Yes, but these people are now a minority within the GOP. Polls showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to remove all of our troops from Iraq. 50-60% of Republicans aren't the "every war is a good war" type. A lot of Republican voters would be reachable if the message was refined, and if Ron would actually put forth a national security strategy.
Boots on the Ground in SC - FP is the Issue that is Holding Us Back
- Thread starter tbone717
- Start date
Yes, but these people are now a minority within the GOP. Polls showed that 58% of Republicans agreed with Obama's decision to remove all of our troops from Iraq. 50-60% of Republicans aren't the "every war is a good war" type. A lot of Republican voters would be reachable if the message was refined, and if Ron would actually put forth a national security strategy.
You could win with a non interventionist message if you framed it as in our interest, to expensive, pay for their own defense, Usama is dead mission accomplished time to come home. You can not win saying US foreig policy is immoral and that you should ask Pakistan for permission to go after Usama.
Last edited:
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Perhaps you don't understand Ron Paul's war policy then.
The problem is not that Paul doesn't explain it clearly, he explains it very clearly. The problem is that the propagandists have changed the meanings of words in ways that confound Paul's clear policy statements.
People aren't wanting him to explain it more clearly, it's already blatantly clear. They are wanting him to explain the same identical concepts using the neo-orwellian language that the propagandists have foisted on us against our will, so that the brainwashed masses can actually understand him.
I agree completely. A non interventionist foreign policy would be popular with Republicans if it was framed in the right way.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
In a way you're correct, non-intervention is becoming popular within the Republican party as folks realize that it is the proper foreign policy. This is because of the way Ron Paul has been framing non-intervention in the debates and on the campaign trail.
tbone717
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2011
- Messages
- 3,595
I totally agree. It is all in how you sell the message. Right now, Paul has a great FP message but the packaging of that message is sub par. Change the packaging, but not the message and it will appeal to a lot more voters.
nayjevin
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,973
Imagine you say, 'I support non-intervention!' and a few people join you, so you say 'No meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations!' and a few more join you. So you say, 'No nation building and policing the world!' and a few more join you. So you say, 'If war is necessary, declare it, win it, and come home!' and you get a few more.
How far should you go?
I say Ron is doing perfectly well. Going much further gets the people who are right about foreign policy to start questioning him.
How far should you go?
I say Ron is doing perfectly well. Going much further gets the people who are right about foreign policy to start questioning him.
Bush made the decision and we were bound by treaty to withdraw by 12/31/11.
Every one of these threads shows exacly why RP is failing on foreign policy. In RP's very hard core base they are arguing what RP beliefs are on foreign policy are. That should NEVER be happening!
Out of all the debates RP got one question right on foreign policy. "Declare war go in fight and GET OUT."
OBL question should have been. "GO in get him and get out, and no nation building!" That answer right there would have been in agreement with the majority of the republicans.
Out of all the debates RP got one question right on foreign policy. "Declare war go in fight and GET OUT."
OBL question should have been. "GO in get him and get out, and no nation building!" That answer right there would have been in agreement with the majority of the republicans.
Then why won't they vote for him?
Yep. In my opinion, the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden is a good example of what we should have been doing all along, rather than using 100,000 troops to nation build in Afghanistan. But Ron screwed it all up by saying that we shouldn't have even gone into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden.
Ron didn't say we shouldn't have gotten Bin Laden. He says we should have consulted with Pakistan in organizing the operation.
Of course, none of that would have been necessary, had we simply shown our proof against Bin Laden to the Taliban prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, who were willing to hand him over.
Of course, none of that would have been necessary, had we simply shown our proof against Bin Laden to the Taliban prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, who were willing to hand him over.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
I know right?
In SC, almost everyone's objection to Paul was foreign policy, and almost all of those liked the policy when described in words they actually understood.
I want to stress again, it's not Paul's fault that the people do not understand him, they have been systematically dumbed down and had the meanings of their words shifted and changed.
Although it is somewhat the people's fault for not understanding him "because they have no love of truth," it is primarily the fault of the propagandists for programming them and shifting the language around until they can no longer comprehend Paul's simple FP message.
I disagree with nayjevin here, I don't think you will lose a significant quantity of core support simply by telling the truth in another language, which is what is needed to accumulate the soft support needed to win. The more radical core supporters will say "arrgh! I hate the way that sounds, but it's still truth, oh well, I guess he's just trying to win the race."
You may lost one or two who are just as obstinate our way as the William Kristols are their way, but for every 1 core guy you turn off, you can draw 5000 softs, and that core guy will still probably come out and vote anyway, he just won't knock on doors or make calls. Which may be a good thing, because he's the type to try and sell Paul on what HE likes rather than selling Paul on what they voter likes anyway.
We don't have to like politics to engage in it and win, any more than George Washington had to like warfare to win the Revolution. "Don't hate the player, hate the game." (even while 99% of the 'players' are indeed hate-worthy)
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Yeah....even YOU misunderstood what Paul said there. His objection was merely procedural, not substantive.
We've been discussing this problem and people have made good suggestions. I hope some of these ideas have been read or presented to Dr. Paul. Peter Schiff talked about it in post SC interview in which he said we need to bring the "I like Paul's view on economics but can't vote for him because of foreign policy into the fold" (Not and exact quote)
gb13
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,374
THIS!
I understand Ron's position on that. I just disagree with it. I think that Pakistan would've tipped Bin Laden off if we had tried to work with them.
GunnyFreedom
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 32,882
Not if it were done right. An asset on the ground could have been (and probably was) shadowing Bin Laden long before we moved in. If Pak leaked the word to Bin Laden and he starts moving, the shadow asset could maintain tracking to direct/coordinate the SEAL team to wherever he was going and then we'd have had the moral high ground AND took out Bin Laden.
Yes, CIA had a safehouse in the city. I'm quite sure they had 24 hour surveillance on him. And hey, there's always a backup drone strike if it looks like he's bolting.
Many of our high-value captures have come from the Pakistani government, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
