I think most completely misunderstand it. Absolutely.
Voters misunderstand Ron Paul's foreign policy
- Thread starter seeker4sho
- Start date
I think most completely misunderstand it. Absolutely.
thequietkid10
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2012
- Messages
- 359
Ron Paul should be hammering home the idea that he is not a pacifist, and that he would ask congress to vote to declare war on any country that attacks us or attempts to attack us. That if there was another Bin Laden, either an attack or an attempted attack that he will call for military action against that terrorist (like he did Bin Laden). Ron Paul should be hammering home the idea that he will protect our ports and our boarders. Ron Paul should be hammering home the idea that the government plays a legitimate role in protecting it's people as long as it is within the bounds of the Constitution. He's had ample opportunity to do this during the debates, instead he's stuck in 2008, given the same tired "they hate us because we are there line" over and over and over. In an election cycle that is about the economy and the size of government, a subject that Paul has more credibility on then anyone. It's like he's trying to remind the GOP voters why they don't want to vote for him.
It's not that I don't agree that terrorism is something that we have brought upon ourselves (to an extent, lets face it some of these people are anti Democracy theocratic barbarians). It's that your not going to change the mind of the average GOP voter, by repeating the same 30 second soundbyte in the debates. It's not working. That change needs to be done in a much more substantive way. By engaging the voter directly, providing the whole picture and evidence to back it up.
Meanwhile Paul needs to be talking directly to those people (not at them) working to alleviate their fears, that he will protect them. He needs to be asking when sanctions have ever work, he needs to explain why they don't (governments can simply adjust taxes). He needs to explain that when you through your support behind pro Democracy groups abroad, then it is easy for their enemies to accuse said groups of being "Imperialist puppets" He needs to explain how an open trade policy lessens if not eliminates civilian appetite for war. He needs to point out, that if Iran really wanted World War 3, then attacking the US troops with a full scale on slot, while we were stuck in two quagmires on their boarders was the way to go, and that a nuclear attack against us or Israel will only result in very quick annihilation. He neds to point out (as George Will did recently) that the United States military spending dwarfs everyone else, including Iran's, North Korea's, and Venezuela's combined! George Will noted that 43% of all world military spending comes from the US. Ron Paul should be hammering the idea that the rest of the field won't consider cutting that number to 40%, even if they risk bankruptcy.
I don't follow Ron Paul religiously, but from where I'm standing, he's done none of this. All I've seen is blowback, blowback "how would you like it?" "blowback." There is so much more to non intervention then this.
It's not that I don't agree that terrorism is something that we have brought upon ourselves (to an extent, lets face it some of these people are anti Democracy theocratic barbarians). It's that your not going to change the mind of the average GOP voter, by repeating the same 30 second soundbyte in the debates. It's not working. That change needs to be done in a much more substantive way. By engaging the voter directly, providing the whole picture and evidence to back it up.
Meanwhile Paul needs to be talking directly to those people (not at them) working to alleviate their fears, that he will protect them. He needs to be asking when sanctions have ever work, he needs to explain why they don't (governments can simply adjust taxes). He needs to explain that when you through your support behind pro Democracy groups abroad, then it is easy for their enemies to accuse said groups of being "Imperialist puppets" He needs to explain how an open trade policy lessens if not eliminates civilian appetite for war. He needs to point out, that if Iran really wanted World War 3, then attacking the US troops with a full scale on slot, while we were stuck in two quagmires on their boarders was the way to go, and that a nuclear attack against us or Israel will only result in very quick annihilation. He neds to point out (as George Will did recently) that the United States military spending dwarfs everyone else, including Iran's, North Korea's, and Venezuela's combined! George Will noted that 43% of all world military spending comes from the US. Ron Paul should be hammering the idea that the rest of the field won't consider cutting that number to 40%, even if they risk bankruptcy.
I don't follow Ron Paul religiously, but from where I'm standing, he's done none of this. All I've seen is blowback, blowback "how would you like it?" "blowback." There is so much more to non intervention then this.
Last edited:
NancyNYC
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 41
If you have seen any specific issue is a problem, bone up and be prepared to obliterate the opposition.
My suggestion is to be prepared on all the planks of the RP platform, but national defense is a cakewalk.
How can any RP supporter not have the ready answer to these media wanks and their hypnotized faithful, since his 2012 campaign slogan is:
And, the line he's repeated 2 million times over the past 30 years:
Memorize this quote... it's a dolt-stopper:
Remember, in 2001, Rumsfeld held a national security press conference to declare and emergency; the Pentagon had LOST $2 TRILLION! If the recovered that money, there would be a budget surplus of $800 BILLION this year, instead of a deficit of $1.2 TRILLION. Think that might have an effect on our economy? The military is out of control, stretched to beyond its limits and is bankrupting America, like it did the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman and British Empires before it.
Bosso
My suggestion is to be prepared on all the planks of the RP platform, but national defense is a cakewalk.
How can any RP supporter not have the ready answer to these media wanks and their hypnotized faithful, since his 2012 campaign slogan is:
And, the line he's repeated 2 million times over the past 30 years:
Memorize this quote... it's a dolt-stopper:
Remember, in 2001, Rumsfeld held a national security press conference to declare and emergency; the Pentagon had LOST $2 TRILLION! If the recovered that money, there would be a budget surplus of $800 BILLION this year, instead of a deficit of $1.2 TRILLION. Think that might have an effect on our economy? The military is out of control, stretched to beyond its limits and is bankrupting America, like it did the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman and British Empires before it.
Bosso
these can be divided into two groups:
1) those who believe on tradition that Korean and German bases are needed; these people can be converted (Trump has said the same thing)
2) Israel firsters; these are people are impossible, they support Israel because they want the rapture, or are die-hard Zionists
forget them
1) those who believe on tradition that Korean and German bases are needed; these people can be converted (Trump has said the same thing)
2) Israel firsters; these are people are impossible, they support Israel because they want the rapture, or are die-hard Zionists
forget them
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
Ron's actually said numerous times this cycle that the government's first and primary priority is to protect liberty, not keep you safe.
True story, bro.
I've found a number of ways to address foreign policy with voters, especially those in the older crowd who are probably veterans of earlier wars. So here's my list of ways to reach voters with foreign policy that have worked for me.
1. We need a strong, respected leader. Before I go into any argument over what isolationism is compared to non-interventionism, the Founders, and all that other stuff that might go over peoples' heads, I talk about the role of leadership in the world, and phrase it in a way to make it look like Ron Paul is stronger than they percieve.
Basically, I start out by saying that the United States is no longer respected as a nation by a lot of people, and if we want to continue to be an influence in the world (I don't mean militarily), we need a leader who is respected. Ron Paul has supporters around the globe, and even when people disagree with him, I've never heard anything disrespectful towards him. It seems that only Americans and Zionists have anything disrespectful to say about the man, which is odd.
Instead of a leader who ruins potential relationships with foreign countries, as well as side-steps his role as a diplomat by enforcing sanctions and picking and choosing which nations he wants to trade with and which ones he feels aren't worth his time, we need a leader who excells at diplomacy and can restore this nation's reputation with the rest of the world. We haven't had respect for a long time, and because of it our influence is diminishing. People don't take us seriously, and if it weren't for our military occupations, we wouldn't even be considered. I'd rather people work with us and talk with us because they respect us, not because we force ourselves on them.
Now, this will naturally bring up "us vs. them" with people complaining that, "Those countries don't want to talk to us because they're all so off-course!" Yes, people believe this, and if it comes up, we need to emphasize that the more we get entangled with them, the more off-course we become ourselves. Trade is one thing, and earning respect is one thing, but getting involved with the affairs of these countries will have an effect on ourselves, and it's not a positive one. It's no shame or weakness to be respected by the world instead of forcing that world to put up with you.
This also strengthens our national defense because people are more willing to stand by a nation that is strong and respected, and those who hate us will slowly lose their reasoning for doing so. There will be people in the mid-east who will hate us for a while. Don't mention this out loud, but bear in mind that many people were veterans in WW2 still hate the Japanese, even though their nation is but a shadow of what it was in WW2. However, we'll have made many more friends than enemies through respect.
2. Isolationism isn't Non-Interventionism. Most of us really understand this one, and pointing in out is necessary, but only in conjunction with number 1 on this list. I've noticed that using this argument alone isn't worth it. It might be an eye-opener, but unless you regularly talk with the person you're trying to convert, this argument alone won't do the trick.
3. A massive military goes hand-in-hand with a lousy economy. You can't seperate foreign policy from the economy; it's as simple as that. Most people are under the misconception that the economy should boom during war time, but an expansive military just wastes money in reality. It all started when all those temporary bases in the aftermath of WW2 became permanent. We've jumped every shark in the pond to keep those bases and expand even more. We've left the gold standard in the dust, and in its place we've placed an ever-inflating fiat currency. We've inflated it to keep the bases, we've thrown ourselves in debt to China, a country hostile to us, in order to continue our multiple wars and military bases, and even if we hadn't massively expanded the welfare state here at home, this overseas presence would have eventually brought us down.
Cutting on one side of the aisle and increasing spending on the other side is nonsense. We can spread our military so far that we have every dictator by the throat, but what happens when our currency fails us and our programs here at home can no longer be funded? You need to cut massively on both sides in order to secure our economy, because safety through overseas presence and aggression is bankrupting us.
1. We need a strong, respected leader. Before I go into any argument over what isolationism is compared to non-interventionism, the Founders, and all that other stuff that might go over peoples' heads, I talk about the role of leadership in the world, and phrase it in a way to make it look like Ron Paul is stronger than they percieve.
Basically, I start out by saying that the United States is no longer respected as a nation by a lot of people, and if we want to continue to be an influence in the world (I don't mean militarily), we need a leader who is respected. Ron Paul has supporters around the globe, and even when people disagree with him, I've never heard anything disrespectful towards him. It seems that only Americans and Zionists have anything disrespectful to say about the man, which is odd.
Instead of a leader who ruins potential relationships with foreign countries, as well as side-steps his role as a diplomat by enforcing sanctions and picking and choosing which nations he wants to trade with and which ones he feels aren't worth his time, we need a leader who excells at diplomacy and can restore this nation's reputation with the rest of the world. We haven't had respect for a long time, and because of it our influence is diminishing. People don't take us seriously, and if it weren't for our military occupations, we wouldn't even be considered. I'd rather people work with us and talk with us because they respect us, not because we force ourselves on them.
Now, this will naturally bring up "us vs. them" with people complaining that, "Those countries don't want to talk to us because they're all so off-course!" Yes, people believe this, and if it comes up, we need to emphasize that the more we get entangled with them, the more off-course we become ourselves. Trade is one thing, and earning respect is one thing, but getting involved with the affairs of these countries will have an effect on ourselves, and it's not a positive one. It's no shame or weakness to be respected by the world instead of forcing that world to put up with you.
This also strengthens our national defense because people are more willing to stand by a nation that is strong and respected, and those who hate us will slowly lose their reasoning for doing so. There will be people in the mid-east who will hate us for a while. Don't mention this out loud, but bear in mind that many people were veterans in WW2 still hate the Japanese, even though their nation is but a shadow of what it was in WW2. However, we'll have made many more friends than enemies through respect.
2. Isolationism isn't Non-Interventionism. Most of us really understand this one, and pointing in out is necessary, but only in conjunction with number 1 on this list. I've noticed that using this argument alone isn't worth it. It might be an eye-opener, but unless you regularly talk with the person you're trying to convert, this argument alone won't do the trick.
3. A massive military goes hand-in-hand with a lousy economy. You can't seperate foreign policy from the economy; it's as simple as that. Most people are under the misconception that the economy should boom during war time, but an expansive military just wastes money in reality. It all started when all those temporary bases in the aftermath of WW2 became permanent. We've jumped every shark in the pond to keep those bases and expand even more. We've left the gold standard in the dust, and in its place we've placed an ever-inflating fiat currency. We've inflated it to keep the bases, we've thrown ourselves in debt to China, a country hostile to us, in order to continue our multiple wars and military bases, and even if we hadn't massively expanded the welfare state here at home, this overseas presence would have eventually brought us down.
Cutting on one side of the aisle and increasing spending on the other side is nonsense. We can spread our military so far that we have every dictator by the throat, but what happens when our currency fails us and our programs here at home can no longer be funded? You need to cut massively on both sides in order to secure our economy, because safety through overseas presence and aggression is bankrupting us.
JohnM
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2007
- Messages
- 548
One of the main reasons that voters misunderstand Ron Paul's foreign policy is that . . .
. . . they just don't understand foreign policy.
And the main reason that they don't understand foreign policy is that . . .
. . . they just don't understand foreign. They don't understand the rest of the world we live in.
Speaking personally, I remember being in High School in 1972. I was strongly pro-Nixon and anti-McGovern, basically because I considered McGovern to be soft on communism, the Vietnam war, defense, national security. For those of us who remember the Cold War, Ron Paul sometimes sounds a lot like an unpatriotic pinko peacenik. That was the era I grew up in, and most of these older Republican voters who are anti-Ron Paul are older than me and remember the Cold War era a lot more vividly.
And yet the original reason that I supported Ron Paul was because - wait for it - he opposed the Iraq war.
What changed my mind? Probably the fact that I lived for 8 years in the Middle East. The Iraq war made no sense at all to me. There was no way that whatever regime replaced Saddam Hussein was going to be democratic, popular, stable, and pro-western. Not in Iraq. If you know anything at all about Arabs, you know that ordinary Arabs on the street are intensely suspicious of American foreign policy, and they have been for over 50 years. Whatever came out of the Iraq war was not going to be good for the US. The war was just dumb. I could not believe that GWB was that stupid.
If I hadn't lived in the Middle East for 8 years, I probably never would have come round to Ron Paul. But having lived there, I have seen how US foreign policy (inteventionism) has produced huge endemic anti-americanism.
And that is seriously bad for US security and defense. I remember reading a few years ago about World War II in SE Asia. The ordinary asians were much more likely to fight on behalf of the allies when it meant supporting America than supporting European colonial / imperial powers. A lot of Indians would have chosen to support the Japanese instead of the British. Colonialism and Empire produced resentment.
They still do. And since the Europeans have been out of Asia for half a century, suspicion and hostility to the old colonial powers has largely gone. However, in western Asia today, there is one imperial power that, sadly, is very much resented. If we had followed the advice of the founding fathers and avoided entangling alliances, it would not be that way.
[Yes, I know that I just posted most of this verbatim on another thread. But if Cabal can post the same post verbatim on two different threads, then so can I.
]
. . . they just don't understand foreign policy.
And the main reason that they don't understand foreign policy is that . . .
. . . they just don't understand foreign. They don't understand the rest of the world we live in.
Speaking personally, I remember being in High School in 1972. I was strongly pro-Nixon and anti-McGovern, basically because I considered McGovern to be soft on communism, the Vietnam war, defense, national security. For those of us who remember the Cold War, Ron Paul sometimes sounds a lot like an unpatriotic pinko peacenik. That was the era I grew up in, and most of these older Republican voters who are anti-Ron Paul are older than me and remember the Cold War era a lot more vividly.
And yet the original reason that I supported Ron Paul was because - wait for it - he opposed the Iraq war.
What changed my mind? Probably the fact that I lived for 8 years in the Middle East. The Iraq war made no sense at all to me. There was no way that whatever regime replaced Saddam Hussein was going to be democratic, popular, stable, and pro-western. Not in Iraq. If you know anything at all about Arabs, you know that ordinary Arabs on the street are intensely suspicious of American foreign policy, and they have been for over 50 years. Whatever came out of the Iraq war was not going to be good for the US. The war was just dumb. I could not believe that GWB was that stupid.
If I hadn't lived in the Middle East for 8 years, I probably never would have come round to Ron Paul. But having lived there, I have seen how US foreign policy (inteventionism) has produced huge endemic anti-americanism.
And that is seriously bad for US security and defense. I remember reading a few years ago about World War II in SE Asia. The ordinary asians were much more likely to fight on behalf of the allies when it meant supporting America than supporting European colonial / imperial powers. A lot of Indians would have chosen to support the Japanese instead of the British. Colonialism and Empire produced resentment.
They still do. And since the Europeans have been out of Asia for half a century, suspicion and hostility to the old colonial powers has largely gone. However, in western Asia today, there is one imperial power that, sadly, is very much resented. If we had followed the advice of the founding fathers and avoided entangling alliances, it would not be that way.
[Yes, I know that I just posted most of this verbatim on another thread. But if Cabal can post the same post verbatim on two different threads, then so can I.
]
Liberty74
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
THIS
It's the job of the campaign to fight misleading opinions and set the record straight. They are not, hence we are losing. Imagine what would happen if we no longer hear people say, "I like Ron on everything but foreign policy." We then would start winning. As the OP stated, people don't know where he stands by his relative's comments above.
The government can't protect your liberty if it doesn't keep you safe. Those two things go hand in hand.
