libertythor
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,155
He is convincing South Carolina voters right now and he was allowed to explain himself in detail!
Ron Paul hit a home run on foreign policy in debate!
- Thread starter libertythor
- Start date
libertythor
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,155
This will convert a lot of the Fox Newsies in South Carolina who are watching.
libertythor
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,155
They tried to hit him with a gotchya question about cutting defense and how SC has a lot of military bases that contribute to the economy.
Ron Paul responded that all he would cut would be the overseas spending on overseas bases and stuff like the Baghdad embassy and that military bases in the US would actually be expanded by bringing the troops home and spending would be drastically reduced at the same time.
He also clearly showed the difference between military and defense spending.
This was great. The best soundbyte for foreign policy is the "nation building at home" line. We need to hammer that home.
Edit: Also, I think to really make clear his position he should call militarism and its spending OFFENSE spending or OCCUPATION spending - that makes it real clear. "Militarism/military spending" could still sound positive to a neo-con.
Edit: Also, I think to really make clear his position he should call militarism and its spending OFFENSE spending or OCCUPATION spending - that makes it real clear. "Militarism/military spending" could still sound positive to a neo-con.
Last edited:
Okie RP fan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,695
Yea, spoke WAYYYY too soon.
Mises_to_Paul
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 115
It is perfectly possible to understand his position, know why it is the correct position, and admit that the packaging of the position in a particular case was mediocre.
Such was the case with the good doctor's last answer.
It's not a huge deal. He has been doing well otherwise.
Such was the case with the good doctor's last answer.
It's not a huge deal. He has been doing well otherwise.
1
1836
Guest
I'm not sure it was the worst, but it wasn't his best, in my opinion. I think his explanation wasn't bad, but it kind of rambled and didn't hit all the right notes.
jersdream
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2007
- Messages
- 713
That's exactly why it was bad. 80% of debate is how you say something, how you present it, and how clear you make it. Content is a very small part of debate.
Morerockin
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 314
It was awful ... He really did flub that one up big time :/
Ugh - he killed it on the "military" versus "defense" question, but then got caught up in OBL answer. I've heard him explain it WAY better before, but he got strong boos this time. :-( Simple answer is: RP wanted to get OBL right away, but after 10 years why did we kill him instead of capturing him for his intel?
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
I'm sorry, he explains the Bin Laden raid thing horribly, always has.
It's better to say concisely:
"There are two ways in the Constitution to handle enemies: Declaration of War and Letters of Marque and Reprisal"...at this point the crowd cannot boo, unless they boo the Constitution and he can say "Why are you boo-ing our Constitution?".
He can go on to say "We used neither method to go after Bin Laden. Also it's clear that we were lied to by the Obama Administration, and there was NEVER an assasination mission deployed. If we intended to kill him we would have launched a missle, logically. The mission was misrepresented by Obama to include a shootout that largely didn't happen and to say the entry point was not where it was...not to mention that there weren't any 'helmet-cams' ".
Lastly, if he had time, he could of said "So the mission was to, if possible, capture Bin Laden, according to the anonymous members of SEAL Team Six interveiwed in a book by a former SEAL. I was for that mission. I was not for the fabricated mission the Obama Administration LIED ABOUT which was to assasinate Bin Laden. That fabricated mission would of put SEALs lives in danger unnecessarily when a drone could of handled the mission just as well. I am for killing our enemies on battlefields and capturing them for intelligence reasons where able."
Ron Paul absolutely needs to answer that question about Bin Laden in a mirror a hundred times until he gets a satisfactory result...because as much I only support Paul and will NEVER vote for another Republican, he FAILS on that question because he never mentions the Constitution, the lie Obama and the other Repubs tell that it was an assasination mission to begin with, and that international law was violated, but IS NOT the reason he's against it. He's against it because international law mirrors the Constitution in that case!
It's better to say concisely:
"There are two ways in the Constitution to handle enemies: Declaration of War and Letters of Marque and Reprisal"...at this point the crowd cannot boo, unless they boo the Constitution and he can say "Why are you boo-ing our Constitution?".
He can go on to say "We used neither method to go after Bin Laden. Also it's clear that we were lied to by the Obama Administration, and there was NEVER an assasination mission deployed. If we intended to kill him we would have launched a missle, logically. The mission was misrepresented by Obama to include a shootout that largely didn't happen and to say the entry point was not where it was...not to mention that there weren't any 'helmet-cams' ".
Lastly, if he had time, he could of said "So the mission was to, if possible, capture Bin Laden, according to the anonymous members of SEAL Team Six interveiwed in a book by a former SEAL. I was for that mission. I was not for the fabricated mission the Obama Administration LIED ABOUT which was to assasinate Bin Laden. That fabricated mission would of put SEALs lives in danger unnecessarily when a drone could of handled the mission just as well. I am for killing our enemies on battlefields and capturing them for intelligence reasons where able."
Ron Paul absolutely needs to answer that question about Bin Laden in a mirror a hundred times until he gets a satisfactory result...because as much I only support Paul and will NEVER vote for another Republican, he FAILS on that question because he never mentions the Constitution, the lie Obama and the other Repubs tell that it was an assasination mission to begin with, and that international law was violated, but IS NOT the reason he's against it. He's against it because international law mirrors the Constitution in that case!
