Who should be elected President of the United States in 2008?

Well...

Out of every politician running, Kucinich. He's a liberal democrat and a breath of fresh air.
Out of every politician available, Al Gore. Nobel Peace Prize. No argument.
Out of every politician with a chance... Edwards. I don't trust Clinton anymore and Obama rubs me the wrong way.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee frighten me.

I am a conservative-leaning independent so I do not necessarily vote by party identification, although in this election I will be supporting one of the Republican candidates. John McCain is by far the most experienced out of all the candidates running. He truly understands the complexities of foreign affairs and has personal relationships with many of the people running the countries around the world. I like Barack Obama and would support him against a few of the Republican candidates, but his lack of experience is truly his downfall. He has only been a Senator for what, a few years? Obama will be a good choice for President in a decade or so but he is simply too young and inexperienced to face the challenges that the country is presented with in 2008.

By the way, I find it fascinating that McCain isn't even listed as someone I can support on this debate although he is currently, in most people's minds, the Republican front runner. Quite the oversight!

edit: John McCain has been added to the list of candidates, thanks! :)

Which millionaire should I pick? They will all take my money for some purpose of their choosing, distribute it how they see fit, and use it for whatever purpose they want. I feel like people should be able to decide how to use their own money, and decide things for themselves. This could turn into a debate about government, but for this discussion, I'll just say that I think Ron Paul is the candidate that will leave me alone the most and take the least money from me.

I think Barack has the makings of a great leader which is what this country needs; someone to give us hope and inspire us again.

Obama needs to be our president. He's currently working to solve for the genocide in Darfur, which most other candidates have ignored due to political interests. He's working to end the Iraq War (and has always maintained there were no WMD in Iraq and that it was a mistake to go). Unlike the gas guzzling SUV generation presidents who continue to ignore standards such as the Kyoto Protocol, Obama said he was work for a much healthier environment. His stance on issues is uncorrupted by the sway of political interest groups, which will help America regain its image. Even more so, he has this on his side:

While I agree that McCain is a very experienced person, and he seems like the best choice on the republican side, I disagree in that he should be the next president. My primary objection is the basis of political beliefs that create a fundmental gap between what i think the government should do and what any of the republicans should do. What I wanted to discuss though was this idea of experience being a indicator of being a good president in the future. Some of the greatest presidents we've had have had little to no experience in politics, and this becomes more so in the case of where we look at national politics. For instance Abe Lincoln, widely regarded as one of the best presidents, if not the best, of all time had only some experience in the state legislature, and 2 years in the US house of reps before he became presdient. Or look at Teddy Roosevelt, he had 2 years has governor and some time as a vp as his only major political work and yet he is probably among the 10 best presidents as well. FDR only had minor experience in politics as well, with some work in the state legislature and then one term as governor, yet he is also among the top. Just in general I feel that ideas, and the energy that a person brings is far more important then this vague sense of experience, which is not a very good indicator of success, and on that issue I like Obama cause he is the most charmastic of all those running, and he also offers the most similar ideas to mine of those running.

The thing that really makes Obama stand out to me is his staying very clear of 99% of these specialty groups who's stink is all over most of the candidates. Obama seems to have his own ideas and a good bit of them are great. Working a ticket of peace, the environment, and working to rebuild our relations with other countries is something i can put my vote behind since it is the exact opposite of the current leader and it's time in America for a nice 180 degree change.

In addition to what I just said, thinking that war should be the last option should look at World War II and World War I as a prime example how starting a war early could actually save more lives in the long run. What if the U.S. intervened against Germany in 1939, or against Japan in 1937. Maybe some of the atrocities committed during these periods of time would never have occurred.

Ron Paul is an idiot, here's why... Let’s start this with a joke between Ryan Oskroba and Me…

We were walking into the bathroom while Ryan said “I wonder how big of a dildo we could shove up our ass.” Some guy looked at him weird as Ryan says “There is context to that…” There was, we were talking about if Ron Paul got elected into office and the situation of our international relations once this happens. As some background information of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, a segment from Wikipedia explains it all…

“Paul's foreign policy is one of nonintervention.[8][9] This policy avoids entangling alliances with other nations, in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison,[10] in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to defense. He was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[11][12] In 2003, he said that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned. He added that, "The American public deserves clear goals and a winning exit strategy in Iraq." [13]
Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.[14] He denies being an isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".[15]National Journal rated Paul's overall foreign policies as 20% conservative and 77% liberal in 2006 (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).[16]
He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty,[9][17] and supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[18] and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty.”

Now whatever the fuck he wants to call it, his stance is functionally isolationist and fundamentally inconsistent with his advocacy of keeping the world’s market open. Prior to entering the bathroom, Ryan was telling me a joke…

The last time the U.S. was isolationist: World War I. We finally decided to kick some ass in Europe to end the war. Then a politician said “We should join the League of Na… uh uh…” and dies of a heart attack. Another says “What was he about to say?” responded with “I don’t know, let’s ignore it and hope it goes away.” Thus, World War II. One fundamental argument against an isolationist approach is it empirically prevents major power wars from occurring shown by the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th Century. If the U.S. bothered to join the League of Nations, it might be been credible enough to prevent a World War II from occurring. However, this is only one empirical example of withdrawal from the world.

America is a global empire, there is no arguing that. We have military bases and operations across the entire world and our presence influences the geopolitical spectrum of every region of the planet. A withdrawal from the world will inevitably result in the collapse of this empire. History shows that the Dark Ages proceeded after Rome’s collapse while the collapse of the British Empire gave way to a multipolar system that exploded into the First World War. In the age of nuclear weapons, how will the world look in the absence of U.S. hegemony.

Ron Paul next advocates “bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others.” Every debater knows where I’m going with this one; I might as well copy and paste the Khalilzad article, deleting useless lines…

“Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. Germany would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. U.S. withdrawal could, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia.”

This isn’t even accounting for the Middle East, where Ron Paul will probably first withdraw our troops, which… “Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies … Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts.” Our presence in the Middle East allows us to control the flow of oil, which stops a massive gauge of oil prices. A price hike would destroy the U.S. economy at this point and likely force us to enter Africa, Central Asia, or the Middle East again. I’m not going to divulge into withdrawing from Iraq because that’s such a diverse and complex subject.

The next issue is of terrorism. Many people say that terrorism exists simply because of our presence in the Middle East. Partially true, but if we withdraw, terrorists will not go away. As a matter of fact, it might free up some of their time and hatred towards a renewed and more vigorous search for weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal. We might not be in the Middle East, but Israel still is. I’m just damn hoping the Ron Paul, at the very least, will continue a flow of money to Israel to maintain military superiority over hostile states. Most of these nations don’t even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, which means they will attack again. Hezbollah already has a damning weapons capability that could destroy a good portion of northern Israel. However, influence in the (terrorism) region can quell terrorism. Our assistance in Pakistan after their earthquake provided positive opinions within a strongly Muslim nation. Humanitarian aid after the Tsunami gave us 80% favorable opinions in one of the largest Muslim countries. Our influence can prevent people from resorting to terrorism out of hatred.

The last major point is Ron Paul’s advocacy to “withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.” Eroding what sovereignty? The U.N. disproved U.S. intervention in Iraq and we did it anyways. However, the U.S. and France bilaterally pushed Syria out of Lebanon through the United Nations, intervened during the Korean War (fucked up gracefully by the PRC), helped nonproliferation efforts, provided a forum to discuss international issues. What commitment has NATO drawn us into that weren’t for American interests. There are tons of reasons why the U.N. is stupid and such, so I’ll first go on NATO. Withdrawing from NATO would relinquish the burden of Article 5? of our European allies, which means they no longer have to be there in Afghanistan. Then we’ll have to send more troops to that region to prevent mass destabilization of all of Central Asia, and imperial overstretch will probably take on a new meaning. NATO still remains a force of containing conflicts in Eastern Europe and deterring potential Russian aggression. NATO airstrikes were crucial in the campaign in Bosnia and Kosovo. NATO is also the bridge that gaps the transatlantic world and maintains U.S. presence in Europe.

Additionally, withdrawal from international organizations in general is pretty fucking bad idea. Ron Paul claims that these institutions hamper our sovereignty. Though this is true to an extent, imagine a world that the U.S. left an international organization and attempted to perform an unpopular action to advance U.S. interests. The remaining members of that institution will likely use the collective power to constrain whatever action the U.S. was undertaking. International alliances have its flaws, but in the modern day, they are a critical deterrent to war and preventing overstretch. If the U.S. military is involved in a crisis, allied nations are more likely to contribute troop strength. As an example, U.S.-ROK relations allowed the deployment of 50,000 South Korean troops in Vietnam. Pakistani soldiers assisted U.S. Special Forces and Rangers in Somalia.

If that wasn’t long enough, there are still a ton of minor, lesser known reasons why the U.S. isolationism would suck hardcore…

-The first I can think of is Kashmir. The U.S. is one of the key allies to both India and Pakistan and can exert a degree of influence to make those two not nuke each other for some piece of shit land. Since both countries own nuclear weapons, it’s pretty important they don’t piss on each other too much.

-U.S. hegemony can also stabilize Pakistan by giving aid and well, selling them really cool weapons such as F-16s. An Islamic revolution in Pakistan would put the nuclear arsenal into the hands of Islamic extremists who just hate everyone.

-Korea is another place where the U.S. military can actively prevent an invasion from North Korea. Since the U.S. has some of the most modern and powerful weapons, U.S. soldiers deter aggression from North Korean conventional attacks.

-Let’s not care about Africa either. As true as this is for the military, our economic and humanitarian aid efforts. America is offering billions of dollars that should help the AIDS pandemic through PEPFAR. Perhaps the U.S. military should intervene more often; I think the failure in Mogadishu not a result of military intervention, but the insufficient intervention. We sent a few hundred soldiers against their tens of thousands of militia. Our isolationist approach in Rwanda caused the death of 800,000 people within the matter of months. Sudan is a recurring topic that may require some form of military to stop the genocide.

-Taiwan is an area in which I take personally. China’s claim over Taiwan is a very unwarranted one. Regardless, U.S. military deterrence against a Chinese invasion (except in instances of independence) is possibly the only reason why China hasn’t launched one yet. However, if China managed to gain control of Taiwan, it could provide the resources and landmass to disrupt the stability in the entire region.

-Hegemony prevents a reversion back to a multipolar state, which could include contesters such as the European Union, China, Russia, or India that could lead the world back to 1914.

I really don’t know anything about Latin America.

Let’s put it clear and simple, electing Ron Paul is a very stupid idea. A taxpayer's best friend, the world's worst enemy.