War argument and what I feel Ron is missing from his rebuttal.

[Lord Xar]

Many times Ron responds to the war mongers questions with "you need a declaration of war from congress...." . These wars are unconstitutional... etc..

Now, I get all of this. Most of "us" do... but what about the layperson. Is this just a technicality?

I think Ron needs to expand on why it is sooo important to follow the constitution in layman terms....

"These wars are unconstitutional.... etc.." but he needs to add "The reason the president must go to congress is because of two reasons.
1. We need to follow the constitution and have congress declare a war <--- he says this.
2. And the reason why congress must be involved is because they represent all of US. There is no representation of the people and those politicians in power can become kings without consent from the people.... <--- he doesn't say this.

He assumes people know why congress is important. Voters don't. He has to draw the connection that Congress approval is so important because the politicians MUST represent their constituents...

You get what I am saying?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

probably a good point

 

[Fetou]

Yeah I was thinking about the weakness of the constitutional argument in general when considering the general ignorance of the document among the American people. I think that in this day in age, when the constitution has been irrelevant to the government's growth plan for so long, we need to explain the rationale for a return to constitutional government. Checks and balances provided by our structure of limited government have been easily sidestepped and beaten by technicalities for a long time.

 

[Captain Shays]

He also needs to explain what he WILL do instead of always talking in terms of what he will not do. The people, including myself would absolutely LOVE to hear how we would be safer under a Ron Paul administration. He has the ball in his corner and, if he does that either tonight or at some other time in the national spot light it's game over for neocons. I want to hear him say that we will be much safer if our navy is patrolling our waters instead of the entire world. That our borders should get more attention than the Iran-Iraq border and the N-S Korean borders do. I want him to say boldly and clearly that we NEED a workable missile defense shield and an extensive civil defense system, that was abandonded during SALT I summit with the Soviets. I want him to come out and say something contraversial like our local communities would be much safer with armed American citizens protecting their bridges and schools than with the NDAA being able to throw those same Americans in GITMO without a trial or a lawyer until the end of time. SOMETHING that he WILL do. PLEASE RON. PLEASE CAMPAIGN. We CAN win this thing if he does that because right now most Americans are way on board with non interventionism and the ONLY argument left that the neonuts have is to conflate militarism with national security. They can just continue in their narrative that Ron Paul is dangerous and will leave us unprotected against "threats". Man, he can deflate their whole argument if he were to outline his Constitutional plan for how he would protect the citizens in this country. If he doesn't they will say "Ron Paul wants to stop the patriot act so how will we know who and where the terrorists are"? Or
"Ron Paul wants to dismantle all the things that have prevented us from being attacked again".

I guess I am a little like a neocon or anyone else who wants us to be safe from an attack but simply not meddling in their affairs isn't going to do it. There are people out there who want to kill us for whatever reason. There is no doubt about it and I want to know from my next president what he WILL do to keep us safe and strong I know he will not police the world. He will not meddle in their affairs anymore. He will not send us into unnecessary wars without a declaration. He will not continue the patriot act or the NDAA. What WILL he do? THAT folks is the question and if he answers it effectively it's all over for every other candidate and over for Obama too.

 

[Butchie]

Many times Ron responds to the war mongers questions with "you need a declaration of war from congress...." . These wars are unconstitutional... etc..

Now, I get all of this. Most of "us" do... but what about the layperson. Is this just a technicality?

I think Ron needs to expand on why it is sooo important to follow the constitution in layman terms....

"These wars are unconstitutional.... etc.." but he needs to add "The reason the president must go to congress is because of two reasons.
1. We need to follow the constitution and have congress declare a war <--- he says this.
2. And the reason why congress must be involved is because they represent all of US. There is no representation of the people and those politicians in power can become kings without consent from the people.... <--- he doesn't say this.

He assumes people know why congress is important. Voters don't. He has to draw the connection that Congress approval is so important because the politicians MUST represent their constituents...

You get what I am saying?

I would agree and also say he needs to realize this when talking to liberals about handouts, fact is just always saying "constitution this and that" doesn't mean alot to most people, if they are getting a free check, or they want to go to war with Iran, whether or not it's "constitutional" doesn't matter much to them, as with most things people only like the constitution when it works in their favor.

 

[Butchie]

He also needs to explain what he WILL do instead of always talking in terms of what he will not do. The people, including myself would absolutely LOVE to hear how we would be safer under a Ron Paul administration. He has the ball in his corner and, if he does that either tonight or at some other time in the national spot light it's game over for neocons. I want to hear him say that we will be much safer if our navy is patrolling our waters instead of the entire world. That our borders should get more attention than the Iran-Iraq border and the N-S Korean borders do. I want him to say boldly and clearly that we NEED a workable missile defense shield and an extensive civil defense system, that was abandonded during SALT I summit with the Soviets. I want him to come out and say something contraversial like our local communities would be much safer with armed American citizens protecting their bridges and schools than with the NDAA being able to throw those same Americans in GITMO without a trial or a lawyer until the end of time. SOMETHING that he WILL do. PLEASE RON. PLEASE CAMPAIGN. We CAN win this thing if he does that because right now most Americans are way on board with non interventionism and the ONLY argument left that the neonuts have is to conflate militarism with national security. They can just continue in their narrative that Ron Paul is dangerous and will leave us unprotected against "threats". Man, he can deflate their whole argument if he were to outline his Constitutional plan for how he would protect the citizens in this country. If he doesn't they will say "Ron Paul wants to stop the patriot act so how will we know who and where the terrorists are"? Or
"Ron Paul wants to dismantle all the things that have prevented us from being attacked again".

I guess I am a little like a neocon or anyone else who wants us to be safe from an attack but simply not meddling in their affairs isn't going to do it. There are people out there who want to kill us for whatever reason. There is no doubt about it and I want to know from my next president what he WILL do to keep us safe and strong I know he will not police the world. He will not meddle in their affairs anymore. He will not send us into unnecessary wars without a declaration. He will not continue the patriot act or the NDAA. What WILL he do? THAT folks is the question and if he answers it effectively it's all over for every other candidate and over for Obama too.

Very good, so many of us have been screaming this forever, he really drops the ball when it comes to talking about these issues, way to much "walking softly", not enough "big stick", but I'm sure some forum members will be along to criticize you for what you said because they won't understand your point.

 

[otherone]

Dr. Paul (and many of his supporters) seem to overestimate voters' knowledge of basic civics. Sadly, many people believe the Constitution 'gives' them rights, for example. An informative, easy-to-grasp brochure may be of some value, explaining checks and balances, basicl rights, maybe even jury nullification in both an historical context and how we are affected today. Many people don't 'get' why we Paul supporters are against the Patriot Act....if they had some context, they would see it for what it is.
In addition, many voters don't understand that out government was created in such a way as to protect the sovereignty of the individual. People have been taught for the last 70 years that our Government is the boss, protecting us from Cold War phantoms by making everyone get under their desks, or making us dependent on the "Great Society. This is powerful voodoo to overcome...

 

[Created4]

He also needs to explain what he WILL do instead of always talking in terms of what he will not do. The people, including myself would absolutely LOVE to hear how we would be safer under a Ron Paul administration. He has the ball in his corner and, if he does that either tonight or at some other time in the national spot light it's game over for neocons. I want to hear him say that we will be much safer if our navy is patrolling our waters instead of the entire world. That our borders should get more attention than the Iran-Iraq border and the N-S Korean borders do. I want him to say boldly and clearly that we NEED a workable missile defense shield and an extensive civil defense system, that was abandonded during SALT I summit with the Soviets. I want him to come out and say something contraversial like our local communities would be much safer with armed American citizens protecting their bridges and schools than with the NDAA being able to throw those same Americans in GITMO without a trial or a lawyer until the end of time. SOMETHING that he WILL do. PLEASE RON. PLEASE CAMPAIGN. We CAN win this thing if he does that because right now most Americans are way on board with non interventionism and the ONLY argument left that the neonuts have is to conflate militarism with national security. They can just continue in their narrative that Ron Paul is dangerous and will leave us unprotected against "threats". Man, he can deflate their whole argument if he were to outline his Constitutional plan for how he would protect the citizens in this country. If he doesn't they will say "Ron Paul wants to stop the patriot act so how will we know who and where the terrorists are"? Or
"Ron Paul wants to dismantle all the things that have prevented us from being attacked again".

I guess I am a little like a neocon or anyone else who wants us to be safe from an attack but simply not meddling in their affairs isn't going to do it. There are people out there who want to kill us for whatever reason. There is no doubt about it and I want to know from my next president what he WILL do to keep us safe and strong I know he will not police the world. He will not meddle in their affairs anymore. He will not send us into unnecessary wars without a declaration. He will not continue the patriot act or the NDAA. What WILL he do? THAT folks is the question and if he answers it effectively it's all over for every other candidate and over for Obama too.

This. To me it is the #1 message of the campaign that is not being communicated. Americans need to know they will be safe under a President Paul. I would rather they spend the money I donate on communicating this message rather than attacking Santorum, which the media seems to be doing a good job of for free.

 

[Suzu]

Maybe the best argument would be something like "They all call my ideas about foreign policy 'dangerous', but let me tell you what's really dangerous is this idea of attacking Iran, which will bring retribution onto U.S. soil from China and Russia. That could easily turn into a global nuclear holocaust. So if you want to talk about dangerous, I suggest thinking about that."

 

[muh_roads]

Ron has a really good argument to say he would be the best to defend Israel by letting them do as they wish...and his past voting record regarding Israel's actions prove this.

I wish him and the campaign would use it more.

 

[maxoutco]

Many times Ron responds to the war mongers questions with "you need a declaration of war from congress...." . These wars are unconstitutional... etc..

Now, I get all of this. Most of "us" do... but what about the layperson. Is this just a technicality?

I think Ron needs to expand on why it is sooo important to follow the constitution in layman terms....

"These wars are unconstitutional.... etc.." but he needs to add "The reason the president must go to congress is because of two reasons.
1. We need to follow the constitution and have congress declare a war <--- he says this.
2. And the reason why congress must be involved is because they represent all of US. There is no representation of the people and those politicians in power can become kings without consent from the people.... <--- he doesn't say this.

He assumes people know why congress is important. Voters don't. He has to draw the connection that Congress approval is so important because the politicians MUST represent their constituents...

You get what I am saying?

Can we forward this to the campaign to get it in his hands. i would love to hear him say this on stage.

 

[mosquitobite]

He also needs to explain what he WILL do instead of always talking in terms of what he will not do. The people, including myself would absolutely LOVE to hear how we would be safer under a Ron Paul administration. He has the ball in his corner and, if he does that either tonight or at some other time in the national spot light it's game over for neocons. I want to hear him say that we will be much safer if our navy is patrolling our waters instead of the entire world. That our borders should get more attention than the Iran-Iraq border and the N-S Korean borders do. I want him to say boldly and clearly that we NEED a workable missile defense shield and an extensive civil defense system, that was abandonded during SALT I summit with the Soviets. I want him to come out and say something contraversial like our local communities would be much safer with armed American citizens protecting their bridges and schools than with the NDAA being able to throw those same Americans in GITMO without a trial or a lawyer until the end of time. SOMETHING that he WILL do. PLEASE RON. PLEASE CAMPAIGN. We CAN win this thing if he does that because right now most Americans are way on board with non interventionism and the ONLY argument left that the neonuts have is to conflate militarism with national security. They can just continue in their narrative that Ron Paul is dangerous and will leave us unprotected against "threats". Man, he can deflate their whole argument if he were to outline his Constitutional plan for how he would protect the citizens in this country. If he doesn't they will say "Ron Paul wants to stop the patriot act so how will we know who and where the terrorists are"? Or
"Ron Paul wants to dismantle all the things that have prevented us from being attacked again".

I guess I am a little like a neocon or anyone else who wants us to be safe from an attack but simply not meddling in their affairs isn't going to do it. There are people out there who want to kill us for whatever reason. There is no doubt about it and I want to know from my next president what he WILL do to keep us safe and strong I know he will not police the world. He will not meddle in their affairs anymore. He will not send us into unnecessary wars without a declaration. He will not continue the patriot act or the NDAA. What WILL he do? THAT folks is the question and if he answers it effectively it's all over for every other candidate and over for Obama too.

Funny because one of my friends said this today on my facebook:

I just wanted to make a point. I am under NO illusion that I could sway your support for Dr. Paul – even if I wanted to (and I do not). It is much MUCH more probable that someone like myself could be convinced to turn my support TO Congressman Paul.

It is just his shortsightedness on the Iranian threat is just too much to stomach. The thing is, it would be so easy to overcome, and he would not even have to change his position, just his language.

For example – I am a gun owner and an NRA member. So is my wife. We have CCW’s. I do not go around “bragging” about it, and I only bring it up here for the case of analogy. We do not brandish our weapons, and we rarely – if ever – talk about it in public, because we know not everyone is comfortable about it. Neither one of us wants to, and rarely ever brings up, the possibility of taking another person’s life. But we have both been trained, and we keep our proficiency current, and should anyone ask, I will freely admit that if ANYONE threatened my wife (or for her, myself), or attempted to invade our home, or attempted to cause real harm to a friend or neighbor, neither me nor my wife would have any issue arranging an immediate and violent meeting between the person attacking us and their Creator. NOT walking around with a firearm demanding other people live the way we want them to, NOT going into other people’s homes rearranging their furniture to our specifications…

If Dr. Paul could draw a similar analogy in regards to his views on the United States and foreign affairs, and do it with conviction, and do it often – well, he would lose what I would guess to be about 25% of his supporters who are so anti-military that they would see even that as to pro-war. But he would gain almost ALL of the “Not Romney” vote and be the Republican nominee.

 

[papitosabe]

excellent add....just because some understand, most do not...I've always said, explain it so that a five year old can explain it, no need to talk down, but just make it simple....and I think that second statement does that...

and we can all agree, that he's great at educating when he speaks, but he could just go a little further on other issues as well, and thats when people get that "ahhhhh, I see" moment...thats when people jump on our side, when the truth is learned..

 

[vechorik]

SAFETY/SECURITY should be there somewhere -- The media has scared the Christians to death - no wonder they Support Israel!

 

[Captain Shays]

Many times Ron responds to the war mongers questions with "you need a declaration of war from congress...." . These wars are unconstitutional... etc..

Now, I get all of this. Most of "us" do... but what about the layperson. Is this just a technicality?

I think Ron needs to expand on why it is sooo important to follow the constitution in layman terms....

"These wars are unconstitutional.... etc.." but he needs to add "The reason the president must go to congress is because of two reasons.
1. We need to follow the constitution and have congress declare a war <--- he says this.
2. And the reason why congress must be involved is because they represent all of US. There is no representation of the people and those politicians in power can become kings without consent from the people.... <--- he doesn't say this.

He assumes people know why congress is important. Voters don't. He has to draw the connection that Congress approval is so important because the politicians MUST represent their constituents...

You get what I am saying?

Did you know that one of the main reasons our founding fathers made it a requirement to declare war is because it's part of the Christian Just War Principles? First we must exhaust all attempts to forge peace between two disagreeable countries. If that doesn't work then you put them on notice by declaring war in hopes that they will change their minds about attacking your country but it was never part of the discussion to attack their country first. Hence the ONLY just war is a war of self defense. Ron Paul has referenced over and over the Christian Just War Principles. I just wish he would get the time to explain it in a convincing manner.

 

[Captain Shays]

Funny because one of my friends said this today on my facebook:

Amazing.

 

[JJ2]

Many times Ron responds to the war mongers questions with "you need a declaration of war from congress...." . These wars are unconstitutional... etc..

Now, I get all of this. Most of "us" do... but what about the layperson. Is this just a technicality?

I think Ron needs to expand on why it is sooo important to follow the constitution in layman terms....

"These wars are unconstitutional.... etc.." but he needs to add "The reason the president must go to congress is because of two reasons.
1. We need to follow the constitution and have congress declare a war <--- he says this.
2. And the reason why congress must be involved is because they represent all of US. There is no representation of the people and those politicians in power can become kings without consent from the people.... <--- he doesn't say this.

He assumes people know why congress is important. Voters don't. He has to draw the connection that Congress approval is so important because the politicians MUST represent their constituents...

You get what I am saying?

Congratulations! Ron Paul plagiarized you in the debate tonight!

 

[jbuttell]

Congratulations! Ron Paul plagiarized you in the debate tonight!

Hah, just saw this post with your bump... yeah Lord, Ron just stole your line.

 

[coffeewithgames]

"We paid to blow up bridges in Afghanistan, then we borrowed money from the Chinese to rebuild those bridges. We have drugs illegal here in the United States, but send our troops to protect those very same drugs in Afghanistan. Heck, knowing our foreign policy right now, we would blow up the nuclear facility sites, and then borrow money from China to help Iran rebuild them."

 

[UNC08]

He has got to bring up the military donor stats more often. That fact is impossible to attack without demeaning our fighting men. Make it a question. Ask them "Why am I receiving more from the men and women whose lives are on the line than everyone on this stage combined?"