejack]

I just got off the phone with my parents in SC. The Perry news has reached the average voter, the Newt story has not yet hit. My folks said that a lot of people like Paul on the economy, but his FP is what holds them back. They live in a very large 55+ over community (over 10,000 residents). It is a upper middle class, educated crowd.

FP is the issue that is holding us back...with a senior community.

We've never been able to depend on a strong senior contingent. Try and explain Ron's FP in the best way possible, but ultimately we can't change directions to probably NOT pick up many seniors while simultaneously losing people that love Ron's FP.

No, I think young people and Independents are our destiny.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Again, how is it not Ron Paul's position that we should respond with overwhelming force when we get attacked? Are you saying that Ron is a pacifist?

That's never been Ron's position. He has always advocated the Just War Theory. If you know anything about it, one of the planks calls for a PROPORTIONATE response. He certainly wouldn't wage war like the IDF where one or two Israeli's are killed, and in response level the entirity of Palestine and kill tens of thousands. How is waging war that way justified? Certainly is not.

 

[AuH20]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

Peaceniks are what's on the menu, if you get my drift. In our world, you cannot marry yourself to one credo, because you will get yourself as well as your loved ones killed. And this judicious approach applies to wanton belligerency as well. Extremes don't work out too well. As human beings we must look at each potential confrontation uniquely, analyzing the facts as best as possible and arriving at a decision. Some situations call for a violent response, while others lead to a peaceful outcome.

 

[tbone717]

I guess I am the only one who thinks Dr. Paul explains his FP positions clearly. How many times does he have to repeat the Jeffersonian non-interventionist neutral position of Peace, Trade, Friendship, and no entangling alliances? Ergo, close all foreign bases, bring the troops home, end the wars, get out of NATO, UN, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc., unilateral free-trade, end all sanctions. Pretty clear to me.

Just because he doesn't speak the language of the warmongers, hawks, bloodlusters and the war-profiteers doesn't mean he isn't articulating the position well. I do think he lacks emphasis especially concerning the erosion and danger to liberty that war, militarism, and imperialism wrought. He should also stress more the destruction of the family that war causes and civil society. War is antithesis to Civilization. If anything I think Paul can be too soft-hawkish sometimes. Of course I am probably in the minority on that position.

No offence, but you have 6000+ posts in a political forum, you read Mises and are schooled in Austrian Economics. You are like us, but you are no where near like the average GOP voter who spends very little time on these subjects.

 

[Southron]

FP is the issue that is holding us back...with a senior community.

We've never been able to depend on a strong senior contingent. Try and explain Ron's FP in the best way possible, but ultimately we can't change directions to probably NOT pick up many seniors while simultaneously losing people that love Ron's FP.

No, I think young people and Independents are our destiny.

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.

 

[kylejack]

Ron did not agree with the decapitation of the Afghan government. He favored a proportional response, which was setting loose Blackwater types with marque and reprisal or tactical strikes against Al Qaeda with special forces.

 

[kylejack]

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.

Well, Obama isn't running in the Republican primaries, so we can borrow them until we get the nomination. That's how we did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire.

 

[Brett85]

What's wrong with being a peacenik? Peace is Civilization. War is the enemy of Civilization, Property Rights, and Liberty.

There's nothing wrong with non intervention overseas, which means that we shouldn't just go around the world starting different wars. But the term "peacenik" makes it sound like Ron wouldn't defend the United States in the event of an attack or an imminent threat to our national security. Ron should make it clear to voters that he believes in defending our country in the case of an attack or an imminent threat to our security.

 

[wgadget]

I don't know. Young people voted heavily for Obama.

And now they are severely disillusioned.