| || |
| || || |
| || |Not an exaggeration at all. What numbers do you have?
I have heard the term unelectable many times about Paul. Let me ask you, is that a reason not to vote for someone? Shouldn't you take the time to understand what they stand for and vote accordingly?
Like I said: At least have enough concern to learn about what he stands for (from him, not the media).
AGAIN: You slam Paul but conveniently conceal your choice. Kind of discounts your credibility don'cha think?
| || || |
Not at all. I don't conceal my choice simply because I have not made a choice. I don't slam Ron Paul- I state my opinion: he's unelectable. If you tally the total vote counts from every attempt Mr. Paul has made to be elected POTUS, it would not tally, electorally or numerically, to enough votes to get him elected. I also don't resort to name-calling in intelligent debate (knuckle-draggers?).
I DO like some of his economic standpoints, but his isolationist agenda is not feasible. If America retreated from the world stage militarily (isolationism), it would inevitably create a power vacuum that SOMEBODY would have to fill. So I pose you this question- You don't want the U.S. to be the preeminent military power in the world, so who SHOULD be the preeminent power in the world? China? Iran? How would that benefit the U.S. economically? What nations besides China or Iran would benefit from that? And why would a U.S. President want to be known as the President that allowed that to happen?
And, yes, hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration. There have been 7551 Coalition casualties to date in both Iraq and Afghanistan (icasualties.org), which would imply that coalition forces have killed at least 192,449 people (to get to 200,000, in order to make it "hundreds of thousands,") in the most humanely fought wars in human history.