|
Looks like the Press can't ignore Ron Paul anymore. That whole thing was an awful clusterfuck, and I like how nothing was done to silence the audience despite the outlaying of the format. I suppose Paul won't be getting the candidacy, but this debate just confirmed to me that every candidate except Paul is a fucking monster.
|
Sounds like you watched the debate with an open mind.
I saw your first post on Ron Paul a bit ago based on the first round of debates, and I honestly did not catch the first debates. I'm usually open to 3rd-party candidates (as long as they're conservative) so I watched this debate with an open mind about Paul. He'd never been on my radar before, so I didn't have a bias one way or the other for/against him. Wow, after watching the debate I can honestly say it would be better for the country if Hilary Clinton were elected. Even though I disagree with her, she has at least some sort of grasp on reality which clearly Paul lacks to a certain extent. That being said, I do not disagree with all of Paul's points. Perhaps he's just not great at debating, but he was so awful I can't see him as any kind of world leader figure.
|
It'll only hurt Rudy if GOP voters care to look up the facts, which is that we've had several reports claiming that our intervention in the Middle East inspired the 9/11 terrorists and Al-Qaeda.
|
Each country must look out for its own interests with every resource available, because that is
what every other country in the world is doing. Those countries that
are not powerful accuse the U.S. of "intervention" (I use quotes because I contest the argument that the U.S. should not survive by standing up for its own interests in the world according to its ability to do so) because they are too weak to turn the tables and intervene on their own behalf. What I have noticed is that countries/foreign leaders prattle on about U.S. "intervention" according to the amount of this characteristic they possess. A non-interventionist policy assumes that other countries are not "competing" against one another for dominant positions, either economically, culturally, or militarily. History tells us otherwise.
I wouldn't argue that our foreign policy has been as effective as we would have liked it to be in all situations, but what no one talks about is what would have happened in all these cases around the world
if we had not "intervened." So the U.S. put Saddam in power in the first place: I have not encountered one intelligent person on the Internet
ever who could lay out with expert opinion what would have happened
had we not placed him in power. Because the people taking this stance cannot address this half of the issue, the entire line of thinking against "intervention" is invalid and useless. More than that: it's dangerous. The general U.S. public is definitely not qualified to make determinations on this, and because they don't understand it they fear it. What is far more frightening to me is an America that is
unwilling to intervene based on no informed, rational examination but instead a media machine that does not inform but instead is designed solely to elect Democrats (except for Fox News) and their own irrational fears.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
speculative