Ron Paul must go all out anti-war

[LibertyEagle]

He just needs to stress this more: "I dont support an interventionist foreign policy or undeclared wars; but if we're ACTUALLY THREATENED, I will not hesitate to drop some nukes!"

That would go a long way towards changing perceptions.

 

[AuH20]

Perception is the only thing that matters. Many conservatives believe he is weak on national defense and even wonder if he would defend the country.

That's the number one problem. Read Free Republic and this mischaracterization is consistently brought up. Ron has to make it abundantly clear that he will not partake in imperial wars based on plunder, but conversely he would not hesitate one bit if he feels the homeland could be in serious danger.

 

[sorianofan]

Never go full retard

 

[speciallyblend]

Agreed in general terms.

 

[speciallyblend]

That would go a long way towards changing perceptions.

would make for some headlines and coverage and motivate alot of folks to support him! This would be a good angle to have doug wead encourage Ron paul to say! If media tries to ignore that. Then WTF

 

[kylejack]

Ron Paul usually prefers to say "if we're attacked" rather than "if we're threatened." A lot of junk can be interpreted as a "threat."

 

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul is perpetually all out anti preemptive war. He does believe in the just war theory for defense.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

He needs to point out he thinks we shouldn't go into undeclared, unnecessary wars, not war period. Obviously we should go to war if we're under attack, or Russia starts invading Canada, or something crazy, but not pillaging weak nations!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul usually prefers to say "if we're attacked" rather than "if we're threatened." A lot of junk can be interpreted as a "threat."

Ain't that the truth! The level of paranoia that is at the root of all of the pre-emptive war hysteria is truly scary.

 

[White Bear Lake]

He needs to be anti-intervention and pro-strong national defense

Agreed.

Some good old fashioned "America First" isolationism is good, sounding like a weak pacifist is bad.

 

[tremendoustie]

hell, there are entire denominations of Christianity (multiple!) which teach that spreading "democracy" over there is a point of doctrine.

I've certainly heard way too much pro military rhetoric in christian churches, but I'm not aware of any denominations that support interventionism as a matter of doctrine.

 

[tremendoustie]

He just needs to stress this more: "I dont support an interventionist foreign policy or undeclared wars; but if we're ACTUALLY THREATENED, I will not hesitate to drop some nukes!"

"Drop some nukes"?!

Nukes, by their nature, are never a defensive weapon. If he said such a bloodthirsty thing, he would immediately lose my support. Thankfully I know enough of the man that I'm certain he would not say that.

 

[pacelli]

He's only paying lip service to a strong national defense... such as buy saying, "declare the war, fight it, win it, and come home" and "bring our troops home and defend our borders".

Your average neocon is just chomping at the bit to vote for Ron. All Ron needs to do is start talking about when IN HIS OPINION it would be justified to declare war, and how he would go about winning the war.

I hate to say it, but Ron needs to let people know his own decision-making process about just, declared wars. People are already crystal clear he is against undeclared, interventionist wars.

 

[Fredom101]

The pro-war crowd must be made to defend the position of heathens. War is inhuman and the reasoning which serves its promotion is flawed in the eyes of anyone who devotes to the subject any modicum of reasonable thought. The limited resources of our Earth are consumed by war in a proportion which clearly inhibits the progress of civilization. War takes those things which encompass our humanity; life itself is lost.

We can take back our humanity with a few hard lines and it can be done as easily as the propaganda of the violent brutes has mangled the thoughts of otherwise decent beings. This is no small matter; it is, rather, something close to everything which matters. In a world which allows us to communicate as easily as we do, the excuses which permit the implements of death should be easy to expose.

More specifically, Ron Paul must completely embrace the only position which will differentiate him in the eyes of the average voters. This is the only way by which he might have a chance. Those who argue that widespread death is a means to the end of safety in our homeland--their eyes must be looked into with great sadness. They must be asked directly why they find solution in murder. The values which place an importance upon life are near universal, but the logical connection which should show that war is a massive contradiction of these values has been lost. Or, considering the history of civilizations, perhaps the connection has never been fully realized.

Everything should be focused on this message. Among the Presidential candidates Paul’s positions on economics are the only ones which are sound, but to those who don’t devote personal research to such matters all of the candidates sound the same. The anti-war message, though, is relatable by methods which can take the form of only a few basic questions or exclamations. Ron Paul should be more adamant and concise when he addresses those who see usefulness in war, and he should do so at every turn: “Senator Santorum, why do you align yourself with unreasonable brutes? Characteristics pervade you which depict your lack of humanity; this is evidenced by your promotion of death and your reliance upon threats of violence. Not only should you and those who share your views be looked upon in the way that one might see the worst kind of criminal; additionally, you should be viewed as stupid because the good things which you claim violence serves clearly do not come about in the manner which you describe. Violence and threats do not and will not give us safety--this obvious conclusion can be drawn quickly by the use of basic logic.”

Everything in Ron Paul’s campaign should focus on such an unapologetic message. He is the ONLY anti-war candidate--this is his most important strategic advantage. Any attempt to hide his views on foreign policy in an endeavor to appeal to the Republican establishment are in jest because the truth of his stance will always, in the end, be unveiled. Any effort to skirt around this issue should be completely eliminated. If an effort is made to disguise Paul's true feelings, the implication is made that he might be wrong. He's not wrong. All ads, every interview, every debate--as he is questioned by warmongers he must throw their stupid inhumanity in their face. They must be rejected with every possible emotional and intellectual tool. He must ask them at every opportunity why they have such a strange preference for death and destruction. The certainty which is truth is more evident in this issue than any other. We are right. Ron Paul is right. We’re on the side of good and it should be known. War is not delicate and it should not be dealt with as such. Let them give their excuses for killing and starving children. Force them into a defense of their derangement.

Such a method of campaigning will give Paul the only hope of gaining the attention which is required for his election. That most human part of our organism must be appealed to.

I couldn't agree more!
99% of Americans have no understanding of the Fed whatsoever, but everyone knows deep down how bad war is.

 

[JamesButabi]

Its the same thing as the entitlement issue and other scare tactics. The campaign needs to recognize "the talking points" against Ron and combat that easily. Ron needs to call out the MSM for what they are doing to him. Rand Paul was awesome at this (remember faith questions / aqua buddah and how Rand responded?)

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Paul needs to point out that the wars and overseas bases cost 400 billion a year. If elected, as the Commander and Chief, he could unilaterally end the wars and order the bases closed, saving 4 trillion in these ten year plans they keep coming up with.

Another 150 billion could be saved annually by defunding international organizations, ending foreign aid, auditing the Defense Department, and ending the recently create Department of Homeland Security. That's 5.5 trillion over ten years, about as much as the Paul Ryan plan just based on our foreign policy alone.

He needs to challenge the Republican voters about serious about spending cuts. He can cut 400 billion a year on his own, and easily get another 150.

 

[tremendoustie]

Paul needs to point out that the wars and overseas bases cost 400 billion a year. If elected, as the Commander and Chief, he could unilaterally end the wars and order the bases closed, saving 4 trillion in these ten year plans they keep coming up with.

Another 150 billion could be saved annually by defunding international organizations, ending foreign aid, auditing the Defense Department, and ending the recently create Department of Homeland Security. That's 5.5 trillion over ten years, about as much as the Paul Ryan plan just based on our foreign policy alone.

He needs to challenge the Republican voters about serious about spending cuts. He can cut 400 billion a year on his own, and easily get another 150.

That's before ending the department of education, energy, etc, and heavily cutting other departments. Ron could balance the budget in the first year, and have enough left over to give everyone the option to opt out of social security and medicare, and start keeping more of their own money.

 

[couvi]

Your average neocon is not chomping at the bit to vote for Ron. People aren't interested so much in the nuances which would lead to a hypothetical decision to go to war. I think that many of you miss that this is a subject which, if approached with the right venom, can change the minds of the voters. People can be convinced that these wars are bad, but they haven't been given the opportunity. The misdeeds of this country are downplayed or ignored by the media. Attacks on the moral character of those who promote war would give this issue the attention it needs. Popular opinion can be swayed most easily on an issue such as this. This is Ron's only chance because, as far as the average voter is concerned, it is the most meaningful difference between him and the other candidates.

The population must be hit harder with the cruel realities of war. I'm not saying that this is easy, but minds must be changed if we are to win. This is the most effective available method.

 

[couvi]

People act on emotion more so than intellect. It is emotion which must be appealed to.

Bold and brave moves must be made in this campaign. Attention must be grabbed, and current tactics aren't going to suffice.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

That's before ending the department of education, energy, etc, and heavily cutting other departments. Ron could balance the budget in the first year, and have enough left over to give everyone the option to opt out of social security and medicare, and start keeping more of their own money.

Yep. With current tax rates, he could just barely allow people to opt out, keep Social Security, Medicare, and a few other things untouched, and balance the budget.