Yup.

 

+One

 

 

A big problem, that is.

 

I rode this one a while ago. Ron Paul speaks sense, always will. Nut case in your eyes or not, the dude speaks sense...

Now speaking from the standpoint of the PRESIDENT's JOB description. He is in charge of the Nuke button, period. The congress is who creates the bills that 95% of the time are lobbied and heard. That means it doesn't matter who is the president really, in essence it's who we are electing on congress to create dumb bills or good bills or won't create the bills that we want. They are the one's really being lobbied. The president really doesn't do too much but veto a bill here and there...

With that said, do I trust Ron Paul with the nuke button when he wants to back us out of other countries? I don't know. I want a guy who will hit the button if a country ****s with us enough.

 

That is the dumbest **** I have heard all day

 

If you're talking about iLoqin's post, I thought the exact same thing.

 

Whoa, what? You want a president to Nuke another country if they "f with us enough?".

I don't think you understand how a nuclear attack works. Not only physically, but politically.

 

Its like window into the Bizarro world Stephen Baldwin doesn't like pot and a Republican is advocating it.....eerie.

 

I know!

 

hahaha yep

 

I guess you guys aren't understanding my mentality of view from the point of the president and his actual power.

99% of what we see on the news is bills, and blah blah blah health care, and plenty of other crap that has to due with congress as the driving engine. The president is the man who has the power of the button, THE commander and chief. It doesn't matter if he's a dem, or a republican, or whoever really. The only power that is worth while of the president actually choosing to use is our military, and Ron Paul isn't really strong in foreign politics. His view is to cut, his view is to back out and save our economy. The president won't save our economy, it'll be congress if anything that creates something that will do that.

I understand of the view of the US spread too thin and across plenty of places we might not have too much business being in, so I understand the view of Ron Paul saying he'll back out troops in many places.

Your opinions could be that what I said was plain stupid, but then I tell you to look at the mirror. The guy in office, as by the powers given to him makes that choice to use or not use a nuclear weapon. Sure it's highly political, and has been used only once as a statement of showing our power and not ****ing with the United States. The idea I state is that there might be other candidates that might be stronger in foreign affairs than Ron Paul.

Am I saying I want a trigger happy president? Of course not. Bad interpretation above. I guess I meant I would rather have a person who is the strongest with foreign policy (not necessarily the 'you do as I say or **** you' stuff.) Not just my way or the highway when speaking with other countries. Cuz like I said before. Most of the president's job has zero **** to do with how our country is ran, that is congress.