paul or romney?

[Core]

who would u vote for and why?

[aperson444]

Ron Paul 2012. Libertarianism is what USA needs.

[trooneh]

If I had to vote, I would pick Mitt Romney, because I just feel that Ron Paul's foreign policy would be disastrous. I'd rather vote for neither, though.

[Amnesiac]

If I had to vote, I would pick Mitt Romney, because I just feel that Ron Paul's foreign policy would be disastrous. I'd rather vote for neither, though.

Of all of Paul's policies, I'd assume his attitude towards foreign affairs would be the easiest for most people to relate to. In what way would it be "disastrous"?

[DerBear]

Eh I dislike them both but Mitt Rommey would be who I would vote for if I was forced but I dislike both.

[Scoob]

Paul, no doubt.

[trooneh]

Of all of Paul's policies, I'd assume his attitude towards foreign affairs would be the easiest for most people to relate to. In what way would it be "disastrous"?

Do you want to completely withdraw from the world? Also, he carries controversial views such as:

Stating he would not have ordered the death of bin Laden
Stating in the video below that he believes the United States brought 9/11 on itself
z6n51UEt1F4
Asserting there is a coverup of 9/11 (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/)
Refusing to do anything to deter or stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons


Ron Paul is also a proponent of isolationism, which really would be disastrous economically.

That's why I don't support his foreign policy views.

[Wesley1369]

i like ron paul and his livertarianism views, but his foreign policy is weak and i dont like his electability against osama, i mean obama. Romney is the stronger candidate and therefore should get the vote, he will be the GOP nominee and has the best chance to take down obama.

[Jupiter]

Ron Paul 2012. Libertarianism is what USA needs.



:) this right here, my friend. one thing i would change about him if i could is the (previously mentioned) foreign policy thing

[Wesley1369]

his killing was not warrented.. are you kidding me? of course it was warranted look at whats hes done...

[Wesley1369]

he was more than accused, he was guilty. and you dont think he had guns and bodyguards in that compound. of course he did, a firefight broke out and he got killed, sucks to be him, oh well nobody is missing him.

[Nihilus]

Ron Paul, simply because out of those two he is the most sane person and he didn't fire people to make his wealth; instead Ron Paul was a doctor.... Oh and the way Osama was killed wasn't worth it; he should have been captured and put on trial.

[Wesley1369]

your right it is off topic, but how do you know a weapon wasnt being aimed at them, who really know what was going on there. basically no harm no foul, he deserved to die

[Wesley1369]

i guess we'll never know

[Amnesiac]

Do you want to completely withdraw from the world?

Militarily, yes. It's simply not necessary for the United States to be involved in the affairs of other regions.

Also, he carries controversial views such as:

Stating he would not have ordered the death of bin Laden

I would hardly call it a controversial view. It's very true that violating Pakistan's territorial sovereignty is an extremely difficult action to justify. I don't believe the United States should have ordered Bin Laden's death without consulting Pakistan first. It's just irresponsible to trek into a nation armed with nuclear weapons to kill a man who was, at that point, arguably at the end of his game anyway.

Stating in the video below that he believes the United States brought 9/11 on itself
z6n51UEt1F4
Asserting there is a coverup of 9/11 (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/)

It's true that intervention in the Middle East has "rocked the boat," so to say. We shouldn't be over there, and they don't want us over there. In a way, America's actions in the Middle East have encouraged attacks from terrorist groups. Paul is correct when he claims that our irresponsible foreign policy was a catalyst for anti-American sentiments.

Refusing to do anything to deter or stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons

None of our business. There is no substantial evidence to justify taking action against Iran at this point.

Ron Paul is also a proponent of isolationism, which really would be disastrous economically.

That's why I don't support his foreign policy views.

That's where you're mistaken. Ron Paul advocates non-intervention, not isolationism. There's a gigantic difference between the two. Paul's economic policy advocates less restrictions on trade, which would definitely benefit the economy. We would still most definitely play a major role in the world economy and international culture under a Ron Paul administration, there's no doubt – it's the neoconservatism that has been running rampant for the past 30 years that would end. The United States would not become isolated, it would become less involved militarily in other nations' affairs – as it should be.

[ImCoolBeans]

That's where you're mistaken. Ron Paul advocates non-intervention, not isolationism. There's a gigantic difference between the two. Paul's economic policy advocates less restrictions on trade, which would definitely benefit the economy. We would still most definitely play a major role in the world economy and international culture under a Ron Paul administration, there's no doubt – it's the neoconservatism that has been running rampant for the past 30 years that would end. The United States would not become isolated, it would become less involved militarily in other nations' affairs – as it should be.

I would vote for Ron Paul for these reasons.

The United States needs to be much less involved militarily with other countries and focus a bit more on trade. That will only help the economy. War is expensive as all hell.

[Wesley1369]

there has to be a military, otherwise we would be extremely vulnerable to attack from others

[ImCoolBeans]

there has to be a military, otherwise we would be extremely vulnerable to attack from others

Okay, but where did anybody say "get rid of the military". The US just needs to take a step back and stop putting our shit where it isn't wanted.

[Wesley1369]

lithiumaneuryism did

[Amnesiac]

lithiumaneuryism did

No, I said the military needs to stop overflowing into other nations. I would never say that there shouldn't be a military, that would be insane.

[ImCoolBeans]

lithiumaneuryism did

That's where you're mistaken. Ron Paul advocates non-intervention, not isolationism. There's a gigantic difference between the two.

No, he said that Ron Paul wouldn't intervene. Not that he would "get rid of the military"

Not intervening means that we won't go poking around in other countries problems with out military, especially when we really aren't appreciated by doing so.

[Wesley1369]

close enough to the same thing, you have to stay active

[ImCoolBeans]

close enough to the same thing, you have to stay active

Not even relatively close.

Saying we need to "stay active" with our military is basically saying that we need to go police the world and get involved in conflicts that are absolutely 100% unrelated to us.

[kenoloor]

close enough to the same thing, you have to stay active

"Close enough" only counts in horseshoes and atom bombs. Also no, not close. Try different. "Staying active"? Yeah, let's invade countries that are totally irrelevant, and we have no business in. Excellent plan.

[Wesley1369]

yes, but your argument isnt realistic, it simply doesnt work. why dont you understand that?

[ImCoolBeans]

yes, but your argument isnt realistic, it simply doesnt work. why dont you understand that?

I'm sorry but you're argument isn't realistic lol, you are supporting absolutely nothing because your argument is so far out in left field.

Saying that an argument for non-intervention is unrealistic is ridiculous. So you're telling me that our military should get involved in conflicts for no reason and that we should throw money in the shit hole so we can be this honorary police force that everybody looks down upon as we destroy our economy even further? Because NOTHING about that sounds appealing to me...

[Wesley1369]

im not saying join for no reason, im saying if the time comes and we need to get involved we shoudlt hesitate to do so and it shouldnt be a huge deal if we have to

[ImCoolBeans]

Ron Paul is just tying to say that we need to stop fighting these useless un-winnable wars. They're uncalled for.

Exactly, non-intervention. And he is absolutely right by saying so.

[Scoob]

Militarily, yes. It's simply not necessary for the United States to be involved in the affairs of other regions.



I would hardly call it a controversial view. It's very true that violating Pakistan's territorial sovereignty is an extremely difficult action to justify. I don't believe the United States should have ordered Bin Laden's death without consulting Pakistan first. It's just irresponsible to trek into a nation armed with nuclear weapons to kill a man who was, at that point, arguably at the end of his game anyway.



It's true that intervention in the Middle East has "rocked the boat," so to say. We shouldn't be over there, and they don't want us over there. In a way, America's actions in the Middle East have encouraged attacks from terrorist groups. Paul is correct when he claims that our irresponsible foreign policy was a catalyst for anti-American sentiments.



None of our business. There is no substantial evidence to justify taking action against Iran at this point.



That's where you're mistaken. Ron Paul advocates non-intervention, not isolationism. There's a gigantic difference between the two. Paul's economic policy advocates less restrictions on trade, which would definitely benefit the economy. We would still most definitely play a major role in the world economy and international culture under a Ron Paul administration, there's no doubt – it's the neoconservatism that has been running rampant for the past 30 years that would end. The United States would not become isolated, it would become less involved militarily in other nations' affairs – as it should be.

I think I might be gay for you. You seriously said it perfectly.

[aperson444]

Huh? How did USA not bring 9/11 on itself? Think objectively. We funded Afghan Mujahedeen, including Bin Laden's associates. We trained them to fight a modern army (the Soviets). We even handed them powerful and relatively new weaponry (most famously the FIM92 Stinger). In the end it really did bite us back in the ass. Plus we weren't all too nice with governments back there during the Cold War (Iran 1959; Lebanon; Funding the Iran/Iraq War). But somehow 9/11 is 100% not our fault. Somehow we can blame it on another religion, an entire group of people on liberals, conservatives this and that, but we can't just stand up and say that we had it coming and we failed to anticipate it.

I don't think Ron Paul wants Osama alive anyways. I think he's more irritated by the fact that we didn't shift attention to Pakistan earlier, but we prolonged the Afghanistan war. Osama was in Pakistan all along after all. Plus there were clear hints that Al Qaeda had a strong presence in the Northern Provinces of Pakistan.

[Schizothemia]

Personally neither. I'm a bigger fan of Huntsman who share's many of Paul's views but has a bit more of a moderate tinge to his views. Sadly, he is a terrible public speaker and lacks charisma.

However, of the two, Paul is hands down the better option. He is for the most part a man for the people. Whether or not I agree with his approach is irrelevant at this point because quite frankly, I like most Americans, am sick of nothing really being done. The one thing I've liked about Ron Paul is that he doesn't care whose fault it was for the problem, he just wants to fix it.

Romney, well, quite frankly isn't an option. If Romney gets the Republican nomination, it's another four years of Obama. (Which might not necessarily be absolutely terrible, assuming he can get his shit together. Which with recent history proving that odds are he won't be able to.)

[Amnesiac]

im not saying join for no reason, im saying if the time comes and we need to get involved we shoudlt hesitate to do so and it shouldnt be a huge deal if we have to

This is where you run into the problem of what can be categorized as a situation that requires our involvement. I certianly don't think Libya and Iraq fall into that category. And yes, putting our military in dangerous and unnecessary places should be a gigantic deal – I don't think you realize the ramifications of military action. Intervening in other parts of the world costs billions of dollars and puts American lives at risk. The only things that justify taking those two enormous, potentially lethal risks is if another country presents a clear and immediate risk to the security of the United States. Iran doesn't even come close.

I think I might be gay for you. You seriously said it perfectly.

Thanks man. Your boners are appreciated.