Quote:
Originally Posted by teamochi  Also, Ron Paul is IN the race. I have my ballot right in front of me and his name is on it. And who not get excited? A presidential candidate who wants to return to the constitution, give us freedom, sound money, no war and get us to take care of ourselves and this is a BAD thing? Its honestly astonishing... |
Yes, technically he is still a candidate because he hasn't officially withdrawn, but McCain is officially the Republican nominee. Ron Paul hasn't won a single state, and McCain already has way more than the needed number of delegates. So like I said, it doesn't really matter anymore whether Ron Paul was a good candidate. Personally, I like him a lot better than McCain, but the majority of Republican voters clearly do not... even if McCain were to drop dead today the nomination would inevitably go to Romney or Huckabee.
I think Paul would stand a good chance as a third-party candidate... better than Nader or any others. He already has a substantial following and the general election isn't even underway.
Quote:
I can't find anything on foreign policy cause I can't find the link, but I remember hearing that ours is supposed to be of non-intervention (and no, I didn't hear it from Ron Paul, but rather my school) and anyone who suggests we should expect other countries to actually allow us to watchdog them is off their rocker IMHO.
But like I said, if I have to swallow an Obama presidency I think I could, but I honestly don't have a good feeling about him. And no, color is not an issue, its the idea that we need to become a welfare state and watchdog other countries and expect them to love us for it and increase spending the most out of all of the candidates... and this is a GOOD thing.
|
Obama doesn't want us to "watch dog" other countries. You're right - his foreign policy isn't quite as non-interventionist as Ron Paul's, but it is more so than any of the other candidates. He wants to pull us out of Iraq completely within the first year. There would be no permanent military bases. The only troops he would leave in the Middle East would be a small number specifically to protect our embassy and diplomats, not to interfere with how countries choose run themselves. The vast majority of our military would be at home protecting the country. He would meet with leaders of foreign countries to encourage diplomacy instead of war (even ones we consider enemies and have refused to meet with in the past).
Also, I do not think he would increase spending... definitely not more than Clinton or McCain would. His plans to reform health care are expensive, but they can easily be payed for by withdrawing from Iraq and allowing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy to expire. Obama is more fiscally responsible than the other candidates, because he is the only one who advocates Pay-As-You-Go spending limits. These limits make it so that Congress cannot pass legislature to spend money that we don't have. New programs and expenses would be payed for by cutting out old, obsolete parts of our government instead of just digging us deeper into debt. These were the same policies that were in place throughout the 90's, and we ended up with an actual federal surplus until Bush took office. It's worked before and there's no reason it can't work again.