Ron Paul 2012

Thank you. Forgive me for not more clearly defining the debate. I have not debated in a while. Therefore, I will leave allow either side to interpret the resolution as they please and simply give a case. I originally intended 'reasonable' to refer to Ron Paul's views, and that they are the most sensible of the lot. Since I failed to do this, I will debate in both your terms and mine. From an ideological standpoint, I find Ron Paul superb in what he says. He covers a range of economic, militaristic, and social issues. 1) Economic He, like the other republican candidates, has a strong belief in the free market economy and privatization. This comes with the belief of refraining from taxes as much as possible. However, not only will he make that effort; he has a plan to do what the other candidates haven't really mentioned: cutting spending. He claims to have a plan that will cut over 1 trillion dollars of spending in just the first year. Programs that obviously don't work he will pull funding from. Things like aid to foreign countries, or our presence and funding in the United Nations would be severely cut, as he notes that these things could be doing just as much harm to U.S. interests as they do good. He is also against the federal reserve (thank goodness). That says a lot. 2) Military To me, this is where Ron Paul shines. His views of foreign policy is that of a non-interventionist. He takes note that a large amount of our deficit is due this outrageous military spending we're doing funding these wars we keep waging. Unlike the other republicans that debate up there, he is not a hawk. He is strongly against waging wars and he is honest enough to mention that the reason we have so many enemies is not because they envy us or inherently hate us for our wealth and ideas. We make these enemies by dropping bombs on people and supporting oppressive tyrants when it suits our interests to do so. Everyone keeps mentioning Syria and Iran, and how both of these countries pose a threat to the United States if they acquire nuclear weapons. He makes the case for how it will still be a while for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and even if they do, they shouldn't be able to bomb us without us knowing/stopping them. The point he was trying to make was that we shouldn't wage another aggressive war. War is very expensive, and to support another war we would have to spend billions of dollars we did not have as well as countless lives. His point is clear: when it comes to international law we need to mind our own business. Instead of going overseas and fighting, he says we should instead focus on securing our borders and tightening our national defense. It is known that Al-Qaeda is building connections in South American countries that aren't on good terms with the United States such as Venezuela. What would be the point in waging these offensive wars when we have a terrible defensive border that would allow easy access into our country. 3) Social Like Thomas Jefferson, he is a believer in a strict interpretation of the constitution. He believes that governments shouldn't be able to overstep their powers as that would threaten the liberty of the citizens. He says that the executive branch should have minimal power, and on top of that the federal government should have minimal power. He believes that states should have their own say on gun laws, drug laws, sex laws, and marriage laws. He takes notes that our jails and prisons are filled with a ridiculous amount of people prosecuted for petty crimes such as prostitution, weapon carrying, and illegal drug use. In order to maintain these prisons/prisoners, tax payer dollars have to be wasted. All of the republican candidates are Christians. However, all of them, except Ron Paul, are saying that they will try to push their morals and ideas into the law books, and it often gets them an applause. Ron Paul, though a Christian, still doesn't try to push the morals of his faith into the law. For that, I respect him. Church and state should be separate. He is very careful with his wording on the War on Terror. He knows better than to point the finger at "Muslims", as he recognizes the wrong kind of wording can be offensive and dangerous. He also doesn't try to paint this false pretty picture that America is the completely innocent, blameless victim for the kinds of problems it has. He also was against the Patriot Act, which in my book gives him loads of respect. Furthermore, he believes that everyone, foreign or not, should go through due process and the court of law. He understands the dangerous thinking of other candidates who think that anyone labeled as a terrorist should not be given any rights under our constitution and could be susceptible to execution as seen fit. Mr. Paul explains how this could endanger American citizens. I would like you to explain how other candidates have views anywhere near as good as Ron Paul's. Rebuttal: You seem to be arguing that Ron Paul's nomination as the republican party candidate wouldn't be as strategic as would be the nomination of the other candidates mention. You say this is because he would lack the financial resources to be able to effectively campaign against Barack Obama. However, if he wins the primary, he will have the support of the republican party backing him. I wouldn't doubt they would lend him a dime or two. You also forget that they will hold many debates during fall of next year, which will be another method by which he can gain ground and support. Though Romney might have an economic edge, there is still a social and militaristic aspect you need to account for.