PDA

View Full Version : A good night for Ron Paul




sailingaway
10-23-2012, 10:21 PM
My take on last night’s presidential debate: Ron Paul won.

Of the long list of contenders in this long campaign season, the GOP congressman from Texas more than any other has argued for ending America’s military engagements around the world, dropping foreign aid, and defending U.S. borders as the sum total of foreign policy—in short, isolationism.

In a 90-minute debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., that focused on foreign policy, President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney both borrowed from Paul’s isolationist bent and stridency, while lacking the Republican renegade’s coherence. Both tried to show they understood America’s place in the world but seemed captive to U.S. polls showing most voters lack interest in international relations.

more at link: http://www.worldmag.com/2012/10/a_good_night_for_ron_paul

another person who doesn't know isolaitonism from noninterventionist

Constitutional Paulicy
10-23-2012, 10:46 PM
So with both candidates holding these same points of view........


That left viewers befuddled as the two candidates seemed to agree on more than they disagreed on. They agreed that a NATO-led intervention in Libya was the right thing to do (while not right for Syria). They agreed that tightening sanctions on Iran was the best way to end its nuclear program. They agreed that Pakistan must remain a key ally while also agreeing to continue clandestine drone strikes in the region. They agreed to the 2014 timeline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Departing from a tendency toward pullback, they agreed, in Gov. Romney’s words, that the United States “had to go in” to Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden.

How is this a "good night for Ron Paul?"

sailingaway
10-23-2012, 10:48 PM
I got the impression the author thought they were both too noninterventionist, and that Ron had rubbed off on them. I do think that post-Ron's runs they can't speak about war the same way it was spoken of before those runs, and still have credibility.

Constitutional Paulicy
10-23-2012, 10:48 PM
This also makes me concerned.......


Romney in several moments sounded presidential, able to articulate a wider philosophy of America’s place in the world. (“… the mantle of—of leadership for promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn’t ask for it, but it’s an honor that we have it.”)

sailingaway
10-23-2012, 10:50 PM
Oh, there was plenty to be concerned about.

Constitutional Paulicy
10-23-2012, 10:54 PM
I got the impression the author thought they were both too noninterventionist, and that Ron had rubbed off on them. I do think that post-Ron's runs they can't speak about war the same way it was spoken of before those runs, and still have credibility.

Ya, I guess if there not beating war drums and saber rattling, then we aren't intervening enough for her liking. Truth be known, they are just toning down the rhetoric until they've secured the election. Then they will return to their war mongering ways. The author has nothing to worry about. Wish I could same the same for myself.

A Romney presidency will likely be more aggressive on that front. I've heard he will recruit most of Bush's former administration once elected. I could foresee a return to troop deployment.