SnozzleBerry said:
blue_velvet said:
SnozzleBerry said:
This says nothing of the president's ability to withdraw troops. Yes, I know congress can, but this does not preclude the former.
Lol...well...see...now you're getting into a fallacious argument, specifically an "
argument from ignorance." It is not on me to prove that the president cannot withdraw the troops...I showed you that congress does all the legal/political rigamarole for that (look through any troop withdrawal historically and you'll see that's the case).
Yes, it IS on you to prove the president cannot withdraw the troops. I claimed the Commander in Chief, being the highest ranking official of the armed forces, has the ability to make military decisions based on the powers enumerated to him by the US constitution. On the subject of declaring war, it explicitly requires the approval of congress, obviously because of how serious invading another country is; however, in the case of withdrawal, there is no explicit prohibition on it, and considering it a matter of military strategy, the Commander in Chief is within his right to withdraw. This is not arguing from ignorance. This is arguing from a premise you refuse to accept.
You argue, in turn, that the president does not have this power because congress is needed, even though you fail to procure a source from the constitution backing this up, and then refer me to a Wikipedia article on the Iraq War which elucidated
nothing on the matter (Bush wasn't trying to withdraw the troops against the will of congress or the people) and then refer me to the entire military history of the United States instead of doing the proper research to refute my claim. In any event, to look at an issue historically instead of from written law, you are arguing on the basis of precedent. What precedent of presidential military action is more valid then that of the last 60 years, that the president has the power to wage war without congressional approval? One could infer this means the president can end wars as easily as he starts them.
The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that the President CAN withdraw the troops without congressional action...the thing is...I don't think such evidence exists.
See, THIS is arguing from ignorance. I gave my reason and my proof. If you are not satisfied with that, you need to procure evidence that the president
CANNOT withdraw troops, and more convincing evidence than a generalized allusion to every past war.
I do not feel that emotional feelings and "belief in [Paul's] innocence...[and] incorruptability" and "irrational and somewhat emotional" views are the manner in which to approach politics, any moreso than they would be the appropriate manner to approach a physics experiment or chemistry experiment or even a math problem.
Let me reiterate.
You cannot begin to know the intentions of someone through anything other than their actions. Emotions are tertiary at best in my selection of a candidate. Besides, you missed my point entirely and took it out of context. You said:
SnozzleBerry said:
Also, while you focus on the technicality of whose power it is to withdraw the troops, you ignore completely the reality of whether or not such an option would even be entertained by the corporate/financial interests that dominate American politics (and society).
So, if the president
CAN withdraw troops, you seem to be questioning (correct me if I'm wrong) whether he
would given the nature of contemporary politics with all the wheeling and dealing in Washington. So this suggests an appraisal be made of a candidate's corruptibility. What basis is there for this appraisal? Paul's record, writings, media blackouts, and speeches point towards "not corrupt." If this is not good enough for you, what else is there except hope and faith? Yes, they are illogical, but that is why I say they are tertiary at best. His record is good enough in my opinion.
This is the underlying crux of the issue, to my mind. If the reason to vote for Paul is because many people have a wonderful gut-feeling about him, that's fine and dandy, but it sure as hell isn't an actual reason to vote for him. Politics is closer to science than religion...evidence can be collected...claims can be substantiated...support should be based on the hard facts...not abstract emotional impulses.
I and others have already given logical reasons to vote for Ron Paul: War, drugs, decentralization, economics, spending, bureaucracy, etc. There are many perfectly understandable reasons to vote for him. The illogical reasons (i.e. emotion, "gut-feeling," etc.), like I said, are tertiary at best. What I mean is why do you care? Unless people are voting for him for extra-political reasons (which most of his supporters support his views and not just him. In fact, a huge part of his appeal is focus on the issues), why would you even bother addressing this? Why not sit back and observe like any reputable sociologist, or to generalize, any reputable
scientist. By wrapping yourself up in the question itself, you have succumbed to the importance of subjectivity in politics.
