Q1.
Health care - RP is against national health care while Obama is for, Isn't RP going to eliminate medicare?
Right now, medicare is on course to end abruptly leaving all who depend on it without alternatives, all at the same time. It is irresponsible to continue on this course. Ron Paul's plan would be to cut excess militarism and charity abroad and spend it to patch social security, medicare and the real safety net for the truly poor here at home, while allowing the young to opt out. If he got his way it would end, because people have seen how government steals or mismanages funds needed to pay obligations at a distant time, and now know better than to trust their money to government. But that would be a choice. As it is, people have many promises, but anyone who can do math can see what the promises are worth -- nothing.
(Side issue - what if people can't save for themselves - govt can't save for them either - and in the case of govt health care when people don't pay for their own care they use it carelessly. How often have you had someone check to see if a test is 'covered' by your insurance before suggesting it? Yet they don't seem concerned if they find it is not and don't do it? I've had doctors say my kids should have vaccines 'because it is covered by insurance' (and we are talking uterine cancer vaccine as applied to boys, here) -that drives up cost for ALL and is the REASON there isn't sufficient money to pay benefits. When people pay, they are price sensitive and costs go down. There are many ways to discuss handling this, but none of them are medicare as it is structured today.)
Q2. Taxes - RP is for reducing federal taxes, while Obama wants to tax the rich. How can we have social programs, education, health care and security with less taxes?
People are better represented at the most local level possible, where individuals can actually be heard and impact policy. Special interests rule at distant centralized government negotiations where you have to pay the price of lobbyists to be represented. Do YOU think our government is truly representing you? The department of education didn't exist until the 80s and our schools have gone downhill by international standards ever since they started applying a cookie cutter education method to all of our individual children. Education needs to be controlled at the local level, preferably, but definitely not at the federal level where parents aren't at the table. Other issues are similar. Important matters should be left to the states and localities because people want different things, and should be represented in their own children's education. (This devolves into people WANTING to impose their ideas of how other people's children should be brought up, which is despicable in itself, but may best be countered by saying 'do you want someone you hate on the OTHER side of issues determining what your children should learn? you assume YOUR views would prevail. What if they didn't? Specifically, I usually hear a variation on 'what about those horrible, racist [insert southern state here] schools? We need a national education standard! To which I would reply, what if the leader of that racist [insert southern state here] became president and decided what YOUR kid should learn? Wouldn't you like to stop that?)
Q3. War on terror - RP wants to cut our military foreign presence and to reduce the military budget. How can we protect ourselves without attacking terrorist in their own countries?
That is NOT how they are going to ask that question, imho. Besides, all the 9/11 pilots (most) came from Saudi Arabia, and we have not attacked THERE at all....
Q4. Home land security - RP is against the patriot act. Aren't the war on terror and the patriot act working since those prevented another 911?
*arrghh*
The Christmas underwear bomber wouldn't have been caught by scanners. And got on a plane despite buying a one way ticket with cash, with no passport, after his Dad had affirmatively warned the CIA to watch out for him. What threatens us is not our privacy but the stupidity of bureaucrats and adding more rules for bureaucrats to exploit does not address that.
The Patriot Act, in hearings was found to be used in thousands of instances having nothing to do with terrorism. Once the police have a 'tool' they use it, and it erodes our due process and civil liberties. At what price, 'safety'? And it didn't help keep the underwear bomber off the plane. More intrusiveness to innocent citizens does not cure the fact that the government is simply bad at sifting information -- it just innundates them with so much information it goes unexamined in any meaningful way.
Q5. War on drugs - RP is against it. Wouldn't we be flooded with drugs unless we fight it?
Marijuana was legal until the thirties. My grandparents weren't pot heads, don't know about yours. (OK, don't say that part). Ron Paul would leave this to the states. If they want different penalties for marijuana in small amounts or medical marijuana or want treatment focus more than criminal focus on some addictions, they should be able to try that out. Portugal tried that and did very well. Right now, no state would legalize all drugs, California just voted down a referendum to decriminalize marijuana entirely. But individuals are best represented at the local level.
Q6. Abortion - Isn't RP is against abortion?
Yep.
Q7. Gun control - RP is against gun control. Doesn't gun control reduce crimes?
Studies say otherwise. Where concealed carry has been legalized, violent crime went down. This is true in every state. We have the lowest 'home invasion' rate in this country of any country despite our violence outside the home. That is because so many Americans have guns and are allowed to have them relatively handy and use them in self defense within their homes. Criminals don't know who has a gun, and they don't break in unless they are sure people are gone, except in rare instances, here.
Q8. Gays - Isn't RP against gays marriage? Isn't RP against Obama's progressive policy of don't ask don't tell?
Ron voted to ban don't ask don't tell when he found out it was being implemented as a status crime type rule, rather than to just stop disruptive behavior. He thinks disruptive behavior,
by anyone, is what should be regulated, not who a person is.
Ron thinks government should be out of marriage entirely, that it should be between the individuals and their church or religious body, for those who want a religious marriage. However, he
definitely thinks the federal government should be out of it.
Q9. Environment - How can we protect the environment without government regulations?
Just refer to the states. If they say 'but air passes state boundaries' point out that each state has its own environmental agency and they work together with other state agencies. The Uniform Commercial Code is one of many 'national' laws passed where states coordinated to create common policies in circumstances where they knew uniformity was important. States aren't idiots. The centralized approach just lets an idea that is unpopular become law on states that don't want it, and again, if it is the view opposite that of the person speaking that was centrally mandated, they wouldn't like it.
Q10. Jobs - If RP is against big government, how can he promise more jobs?
No one can credibly 'promise' more jobs, but Ron can point to history and write an economic treatise on how his views lead to the most productive social model, creating wealth and jobs.
Q11. Budget - How can government maintains social programs with smaller budget?
They wouldn't be the same. But the money comes from someone else, and leaves less for productive use and the economy. In this country, charity and churches used to fill this role. That is why there are so many Catholic hospitals.
Q12. Technology&Science - How can we keep our technological/scientifically superiority without government funding?
Creativity creates technological superiority. Government stifles creativity, in part by determining the only 'worthwhile' paths to fund, skewing where research goes.
Q13. Education -* How can we keep public education without the education department?
See my discussion of education, above. Schools now teach pablum in order to find an achievable minimum standard all schools can minimally test to 'succeed' at. Otherwise the standard is considered 'unfair'. This dumbing down of our
schools is unfair. Kids should be challenged to reach their potential, not be dumbed down to a universal minimum standard.
Q14. Immigration - Isn't RP a racist?
No he isn't. Go to hell.
(I've answered this, search 'newsletters' in the forum search. But at the moment I'm fond of the answer I just gave.)
General Question - How can you expect me to vote for a Republican in a Republicans primary?
Some approaches to try:
1) Consider yourself to be infiltrating the enemy. It is a perilous, and occasionally distasteful task, but your nation needs you.
(disclaimer, I'm a long-term, albeit previously apathetic, Republican)
2) Vote for the individual, not the party. Believe me, the 'party' establishment doesn't like Ron, anyhow.
3) Do you like having to choose between bad choices every election? Ron's support is too even between Republicans and independents by polls. He has the support to win the primary, but only if his supporters actually VOTE in the primary. (Show them the breakdown in the April 2010 Rasmussen poll (now behind a subscriber screen) or the PPP polls taken during 2010, spring, showing Ron to excel with independents, or compare the primary polls to the May 5 poll by CNN showing Ron Paul polls best HEAD TO HEAD against Obama, when independents and switchable Democrats are counted in.)
