Ron Paul must go all out anti-war

[Verrater]

Ron simply needs to state that he is the only candidate who is for a strong national defense which would make America more secure against terrorism, and that all the rest, including Obama, are for a strong national offensive which makes enemies, foments war, creates terrorism, and is the primary driver behind bankrupting our nation.

This is his message, he just needs to simplify it and repeat it at every opportunity.

I agree 110% with this.
+rep

 

[Kords21]

Maybe in addition to making the case for the a strong national defense throw in the bit that under the leadership of intervention that'll accelerate the bankruptcy ending all entitlements and for what? Put some fear of these monsters into the people you'll strike a chord with some people. Just make sure you temper with "I'm the only candidate on stage with a plan to save the entitlement system and over time reform/end it"

 

[Revolution9]

I agree with the premise in the title. Being against war from a moral perspective is better than from an economic perspective. The economic perspective is good, but the moral one is superior.

He could just say what he said in the video below again, or we could try to make the video spread more:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

Great answer! Thanks for the video.

Rev9

 

[cheapseats]

Ron simply needs to state that he is the only candidate who is for a strong national defense which would make America more secure against terrorism, and that all the rest, including Obama, are for a strong national offensive which makes enemies, foments war, creates terrorism, and is the primary driver behind bankrupting our nation.

This is his message, he just needs to simplify it and repeat it at every opportunity.

In your opinion, which of the following constitutes a more simplified message that Candidate and Supporters will find more opportunities to repeat, in the perversely important arena of Mainstream Media air time and perversely expensive arena of Mainstream Advertising?

I am the only candidate who is for a strong national defense which would make America more secure against terrorism. And all the rest, including Obama, are for a strong national offensive which makes enemies, foments war, creates terrorism, and is the primary driver behind bankrupting our nation.

or

END THE WARS!

 

[cheapseats]

Ron simply needs to state that he is the only candidate who is for a strong national defense which would make America more secure against terrorism, and that all the rest, including Obama, are for a strong national offensive which makes enemies, foments war, creates terrorism, and is the primary driver behind bankrupting our nation.

This is his message, he just needs to simplify it and repeat it at every opportunity.

Saying that smart and well-intentioned but verbose and rambling Ron Paul "just needs to simplify it" is kinda like saying AMERICANS JUST NEED TO QUIT LIVING BEYOND THEIR MEANS or we JUST NEED TO GET THE MONEY OUTTA POLITICS.

It ain't happenin' in the next twelve-month.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with the idea although he basically already has.

^This. Ron Paul is as antiwar as you can get. The question is will the campaign turn this from the liability that it is with (some) republicans to the asset it is with independents and disgruntled dems? We simply can't afford to wait for the general election to bring in people who are willing to embrace Ron Paul 100%. We have to identify and recruit all antiwar republicans and then go after fiscally sane democrats and independents. (Unfortunately many "progressives" are not fiscally sane). The pro-war republicans will simply need to be written off.

See: http://elections.firedoglake.com/20...eveal-opportunities-for-anti-war-republicans/
http://nwrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/08/poll-43-of-republicans-want-troops-home.html
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Rasmussen-Afghanistan-American-troops/2011/08/11/id/407002

 

[cindy25]

in the debate he was, and maybe that's why he so well in the straw

 

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul is as antiwar as you can get.

Bullshit.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I posted this in Grassroots Central:

The problem is that the definition of national defense has been completely corrupted in this country. "National defense" has come to mean pursuing and eliminating any and all threats, great and small, across the entire planet, with an eye toward not allowing so much as a hair on the head of one single American ever come within a mile of harm. It's an absurd, impossible goal that is dangerous, ruinously expensive, and ultimately completely destructive of true liberty.

But as long as enough people accept this definition, Ron Paul will be "weak on national defense".

 

[raystone]

I'd rather he bring up the constitutional aspects of war. Congress must declare war.

This.

 

[cheapseats]

I'd rather he bring up the constitutional aspects of war. Congress must declare war.

This.

More than half of Congress are MILLIONAIRES. They have INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS. Congressional net worth INCREASED during the period dominated by 1.) manmade financial "crisis" and 2.) manmade war.

So. Are ya sayin' that SO LONG AS CONGRESS GIVES GREEN LIGHT, it's okay to loiter at war?

Puts me in mind of a Wall Streeter who lately rationalized Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Yemen/Somalia/et al. by saying THERE'S NO DRAFT; THEY WANT TO FIGHT.

 

[pcosmar]

I agree with the idea although he basically already has.

Yes he has. Repeatedly and continually.

I'd rather he bring up the constitutional aspects of war. Congress must declare war.

He has and does this too.

I wonder where this thread comes from. Ron has made his position and reasoning CLEAR for a very long time.
Though he believes in a strong Defense He is opposed to Offensive War.
He opposes it on Constitutional grounds.
He opposes it on moral grounds.
He opposes it on economic grounds.

He does so repeatedly. and consistently
He has long opposed the MIC and is the ONLY real supporter of the 2nd amendment..
He believes in Just War,, Self Defense and the Constitution.

How can he be any more Anti-War?

 

[Johnny Appleseed]

I believe Mother Teresa said it best when she said she would never attend an anti-war rally but she would a pro-peace one.

 

[cheapseats]

...Ron has made his position and reasoning CLEAR for a very long time.

I dunno about CLEAR, but you betcha on A VERY LONG TIME. On the order of THREE DECADES.

Including one failed Senatorial bid and TWO failed Presidential bids.

Which suggests that changes to the playbook should at least be CONSIDERED.

How can he be any more Anti-War?

Well, jeepers, I guess now that other Republicans are "stealing" ideas that are not original to Ron Paul, he could point out the obvious . . . THAT ELEVATING AMERICAN WALLETS ABOVE WARS IN WHICH AMERICA IS A MAJOR PLAYER IS EXACTLY THE KINDA THING THAT EXCITES NON-AMERICANS TO WANNA HURT & KILL AMERICANS.

EITHER you buy 9/11 Inside Job Theory OR you gotta respect Blowback. No sane person can reject BOTH.

 

[fisharmor]

Absolutely disagreed. There is an absolutely huge contingent of Democrats against the endless war. They are more silent now that Obama is president, but don't mistake that for consent -- they are hugely pissed off at the man over war. Every pro-Obama person I meet stutters and stammers when war is brought up -- they will admit it needs to end, they know it needs to end. However, they don't know (yet) how to escape war.

I am not mistaking silence for consent.
Silence IS consent.
Stammering in response to being challenged on it IS consent.

Last week I saw one of the bumper stickers that said "Hillary supporter for Obama".
This encapsulates their priorities.
They are members of the D team.
They want their free medical care, free education, free and frequent abortions, unionized employment, rampant socialism, the end of corporations, and the protection of the earth-god no matter what misery it inflicts on the commoners.
The war is at the end of that list.
If it wasn't, then they wouldn't be stammering.

Remember, they thought the war would end when they elected Obama. They were wrong. And most of them are still coming to terms with that. I know a ton of Ron Paul fans that took quite some time to admit they supported a 'Republican'... it's a huge step across the line for some. It will happen.

I agree it'll happen. For some. The ones who can think for themselves. But given that we're talking about a group of people unquestioningly committed to a school system which was designed from the ground up to remove independent thought from its victims, how many is that, really?

Anti-war is how to convert Democrats and Independents, absolutely. Economics is, as the OP states, too abstract -- you have talking heads on the telly speaking this, that, and the other thing. Debt is good, inflation is good, 2+2=5.

But war? War is something people understand.

War is something that happens to people on the other side of the earth, and the occasional patriotic rube who decides to get in enough shape to push the buttons necessary to help prosecute it.
Everyone knows someone who has been to the middle east. Some came back, some didn't. But everyone is still 100% comfortable with their having gone.
On the other hand, everyone also knows someone who is out of work. They're a lot less comfortable with the fact that fathers are having trouble feeding their families.

I'm not convinced that's less powerful than the moral argument for stopping the war. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I'm living in the belly of the federal beast. I think the tag line from the Clinton era still applies in spades: "It's the economy, stupid."
What he showed and W later proved is that a president can get away with literally ANYTHING if the economic times are good. Nobody really cares what the government does as long as they have a job and some disposable income.
I think if the endless wars are ever going to stop, it's going to have to be at a time - or at least coincide with a time - when everyone has a job.
Promising that people will be able to prosper is the only way to cover a president's sins. And right now, ending the wars is still a sin.

 

[cheapseats]

=I think the tag line from the Clinton era still applies in spades: "It's the economy, stupid."

Indeed, I was thinking that calling people STUPID isn't Ron Paul's style when I was inclined to add IT'S THE WAR, STUPID as a more effective sound byte than blah-blah-blah-yada-yada-yada-I've-heard-it-all-before.

But anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty and consistency knows that the AMERICAN WAR MACHINE (the Military Industrial Complex in peecee "activist" circles) absolutely absolutely beyond debate constitutes greater DRAIN than GAIN for American Taxpayers. Who comprise the portion of the American Economy with whom I have greatest affinity.

 

[cheapseats]

Silence IS consent.

BANKABLE, on Judgment Day.

No indeedy, if God and Heaven and Hell there be, I guaran-fucking-tee Christians that GOVERNMENT MADE ME DO IT and WE HAD NO CHOICE and YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL will not pass muster at the Pearly Gates.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

 

[parocks]

Agreed.

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

Many Republicans don't like Islam one bit.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

BANKABLE, on Judgment Day.

No indeedy, if God and Heaven and Hell there be, I guaran-fucking-tee Christians that GOVERNMENT MADE ME DO IT and WE HAD NO CHOICE and YOU CAN'T FIGHT CITY HALL will not pass muster at the Pearly Gates.

qft.