[Oni]

I agree with you on that.

Then what exactly would be wrong with Paul's views? It is clear that intervention would be less common with him as president. Less intervention tends to mean less spending. However, it is worth noting that I gave him my vote for his views on economics/freedom, not foreign policy.

[Cyanide and Cynicism]

Then what exactly would be wrong with Paul's views?

The problem that he doesn't even know what the fuck his views are.

[Oni]

The problem that he doesn't even know what the fuck his views are.

Or, perhaps his views change. It would be one thing if he contradicted himself multiple times in a single interview, then failed to reaffirm his views. However, the information shown in that article spans over the course of a few years. I know my views have changed a fair amount in just the course of a year, so why can't a politician's? It happens.

Other politicians, such as Gingrich, tend to flipflop more often. The article might be seen as a potential problem to people that are supporters of Israel or the LGBT community, but not other activists. It is clear that Paul has reservations about Israel and it's an issue that has been brought up multiple times. What I would have an issue with, is if he contradicted himself on the topics of freedom or economics (and it has happened).

[cr33pyguy]

The only reason I might disagree with the idea of not intervening would be because of WW2’s impact on the economy. However, I don't believe the US should intervene normally. Putin's answer is likely based on the fact that Paul would cut support to Israel. While Israel is one of our greatest allies, they are also a liability, and they cost a great deal to aid.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of his jibber-jabber on foreign policy, but I do agree with a lot of the other points he has. He was one of the few candidates that actually wanted to cut spending, rather than raise the debt ceiling. As you can see, we are now having issues with the debt ceiling.

Regardless, the United States shouldn't be intervening as much as it has been.

Completely agree with this too. Sometimes the US just seems to think that only they matter. Of course this would fall within the theories of war; Political Realism, which basically states that the profits of your country go before anything else.

Weirdly enough the US doesn't seem to want to admit that the old ways might not work; I'd at least like to see them introduce a public health care and education.

- Cr33py

[Cyanide and Cynicism]

other politicians, such as Gingrich, tend to flipflop more often. The article might be seen as a potential problem to people that are supporters of Israel or the LGBT community, but not other activists.

It isn't because of those issues, it's that he flip flops in the first place. You don't want to elect someone into office and then have them change their views on what you voted them in for.

[Oni]

It isn't because of those issues, it's that he flip flops in the first place. You don't want to elect someone into office and then have them change their views on what you voted them in for.

As I said, it happens:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/18/...y-20130918

[Cyanide and Cynicism]

As I said, it happens:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/18/...y-20130918

I don't happen to support Obama either, and I would pick Ron Paul over him.

I would rather pick a polished piece of shit than a piece of shit that isn't polished, even though they're both pieces of shit.

[Reiko]

Politics are dumb and politicians are dumb.
Government does not equal politics. Anarchy is just as dumb as the current forms of government unless we're talking about 100% perfect anarchy.
On that note, peaceful anarchy is a pipe dream. It's never worked and it never will.

[Adorapuff]

I can only guess as to why that would be your answer.

#IStandWithIsrael