Posted on 01/13/2012 7:06:58 AM PST by Veritas_et_libertas
Interviews with New Hampshire voters on Tuesday gave a glimpse into the issues that drew these newcomers to a campaign that has been trying to gain mainstream support for its message since Paul first ran for president in 1988.
Most said they were initially drawn to one element of Paul's platform, but came to support the rest of it later.
'Painfully, Very Slowly'
One voter, James Kelley, said he supported Paul at first because he seemed like the only candidate who was serious about cutting taxes and spending. But as he researched Paul's platform, he found himself reconsidering his hawkish foreign-policy views.
"Before him, I was basically like, nuke the Middle East and get it over with," Kelley said. "I started hearing what he was saying, and painfully, very slowly, I was like, yeah, actually, it makes sense."
From listening to Paul, Kelley concluded that it was the United States' own interventionist foreign policy that posed the greatest threat to national security.
"Initially, it [non-interventionism] didn't make any sense, because you keep hearing about all these threats and risks," he said. "But pretty much every single conflict we've been in, we've somehow preceded it. We armed the mujahedeen to fight the Soviets, and then we fight them as the Taliban. We put [Fidel] Castro in power; we put Saddam Hussein in power."
(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...
I figure he’d be balanced out by Congress anyhow. Maybe even too much.
That has been debunked. Indeed two threads started by Paulitards that tried to push that tripe have been pulled.
There is nothing to show the validity of the poll. its make up or methodology, and such has been asked for again and again.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised Paulitards with their OWS and Code Pink buddies would go for the "repeat the lie often enough" bit.
You can bring up more Obama policies if you like, however, it does not answer what would happen if a dangerous isolationist like Ron Paul got his way and destroyed the US military.
we are infested with kook paul seminar supporters.
every time I see a pro drug stand post it is a troll suspect.
Even on the radio the kook paul seminar callers are out in force.
Kook paul has zero chance in FL. or any closed state primary.
"The military donation angle been debunked many, many times. The numbers they are using are from a very limited sampling (and from a Soros funded group by the way, but I digress), only donors who give over $200 (quite large for the average soldier to give) and the sampling has been tainted by his "Military Moneybomb" where they were encouraging Paultards to put down they were in the military even if they aren't currently in the military (retired, ever was a contractor for anything with the military, or "whatever"). The number of donors is also so small (about 90 total) it is statistically insignificant in a population of about 3 million (active + reserves). Other polls of larger sampling of the military show Paul's support only in the single digits."
The "recent numbers" posted were pulled because they were BS.
Paulitard spam doesn't fair to well with Conservatives. its more Code Pinkish...
I just do not see how our military posture and decisions over the past 2 decades have made us safer.
Ask yourself this. Do you feel sfer today than you did 20 years ago? Do you think americ is stronger today than 20 yeaars ago? If not then you must agree tht our policies are failing. Our policies re not mking us safer they are making is weaker. Something has got to change and no one else is offering any change whatsoever to american foreign policy of intervention, invasion, and occupation.
Sorry for the many typos. My “a” key is not functioning properly.
Thank god for that...
Now you may get a kick out of that but I don't.
Some of these third-world hellholes are so nasty you actually can't get food to the people without stepping over some bodies of the guys who were stealing it.
That's why we were there. Then thought was given to doing something more.
The mercy mission was allowed to morph into "nation building" ~ and that's where you run into your problem. We were not prepared to do that which, as you know, requires the use of a great deal of armor, artillery and air power.
Yes he would close dozens of bases on foreign territory. Hooray for that. Let the us military defend us citizens. The the german military defend german citizens. Let the japanese defend themselves.
Having allies is one thing what we have are protectorates and de facto colonies.
Every empire in history has collapsed in on itself. Why would anyone think we would be any different? War is ineveitable. But what we have had for the last 20 years is a never ending war. Undeclared and unwinnable.
Bring our troops home and prepare for the coming global conflict that will come wether we have our troops posted over seas or not.
Yes he would close dozens of bases on foreign territory. Hooray for that. Let the us military defend us citizens. The the german military defend german citizens. Let the japanese defend themselves.
Having allies is one thing what we have are protectorates and de facto colonies.
Every empire in history has collapsed in on itself. Why would anyone think we would be any different? War is ineveitable. But what we have had for the last 20 years is a never ending war. Undeclared and unwinnable.
Bring our troops home and prepare for the coming global conflict that will come wether we have our troops posted over seas or not.
That demonstrates how enlightened Paul is ~ which is NOT VERY!
Going with Ron Paul would drastically increases that. Running away is not the answer.
And what does that have to do with you using a debunked it of propaganda.
i don’t agree with your premise that Ron Paul’s policies would destroy the military.
We’ve spent 10 years in afghanistan. We’ve been in the kingdom of saudi arabia for 20. We’ve been in seoul for 50. How much more follow thru would achive victory?
We’ve spent 10 years in afghanistan. We’ve been in the kingdom of saudi arabia for 20. We’ve been in seoul for 50. How much more follow thru would achive victory?
“We’ve spent 10 years in afghanistan.”
About the same amount of time the Soviets spent there with the same results.
As good as a “mercy mission” sounds, armies are not designed for them.
On the other one, why were we in Bosnia? Arguably to save the Bosnian Muslims. And look at the thanks we got for doing that.
We perhaps ought not to go as far as Ron Paul advocates, but we could definitely stand to pull back a ways on our military adventurism and nation building.
“i don’t agree with your premise that Ron Paul’s policies would destroy the military.”
So you agree with Ron Paul that “ALL” foreign US military bases should be closed and “ALL” military brought home? So you agree with allowing more terrorist nations to be able to get nukes? And you don’t believe that hiding all US military behind the US borders in total isolationism and having zip, zero nada ability to quickly respond, defend international interests and allies, supply and support the military when the Ron Paul world war begins is not destroying the military? Sad.
Do you also like that he praises traitors? Do you also agree with crackpot Paul that the US is to blame for 9/11?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.