Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued)

Continuing from where we left off, you stated that "I don't see how Ron Paul's interest in economics makes him an expert on the economy. Mitt Romney not only has an interest in the economy, but he has genuine experience. His career was, in a word, the "economy". Ron Paul not only has no genuine experience in the economy, but as clear as I can see, he doesn't have ANY experience in the economy. I definitely have to say that I feel Romney is much more qualified to fix our economy and I think, aside from most Paul supporters, most people agree even if they don't support Romney." "Endorsements don't qualify a candidate for this kind of job though. A candidate MUST HAVE experience. Ron Paul may have economic ideas that many support, but that does not mean he has the experience to execute them. If they economy were to have an awful reaction and collapse, would Ron Paul have the know-how to fix it? I don't have enough faith in the miniscule experience to give him that chance." - I argue that Ron Paul has far more than just an interest in the economy. Politically speaking, Paul has more economical experience than Romney, only his is at the federal legislative level instead of at a state executive capacity. Though I agree that endorsements alone do not qualify a candidate for the presidency, Paul's experience as well as endorsements from multitudes of prestigious experts in the economic field speaks loudly for Paul's economic principles. I agree that a candidate MUST HAVE experience in the economy, but I argue that the candidate MUST HAVE experience in more than the economic field alone. If you apply this logic to military affairs, Romney is in now way qualified to be commander in chief because he has no military experience. The Bush Administration is totally lacking of military experience, which explains all of the "unforeseen consequences" of the war, such as the Iraqi insurgency. Those within and around the government with military experience advised against thrusting our nation into war in the first place, as well as The UN, and every country in the Persian Gulf. Like Bush, Romney is out of touch with the military and the vast majority of Americans. Ron Paul not only is against the war and is therefore potentially appealing to the majority of Americans, but he also gets more donations from active military personal than any other candidate. "Its not the exact details that I need to know to understand what kind of effect those changes would have. A major economic change would have to be carefully made because an economy is a fragile things. A change of any kind would have to be made with caution, because any kind of change would have consequences that could be bad. My point is that a weakening economy does not need earth-shaking changes because it may not be able to absorb the shock of a new system. Romney wants to help the economy grow and expand. That's how you make a healthy economy. You increase production, create jobs, and encourage entrepeneurship. Growth is the key. Ron Paul wants to essentially give our economy a limit. He wants to bottle it up for safety. That's not a successful and vibrant economy. That's just a safe one." - If you knew more about the details of Paul's economic plan, you would know that he doesn't advocate simply turning the economy upside down and dumping it on its head. What he is advocating is legalizing the gold standard and giving the Fed competition in order to deal with the run-away inflation that's plaguing our economy. Paul even admits that the gold standard had some shortcomings in the nineteenth century, but goes on to say that it could be handled much better. Run away inflation is the primary reason we are slipping into recession, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that has a plan to deal with it. In fact, he's the only candidate who mentions it in the first place. "Leaving Iraq will not make our country safer. The terrorists hate us. They want us dead, and whether or not Ron Paul is right about it being our fault, they will follow us home. They wanna fight and they don't care where the battle is. Lets not forget who attack who first. If we leave Iraq, Al Qeada will declare victory and rally all of its supports. Recruitments will shoot through the roof, and they will come to fight the US within our borders if they have to. Im not saying there will be battles in the streets, but they will attack us with bombings, random shootings, and other attacks of terror. Bring the troops home would be bringing the fight home. That's not making America safer. That's making me worry if I'll make it home from the grocery store alive. We need to finish the fight on foreign soil, not start over on our own." - The attacks on 9/11 were committed by a hand full of Saudi thugs. How will our military presence in Iraq prevent another couple dozen extremists from entering the country? Granted, we haven't had an attack on American soil since 9/11, but that's not because we've kept the extremists so tied up with our military presence that they can't spare a couple dozen more radicals to fly across the pond to strike us. The people who are claiming that the terrorists are going to follow us home are the same people (lacking of military experience) who claimed that Iraq had WMDs, links to al Qaeda and 9/11, and that they were an eminent threat to our national security. They try to paint this picture that extremists will follow us back in droves and terrorize our cities. The problems of today are not going to be solved by those who created them. Even if terrorists wanted to follow us home, if our military was actually protecting this country instead of being spread all over the planet like butter, they wouldn't be any more of a threat than they are right now. In fact, we would be much safer. The Sunnis and the Shiites have been battling each other for centuries, and they will continue to do so whether we're there or not. It's far more likely that, if they continue to fight, they will go back to fighting each other when we pull out. The true threat to our national security is maintaining our presence overseas which gives the extremists incentives to continue the blowback the CIA mentions in the 9/11 Commission Report. "Lastly, I don't want the United States to be known as the country that invades other countries...and then leaves them a mess. We broke Iraq, now we need to buy it ( or a better way of saying it would to fix it)." - Unfortunately, it's far too late for the US to save face on that one. Our CIA has declassified information under the Freedom of Information Act going back to the period between the end of WWII and 1983 about American activity in foreign countries. There is a very long list of regimes our CIA has helped overthrow, assassinations, coups, etc, and many of these countries ended up war-torn. Vietnam would be one of the most blaring examples. It is because of this meddling in Middle Eastern affairs our enemies believe we struck first, and have continued the blowback mentioned by the CIA.