You stick by your candidate. Do you really think military disengagement from the rest of the world is a good thing for the United States? That’s what worries me most about his platform. 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.
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.
Yes, the regions of the world would handle their own problems, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars that is used to subsidize their defense budgets and U.S. troops won't be used as 'trip-wires' like they are in Korea.
All in all, pretty good consequences.