Ron Paul is the best candidate in the current GOP race.

For clarification, I will NOT be comparing Ron Paul to another candidate, rather, I am showing how his policies are not in the best interests of the United States. **Note, some of my Contentions seem to condradict yours, I am not refuting your case yet.=Case=C1. Ron Paul's isolationist policy would destroy U.S. hegemony.Ron Paul has a strict isolationist policy, advocating bringing our troops home from all parts of the world and not getting into pre-emptive warfare.[1] While this sounds compelling to begin with, in todays world it simply is not feasible. Indeed when the U.S. had an isolationist stance (Pre-WW1, and between the wars) it was mostly a self sufficient country who neither relied on the world for anything, nor was relied on. By the contary, today the U.S. is the worlds sole superpower, a net oil importer, a net importer in general, and the U.S. military is the most used by the United Nations for peacekeeping. In his book, Brzezinski writes: "The combination of oil and volatility gives the United States no choice. America faces an awesome challenge in helping to sustain some degree of stability among precarious states inhabited by increasingly politically restless, socially aroused, and religiously inflamed peoples. It must undertake an even more daunting enterprise than it did in Europe more than half a century ago, given a terrain that is culturally alien, politically turbulent, and ethnically complex. In the past, this remote region could have been left to its own devices. Until the middle of the last century, most of it was dominated by imperial and colonial powers. Today, to ignore its problems and underestimate its potential for global disruption would be tantamount declaring an open season for intensifying regional violence, region-wide contamination by terrorist groups, and the competitive proliferation of weaponry of mass destruction." [2].Indeed the U.S. now has no choice but to intervene sometimes to protect its interests. Furthermore, the U.S. is seen as an unbeatable military power to the world, to totally withdraw from every nation around the world would not only destroy that image, it would also destroy much of the truth to it. Think about it, how much easier would the second world war have been to fight if we already had troops stationed all over the world ready to respond at a moments notice? I reserve the right to bring in more evidence and arguments for this point. C2. Under Ron Pauls leadership, nothing would get done. SPA: Ron Paul's positions have little support among politicians. Although this is a hypothetical resolution, reality still applies to it. So even if, by some miracle, Ron Paul managed to be elected president of the United States, he would have very little ability to achieve his goals. Indeed, he clashes with his own (Republican) party on many major issues, such as interventionism, capital punishment, Marijuana, same sex marriage, prostitution, and even opposed the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden which had huge support among both parties, and the public.[1] For these reasons, much of what Ron Paul wants done will be rejected by the Republicans in Congress. As for the Democrats, Dr. Paul disagrees with them on many issues as well such as immigration, abortion, taxation, and social security. So his goals would not be supported by the Democrats. He also has many obscure and unorthodox opinions supported by practically no one, like his support for a return to the Gold standard[3], which is completely infeasible not only because there is only about 5-7 trillion dollars worth of Gold in existence (158,000 tonnes)[4], but even if the Gold standard WAS possible, it wouldn't be possible in the United States due to Dollar hegemony and the vast amount of USD reserves away from our shores. SPB: Ron Paul would veto too many bills to make true progress.Ron Paul adheres very strictly to the Constitution, indeed he states that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." [1]. While this sounds at first like an excellent position to have, we live in a world that our founders could not have even imagined. While we surely should not do anything prohibited by the Constitution, sometimes we are faced with choices that our founders could not have even have imagined, and in a Common-law society like ours anything that is not prohibited is permitted. C3. Ron Paul is too old. This point is self explanatory, so I'll make it short. If Ron Paul won the election, he would be 77 years old in 2013. The average lifespan for a white male in the U.S. is 75.3 years.[5].C4. Ron Paul would be disliked by the rest of the world.Of course we must put the United States first, but Ron Paul takes this to the extreme, advocating a withdraw from all international organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, the WTO, and the International Criminal court. The U.S. is currently the sole superpower, and a rapid withdraw would greatly upset the balance of power in the world (if my Opponent disputes this I will go into more detail later.) and while we must put our own interests first, it is not in our best interest to antagonize the rest of the world. I negate the resolved and look forward to my Opponents reply.=Sources=1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership3. http://www.nytimes.com...4. http://www.coinweek.com...5. http://aging.senate.gov...