Except Paul will do significantly more for the economy than Romney will do. He will also do more for our deficit, foreign policy, inflation problems, etc. Granted there are idiots who like Ron Paul solely for the fact that he wants to decriminalize marijuana, however, that is not the bulk of his supporters.
Of course most aren’t supporters because of pot.
But how will he help with foreign policy? By having none and isolating us?
I’m all for Washington’s view on foreign entanglements, but that’s no longer possible because of the global economy.
Question: Are you calling Ron Paul an isolationist?
I suppose I am. Because of how intertwined the world is and because there are significant threats out there (such as Iran and N. Korea (and possibly Russia if Obama is going to loosen restrictions on them and let them do whatever)), isolationism isn’t the best policy. Just because we isolate ourselves, doesn’t mean our enemies will magically forget about us. This isn’t like before when we were protected by two oceans and we went over 100 years without an attack on our land. We can’t act like we can go back to that.
To clarify, he’s not an isolationist. He believes in non-interventionism. I don’t know if people just get the two mixed up or if they really just don’t know about his policies. Which doesn’t mean we just cut off all ties from other countries and isolate ourselves. Free trade would exist, probably more-so. We’re not going to go back to that. Have you ever read any of Ron Paul’s own words on his political stances and where he stands with foreign policy and national defense?
