Dr. Paul's Foreign Policy is #1 issue for Republicans

[WVLiberty]

I have talked to NUMEROUS people that agree with Dr. Paul on everything except his foreign policy.

I think to get over the 10% hump, he needs to really push and explain his foreign policy.

MANY people are afraid of the Islamic Terrorists and fear that Dr. Paul will weaken our security. This needs to be addressed by his campaign.

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Agree with OP. Seems like all the major mainstream guys use the same meme. Ron needs to be portrayed as a bad muther f*cker who will kick a$$ and take names.

 

[bluesc]

The two foreign policy debates coming up will do nothing to help that unless Ron accepts prep. Lot's of it. He needs to provide a situation he would declare war under. He needs to stop saying Iran isn't a threat, and instead provide a scenario under which he would attack, and explain the constitutional process he would go about doing it. We're dealing with a blood thirsty crowd here.

 

[Fermli]

The two foreign policy debates coming up will do nothing to help that unless Ron accepts prep. Lot's of it. He needs to provide a situation he would declare war under. He needs to stop saying Iran isn't a threat, and instead provide a scenario under which he would attack, and explain the constitutional process he would go about doing it. We're dealing with a blood thirsty crowd here.

any specific situation he could propose would be completely fictitious. No govt or country is going to attack the US unless provoked. The most likely threat we face is terrorism, and that doesn't require declaring war or an invasion.

I don't feel comfortable with him lying in order to appeal to idiots.

 

[bluesc]

any specific situation he could propose would be completely fictitious. No govt or country is going to attack the US unless provoked. The most likely threat we face is terrorism, and that doesn't require declaring war or an invasion.

I don't feel comfortable with him lying in order to appeal to idiots.

He wouldn't be lying. He would come up with a scenario in which he would declare war. Krauthammer asked him a question and he gave a kick ass answer that shut him up.

As I said, this is a blood thirsty crowd that loves the idea of death and destruction, and a peace candidate will have an extremely difficult time.

I gave a good example of what he could say if asked about Iran in another thread.

Remember, the questions are hypothetical, so I don't see the issue with giving a hypothetical answer. Being booed for 2 hours straight at two different debates aired to 5 million people each doesn't exactly sound ideal to me.

 

[Tod]

I have talked to NUMEROUS people that agree with Dr. Paul on everything except his foreign policy.

I think to get over the 10% hump, he needs to really push and explain his foreign policy.

MANY people are afraid of the Islamic Terrorists and fear that Dr. Paul will weaken our security. This needs to be addressed by his campaign.

spot on. Not only terrorism, but it seems a quite a number of people fear "creeping sharia law" as well and believe it would grow under his administration. From what I'm seeing, these people are often Cain supporters because of the very anti-muslim positions he has taken.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The two foreign policy debates coming up will do nothing to help that unless Ron accepts prep. Lot's of it. He needs to provide a situation he would declare war under. He needs to stop saying Iran isn't a threat, and instead provide a scenario under which he would attack, and explain the constitutional process he would go about doing it. We're dealing with a blood thirsty crowd here.

He's not a hawk, and I won't support Ron hawking it up. What he's doing is perfect. The electorate is in need of education, not appeasement.

 

[bluesc]

He's not a hawk, and I won't support Ron hawking it up. What he's doing is perfect. The electorate is in need of education, not appeasement.

Is it hawkish to declare war when national security is truly at risk? You really didn't get my point. I'm not saying he should take the pledge to bomb Iran, I'm saying, when asked, he should give a similar answer to the one he gave Krauthammer. It was perfect.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Is it hawkish to declare war when national security is truly at risk? You really didn't get my point. I'm not saying he should take the pledge to bomb Iran, I'm saying, when asked, he should give a similar answer to the one he gave Krauthammer. It was perfect.

He's spoken against people dreaming up hypothetical situations in which they'd invade Iran and called it war propaganda.

If asked - the best course of action is still to stress the unlikelihood of such an event.

 

[Kludge]

He's spoken against people dreaming up hypothetical situations in which they'd invade Iran and called it war propaganda.

If asked - the best course of action is still to stress the unlikelihood of such an event.

Leaning toward that. It could nudge Paul up a few tenths of a point in polls, but it's probably a greater threat to have the idea of an Iranian invasion of the United States' vital ally, Israel, with bio-nuclear genocides they bought from the Islamaban in Oozbeki-beki-beki-stan go unchallenged.

 

[Revolution9]

The stated policy should be that if we are attacked by another country, which is highly frakkin' unlikely, we will retaliate with awesome and unstoppable force after Congress votes on its approval. If attacked by a terror cell or other criminal organization a Marque of Reprisal and bounty will be issued. Do any terrorist cells really think they can take on a hand picked squad of say 500 of our finest war fighters, backed up by NSA satellite intel? And that 10 million bounty on their head. Do they really trust everyone they are executing their deeds with to not want ten million bucks? Even Kissinger would have second thoughts running a false flag because the Marque of Reprisal would have ringleaders as one of the targets of arrest and/or elimination.

Rev9

 

[bluesc]

He's spoken against people dreaming up hypothetical situations in which they'd invade Iran and called it war propaganda.

If asked - the best course of action is still to stress the unlikelihood of such an event.

But the moderators do it anyway. The #1 reason people aren't voting for Ron is foreign policy, how the hell is more of the same going to work?

He doesn't need to get into some debate about whether Iran is really a threat. There are 7 other people on the stage telling everyone they are. You have O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Levin, Beck, Hannity and Obama telling everyone they are. One man on a stage with 1 minute speaking time is not going to change their minds.

He should say he would look at the intelligence, determine whether there is an immediate threat to national security, if there is, go to Congress for a declaration of war, eliminate the threat and come home immediately. No nation building.

That is the same answer you want him to give (Iran will never be a threat, so there would be no declaration of war) but it pleases the blood thirsty crowd too. Ron gave essentially the same answer to Krauthammer, and it completely shut him up. Obviously Ron didn't mind the hypothetical there.

 

[klamath]

Yeaw, this is going to lose it for RP but what the heck we sure don't want to appear like RP MIGHT defend the country. That would be just to freaking hawkish. When the next president starts a war at least we can say RP never appeared like a hawk.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm for Ron coming out and saying, look, we got attacked by nineteen Saudis and we then attacked Iraq of yellowcake uranium that wasn't there and Afghanistan to get a Saudi royal who wasn't there. And now most of the population wants peace, they wanted it when they elected Obama and didn't get it, and my record proves that when I say I'll give you peace in your time I mean it. So, if you want to win the general election, and most of the people want peace, then nominate me and I'll beat Obama in the general.

And the next time a bunch of people from country x attack us, I won't go to countries y and z. I might get Congressional approval to go to country x, and I might issue letters of marque and reprisal, and I might do something else depending upon the specific facts of the situation. But I won't go chasing ghosts (or mineral rights and pipeline routes) in countries y and z and call it justice.

 

[centure7]

Wow, talk about the worst idea ever. The economy is the #1 issue for Republicans, not foreign policy. Paul would be over 10% already if he would only be firm in saying Iran should never get a nuke, and immediately deflect all foreign policy issues to economic issues. Reminding people that war kills US troops is an INSULT to Republicans who already know that, and Democrats already know that and are against the war.

All he has to do is talk like his son, Rand Paul, and its all easy from there. The difference between Rand and Ron is that Ron is like most libertarians: they love to argue and focus on disagreement. Rand has a bit of salesmanship common sense and focuses on points of agreement. Its simple. You focus on agreements, and avoid disagreements.

By emphasizing the economy to hell and back, Ron Paul can breach the 10% barrier. If Mr. Romneycare democrat-liberal-republican freak of nature can get the lead with his Romneycare, then Paul can get the lead with his foreign policy even easier. All that is needed is an emphasis on the economy and the economics of war. Neocons are convinced like total retards that war is good for the economy. They need to be corrected on that point.

 

[klamath]

Wow, talk about the worst idea ever. The economy is the #1 issue for Republicans, not foreign policy. Paul would be over 10% already if he would only be firm in saying Iran should never get a nuke, and immediately deflect all foreign policy issues to economic issues. Reminding people that war kills US troops is an INSULT to Republicans who already know that, and Democrats already know that and are against the war.

All he has to do is talk like his son, Rand Paul, and its all easy from there. The difference between Rand and Ron is that Ron is like most libertarians: they love to argue and focus on disagreement. Rand has a bit of salesmanship common sense and focuses on points of agreement. Its simple. You focus on agreements, and avoid disagreements.

By emphasizing the economy to hell and back, Ron Paul can breach the 10% barrier. If Mr. Romneycare democrat-liberal-republican freak of nature can get the lead with his Romneycare, then Paul can get the lead with his foreign policy even easier. All that is needed is an emphasis on the economy and the economics of war. Neocons are convinced like total retards that war is good for the economy. They need to be corrected on that point.

The Economy is the #1 issue with voters however the #1 issue why Republicans won't vote for RP is Defence. go to any repubican and ask why won't you vote for RP? the majority of the answers are going to be national defence. It is killing him.

 

[centure7]

The Economy is the #1 issue with voters however the #1 issue why Republicans won't vote for RP is Defence. go to any repubican and ask why won't you vote for RP? the majority of the answers are going to be national defence. It is killing him.

Thats what I just said. And you don't get someones vote by arguing with them. You get their vote by agreeing with them. You have to deflect or lose the vote.

No candidate is perfect. Romney is unelectable because he invented Romneycare... even worse than Obamacare. Cain is unelectable because he doesn't understand the economy and supported the bank bailouts. Ron Paul's position on withdrawing from Afghanistan sounds like it should make him unelectable, but you have to consider the economy. The Soviet Union financially collapsed from their war with Afghanistan, and now the USA is on the same exact path.

See what I just did? I just converted a war issue into an economics issue. Ron Paul, and you, must do the same thing or lose the election. Paul knows this and is in the process of doing that, but its taking him a damn long time. He should have had that perfected by the middle of last election.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

I think it works great when he repeats the "I get more money from the military than all other Republicans combined" line. Best weapon in our foreign policy tool kit IMO.

 

[klamath]

Thats what I just said. And you don't get someones vote by arguing with them. You get their vote by agreeing with them. You have to deflect or lose the vote.

No candidate is perfect. Romney is unelectable because he invented Romneycare... even worse than Obamacare. Cain is unelectable because he doesn't understand the economy and supported the bank bailouts. Ron Paul's position on withdrawing from Afghanistan sounds like it should make him unelectable, but you have to consider the economy. The Soviet Union financially collapsed from their war with Afghanistan, and now the USA is on the same exact path.

See what I just did? I just converted a war issue into an economics issue. Ron Paul, and you, must do the same thing or lose the election. Paul knows this and is in the process of doing that, but its taking him a damn long time. He should have had that perfected by the middle of last election.

It is not war it is defence. The majority of the people want out of the afgan war. What is the nuts and bolts defence posture that RP envisions for the US. I have started other threads on this. The americans have for sixty years been told we need foreign bases to defend ourselves if attacked, RP says he is closing them all. What is the actual military structure to take care of the loss of foreign bases. He was asked in an interview what he would do if the suez canal was closed and he said he would evaluate it and if he thought it was necessary to our national defence he would go to congress and get a declaration of war. Great! But how would he get american firepower there without foreign bases? He has railed against the MIC so hard republicans believe he is going to eliminate all defence systems built by the defence industry.

 

[acptulsa]

It is not war it is defence. The majority of the people want out of the afgan war. What is the nuts and bolts defence posture that RP envisions for the US. I have started other threads on this. The americans have for sixty years been told we need foreign bases to defend ourselves if attacked, RP says he is closing them all. What is the actual military structure to take care of the lose of foreign bases. He was asked in an interview what he would do if the suez canal was closed and he said he would evaluate it and if he thought it was necessary to our national defence he would go to congress and get a declaration of war. Great! But how would he get american firepower there without foreign bases? He has railed against the MIC so hard republicans believe he is going to eliminate all defence systems built by the defence industry.

Why do you spell 'defense' the British way?

Just curious. Fact is, Republicans are going to have to choose. They can nominate our antiwar man, or they can continue to argue in favor of being in Iraq where the yellowcake uranium wasn't, and in Afghanistan where bin Laden wasn't, and lose. Period.

And the nation with more, and bigger, aircraft carriers than all other nations combined, and a dozen varieties of Landing Craft _________ (tanks, troops, trucks, what have you got?), and at least half a dozen different massive transport planes which can all land on runways of less than a mile in length, can and will deliver kickass to wherever it wants to deliver it. With or without bases.