What is RON PAUL overplaying? underplaying?

[Lord Xar]

What list for each do you think Ron Paul is missing.

For instance.

Overplaying:
small government

Downplaying:
illegal immigration


I've heard him talk about about "small government" which is cool, but most people hear it and go "oh, yea.. right"... but when you mention illegal immigration poeple go "yeah, he is right.. we need to stop this..."

Maybe he has a strategy and is waiting for the pigeons to fall. But now people think ROMNEY has a stronger stance on illegal immigration. WHAT THE PHUCK!

But, I do understand that even if Ron Paul was hard on it -- MSM wouldn't report it..... so maybe he is and I am not hearing it.

 

[ARealConservative]

immigration and national debt.

 

[Lord Xar]

immigration and national debt.

downplaying? overplaying?

 

[Santana28]

overplaying? how the 2nd amendment could have prevented 9/11.

underplaying? immigration, definitely. and maybe healthcare... but thats a tricky subject.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Overplaying:

Gold, abortion, No IRS

Underplaying:

The war, civil liberties, immigration, eminent domain, unConstitutional spending

 

[ARealConservative]

downplaying? overplaying?

sorry - downplaying. Our national security depends on these solutions.

Overplaying I guess is the pro-life issue. It's important to me, but not a matter of national security.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

overplaying? how the 2nd amendment could have prevented 9/11.

Right, I forgot that one.

Also the letters of marque and reprisal thing. Mentioning it once was overplaying it. It's too ripe for lampooning.

 

[EvoPro]

The 2nd amendment could have prevented 9/11. This is a great point.

Overplaying... Pro-Life.

Where do you get that people think Romney is stronger on immigration XAR?

 

[constituent]

over - abortion

under - inflation, healthcare, corporate welfare!

 

[born2drv]

Overplaying:
Why they attacked US.

Underplaying:
What we would do to increase troop support and defense here at home rather then fighting abroad.


People want a tough/strong president, and they don't realize RP is that president, he just doesn't believe in foreign intervention.

 

[risiusj]

He should really start to try to sell the point that the American people simply won't elect a pro war president in 2008. He's hinted at it before, but I think he needs to just flat out say it. We all know that it's the truth.

And hey, that really plays to his hand in his quest for the Republican nomination.
The more people that realize this, the more Democrats and such will register Republican for the primaries.

If everyone that wants to end the war realizes that Ron Paul is the only anti-war Republican candidate, then all that the people would have to do is get Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee.

Then, according to many of their logic, both presidential candidates would be anti-war. Unfortunately, many don't see through the lies of Hillary and Obama, but that's a whole other subject.

 

[risiusj]

Overplaying:
Why they attacked US.

Never. The more people that realize the truth the more people that will side with Dr. Paul

 

[born2drv]

Never. The more people that realize the truth the more people that will side with Dr. Paul

I agree with you, but it shouldn't be discussed on MSM or in debates, etc... because RP only gets 20 second or so to explain why and that's just not enough time. Or if he's going to explain why we need to withdraw, he also needs to explain how we're going to keep america strong and defend against anyone who would do us harm.

People are paranoid, and want a trigger happy strong republican.... well RP is not trigger happy, but he is for a strong defense and people really have no clue about this... they hear he wants to withdraw from iraq and they automatically think he's for the surrender of the US and total capitulation for radical islam.

 

[Ridiculous]

overplaying? how the 2nd amendment could have prevented 9/11.

100% agree on this one. This can be easily misquoted.

Here is the problem. He is referring to the pilots carrying. Not the whole plane. Airlines would have their own security and would more than likely as a private company not allow passengers to carry on a plane. This gets misquoted and it is used against him like he believes that every passenger should have had a gun.

If you specifically take the sound bite "2nd amendment could have prevented 9/11" it will make him seem like a nut to the average voter....

 

[EvoPro]

He should really start to try to sell the point that the American people simply won't elect a pro war president in 2008. He's hinted at it before, but I think he needs to just flat out say it. We all know that it's the truth.

I agree. He should also stress more often that Hillary/Obama are in fact pro-war/Interventionists

 

[risiusj]

Yes. It's just that people like to jump to conclusions and then think that Ron Paul was referring to the passengers all being allowed to have guns on the plane.

 

[Ridiculous]

He needs to say at a debate that he is the only one running from congress, on either side of the fence, that voted against the war.

He needs to sling some mud a a front runner. These things make press. The jab should be something irrefutable. With a rebuttal planned. And it shouldn't make him look mean.


He could say something like "In all my years in congress I have never raised taxes. McCain voted to raise taxes X times. Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts. I have never voted to raise taxes"

 

[born2drv]

He needs to say at a debate that he is the only one running from congress, on either side of the fence, that voted against the war.

He needs to sling some mud a a front runner. These things make press. The jab should be something irrefutable. With a rebuttal planned. And it shouldn't make him look mean.

I agree... we need a sucker punch! Something that will bring lots of buzz!

I'd label everyone on the state as a fear-mongering warlord that has no interest in keeping the American people safe at home, and throws away all our money on policing the world rather then build up our military defenses here.

And then I'd go on to say everyone on the stage is in favor of more bloated social services and wasteful spending, and under his administration, spending would be slashed to pre-2000 levels allowing us to completely wipe out the income tax and abolish the IRS. NO FLAT TAX NEEDED.... No more taxes period!

And one more sucker punch --- tell people that political correctness is destroying america and unlike the flip floppers and panderers on stage, he's held the same stance on abortion and illegal immigration for over 30 years and would not support santuary cities or anyone that tries to break our laws.



RP needs to draw in these chumps for a debate and make them fall to their knees and beg for mercy And by engaging them with tough talk he'll get more air time both in the debate and post-debate commentary.

 

[nullvalu]

i think he's underplaying healthcare.. he needs to put this in his speeches and break it down somehow to convice people, even socialists, that universal healthcare is not a good idea. it has become a huge issue for the left, they're all looking for a gov't handout..

 

[Ridiculous]

He should basically just say this in a debate if he gets asked about taxes:

This is from paul4prez

In Fiscal Year 2007, individual income taxes amounted to $1.17 trillion, just 42% of the total federal outlays of $2.78 trillion. Abolishing the individual income tax would not destroy the federal government, it would only force a reduction in spending levels back to FY1997, hardly the era of small government, when the total federal budget was $1.60 trillion. In other words, we could have ALREADY abolished the income tax, if Congress and the President hadn't increased spending by 74 percent in the past ten years.