0 votes

How Ron Paul should Cover his isolationist stance

I really think that RP's stance on non-interventions is going to be a problem. If I could give some advice to anyone trying to defend this I would tell critics that RP is a conservative who isn't a hawk. I think there are a lot of republicans and conservatives who feel that way inside. I happen to be one of them who didn't like Bush's Axis of Evil speech. Saying you are not a hawk still allows you to have the conservative label.

The second thing I would do is to point out that non-interventions was the conservative philosophy of the 20th century. Pull out newsreals of republicans disagreeing with Vietnam or Korea. Go even further back to WWII and WWI. I'm sure you can find quotes for notable republicans who talked about non-intervention. Heck--go back to what the founders of this country said. That is just my recommendation on it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul's stance on a

Ron Paul's stance on a non-interventionist foreign policy only seems to be a problem for the zionists. Ron Paul's donation support from active military is renowned with its overwhelming $ amounts over any other candidate. Ron Paul, I believe, is the only one on stage with a military record himself. The fact that article writers and the media still plug away at the misnomer of "isolationism" as opposed to non-interventionist free trade is a wilfull sabotage or complete ignorance and understanding of Ron Paul's foreign policy and its growing popular support.

He's not isolationist.

In fact, he's less isolationist than any other candidate.
All the other candidates want sanctions and war against other countries. That's isolationist.

RP wants free trade with all.

The "isolationist" crack is a lie, and should be called-out as such.

Hi BigT

Right. RP is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. RP and his supporters believe in free trade not war.