WebsterMark wrote on 10/15/13 at 09:41:24:NRP -chose Romney and that was that
The NRP did not choose Paul because a libertarian can never be President of the United States. His "stick my head in the sand" approach to foreign affairs jeopardizes not only the US, but millions of others.
Now before all you Ron Paul people go ape$h!t on me, separate the issues first. You might have issues with the way foreign policy has been dispensed and I would agree with you in many cases. However, Ron Paul's ideas on foreign policy in general is to pretty much ignore things until trouble knocks on your (or some friend's) doorstep. Sorry, that works fine for Sweden, but not the US. Don't extrapolate mistakes made in Iran over the years as a justifiable reason to ignore Israel for example.
yes, we are the policemen of the world.
I would never take a position that the NRP choose only my candidate. They can choose whom-ever they like. BUT the state conventions that supposedly have voters then determine the finally candidate should be honest and meaningful. As it was they were a farce at least and a crime at most.
Lets make it clear, in the state of Mississippi, no voter had any impact at any level on who the republican candidate turned out to be ( even those FOR Romney). At every level the "fix" was in, and the rules made sure that only NRP candidate could be nominated. Why even have a convention? Just throw another fund raiser and be done with it. Now if people of the state were told:"by the way, if you vote republican, then you have ZERO input who the party decides will be your nominee".
It's only an illusion that the voters in MS had any say in who was nominated. And that makes me mad .. and sad.
As to Ron Pauls foreign policy. To be sure it is isolationist (in the extreme). But it is his attempt to use the constitution as the primary litmus test for federal direction.
Question one is always:
Does the constitution explicitly grant me the power to (insert act here).
Other questions he asks are:
Is the sovernty and security of the nation at risk?
Is the act legal?
Of course, the primary sticking point seems to be Israel, for most people. I have no wish to see Israel, be hurt. But basically, the policy over time has been to just make them some kind of "sub territory", a military welfare state of the USA. There will never be peace in the middle east, as long as the USA funds for there not to be. Smarter brains have been working on this for longer than I have been alive, so I wont pretend to have the answers ( nor does RP). But then , continuing the current policy doesn't "fix" anything either.