Presdiential debate

Friends, countrymen (and women, don't worry feminists, big daddy Thetts got your back), comrades. Now we get to the most important part of the debate as it's the aspect the President has the most control over, indeed an almost dictorial level of control. But should it be? Whle my positions on specific foreign policy issues are important and I'll certainly explain them, what's *far* more important in the long run is maintaining our system of checks and balances. Foreign policy changes and the issues we're discussing right now may not even be relevant halfway into the term we're fighting for. What's far more important is to understand the philosophy of each of us and choose which is preferable.The two most recent presidents have exercised unprecedented control over our military to the that they just barely skirt the line of constitutionality. This kind of thing will end under my administration. There will be no military intervention unless congress approves it and if our country is going to enter a war, I intend to win it. No more of these nonsensical linguistic abominations like "humanitarian intervention" or "nation building". If we have to use our military muscle to secure our interests and safety then so be it, but pretending like we aren't is just dishonest and makes us look like cowards. I am not a not a non intervenionist. Far from it, in fact. But I do not intend on spending a single penny or sending over a single servicemen if I don't have a damn good reason to do so. The current administration is arming Syrian rebels, and for what? What do we gain by arming and training a force that may not even win and, if they do, will radically alter their goals to account for being in power as soon as they gain it? Have we truly learned nothing from our history? Why do we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot like so? Vote for me as I'm the only candidate willing to change the status quo.Our soldiers deserve better. We deserve better. We can do better, and as President I'm going to make that happen. Foreign Aid is another thing I would change. A small portion of the Federal Budget it may be, but far too often it ends up in the hands of our enemies. It's a moral abomination that we're taking money out of the pockets of our workers and sending it over anti-western enemies like the Muslim Brotherhood.The United States must remain the worlds foremost power. History shows the danger of multipolarity and I do not intend to allow this to happen during my presidency. The United States will stand strong against tyranny wherever it stands.I will offer my unconditional moral and, congress willing, material support to the nation of Ukraine as it struggles to put down insurrections by militants in its borders. There is no use pretending and I will not because I'm not a coward: It is my position that if Russia attempts to forcibly expand its borders, they will be met with a United States military response. Allowing the aggressor nation to dictate the terms is a recipe for disaster and I will not be this countries Neville Chamberlain. If Russia's nationalism has to be checked with violence, it's best to be sooner when we hold every advantage than later as our hegemony slips through our fingers. But it won't come to violence. The only reason Russia has gone as far as it has is because Putin knows that the current administration will allow it. Quite frankly, our official response of sanctioning a literal handful of Russian officials was an embarassment. The China threat is overhyped. Our interests and our destinies are linked together as our economies feed off each other. Any grappling for control in East Asia between our two countries will be fought using soft power because economic ties make war between our two countries pretty much impossible. Like my opponent, I'm dedicated to defending our ally Taiwan should they suffer a Chinese attack. Anything less than a full blown military response would be essentially ceding the area to the Chinese--but really, what are the odds of that? If we want a good relationship with China, the best way to do it is to increase ties to make war even less profitable, not spew hawkish rhetoric. My opponent and I, thankfully, seem to agree on this. Indeed lucky for you my fellow Americans, we seem to agree on most specific issues of foreign policy. Since I'm incapable of being wrong, this means that no matter who you elected the immediate foreign policy effects will be good. *Crowd laughs*There are, however, important philosophical differences. As I explained in the beginning of my speech, what's more important is not our specific positions on a certain situtaion because situations change. What's important is how we derive these conclusions and how we plan to implement them.I'm the only candidate who has expressed these things with a high degree of clarity. Thank you.