Originally Posted by Invictus

I think Americans have an unrealistic expectation of what a President can achieve in a 4 year term.

Maybe as a Brit looking in I see it different as the effect of the US election is marginal to me. but Dak closing down most of the US bases abroad? Are you serious? Do you have any idea of the damage that would do to military readines? If North Korean lauches an ICBM up your ass or Iran develops Nuclear capabilities and you have very few military bases abroad, your fucked, plain and simple. Ron Paul is idealist and not a leader if he thinks that will solves America's problems. Also he's a fucking moron if he thinks he can cut so many jobs in the military or absorb them into the US military system. Congress won't allow it and it couldn't be done in a 20 year term, never mind 4.

What I think gets forgotten in the rhetoric and posteuring in Primary elections is that government is done in small steps and takes time, you can't sort out the US economy in 4 years. It simply can't be done, it takes time. Think you can sort of the huge problem of immigration in 4 years (2 years really because after that you're running for re-election) again, not possible.

You should be more concerned over Congressional and Senate elections if you're concern is over domestic issues. The entire point in Congress in its infancy was to look over the domestic front whilst the President looked after foreign policy, hence the arrows and olive branch.

When going to the polls you need to realise that the President has a great deal of influence over foreign policy and but that influence is not so great in the domestic arena.