You can stick by the GOP and the rest of the status-quo candidates, that's currently circling the drain. The GOP can't defeat the Dems without embracing some of Paul's issues.
Do you really think military disengagement from the rest of the world is a good thing for the United States?
We'd still have a military under Paul. There'll still be a strong national defense and border security. We don't need to stick our noses everywhere and fighting wars that should have been over and done with months ago.
That’s what worries me most about his platform.
I'll take Paul being half-wrong on foreign policy over the other GOP candidates embracing big entitlements, big government, big spending, usurping states' rights, more tax dollars to the UN and Palestinians, more arm sales to the Saudis...anyday.
Some of his other ideas can be appealing but as Commander in Chief he could carry this policy to fruition, and it’s worldwide devastating consequences.
Paul would still be a better Commander-in-Chief than the Democrats and better than Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee.
So you think we should leave Afghanistan and hope for the best. You think we should leave Iraq, and hope for the best. Leave SE Asia And watch curiously as China takes over. Disengage our burgeoning military relationship with India. Leave Australia to the wind. There are too many more to note in one response. You want to abandon all US allies. The consequences of one’s actions are what logical people tend to think about.
I read on another thread tonight that the Bush administration is going after private gun ownership. Add that to your list. I don't think Ron Paul would do that.
Yes, let's just sit back in our gated secure community and mind our own business until all the rogue nations are united and all their nifty new nuclear weapons are pointed at us. That sounds like a lovely strategy.