Follow Us:

[smeagle]

well here go again. it's time to go through the agony of watching/listening to a bunch of rich, privledged wind bags tell us how they will make all of our dreams come true while claiming their opponents will leads us all straight to hell if voted in. we'll hear canidates ramble on about how they care about the working man when none of them deal with the daily struggles that we do as a result of their decisons.

all in the end where most americans will once again vote for the lessor of two evils instead of a canidate that they truely believe will turn this country around.

well, let's discuss the three ring circus that is more commonly known as a presidential elcetion in america.

[Steve12]

I'm not registered to vote so I'm going to pay as little attention to their bullshit as possible.

[smeagle]

i am hoping ron paul can find a way to win but i do not see any way the republicans would allow him to be their canidate.

[mj1987us26]

There is no real candidate to challenge Obama IMO.

[smeagle]

i agree and that's too bad. we need someone in that office who is not full of shit. obama is no better than any republican president that has served.

both parties are corrupt - they jusy have different special interests groups paying their way.

[adammwilson]

Romney is the best of a bad bunch imho.

[smeagle]

unless romney changes his stance on all of these military bases the us has i can't go with him.

[adammwilson]

Originally Posted by smeagle

unless romney changes his stance on all of these military bases the us has i can't go with him.

so you'd rather go with Ron Paul who has no clue about foreign affairs?

[smeagle]

Originally Posted by adammwilson

so you'd rather go with Ron Paul who has no clue about foreign affairs?

really ? do you even know his stance or are you going by what his opponents, in particular romney are saying ?

Paul's views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.[citation needed] Paul is quoted as stating "America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations", while advocating "open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[206] Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul's foreign policy views in the early 1980s, stating "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."[207] Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, has said of Paul in 2010: "On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well."[208] Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul "agree tremendously on international policy".[209]
[edit] Non-intervention

Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent non-intervention,[210][211] opposing wars of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.[212]
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.[71] He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending what he deems massive, unaccountable foreign aid.[213] The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2010 as more conservative than 60% of the House and more liberal than 40% of the House (53% and 47%, respectively, in 2009).[9] For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).[10]
In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons."[214]
[edit] Iraq

Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution,[215][216] and he opposed the U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.[217] In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory; he added, "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."[218] However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq".[219] Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.[220]
During the 2003 invasion, Paul found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that [he] was taught as a Christian".[49] Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base[221] to include liberal[222] Democrats.[173]

[adammwilson]

and I consider his views to be old fashioned, ineffective, and well being quite honest I don't like them at all. Yeah ok he may have some thoughts but come on you really think sitting on our ass is an effective foreign strategy? Not to mention he rarely has even spoken on foreign policy. Plus the guy clearly won't beat Obama and seems a bit wacky.