| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us |
| Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Competition 2 | Competition 3 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | | Home | | |
| 2008 US Presidential Determination - Reasons (Formally Accepted) Pertaining to Michael Badnarik |
Is George Bush (from the Republican Party), John Kerry (from the Democratic Party), Walter Brown (from the Socialist Party U.S.A.), Ralph Nader (from the Reform Party), Michael Badnarik (from the Libertarian Party), or David Cobb (from the Green Party of the U.S.) the more reasonable U.S. presidential candidate in terms of the collective well-being of the entire world?
Principle definitions:
More reasonable refers to the reasons supporting one presidential candidate being more sound and consistent than the reasons supporting all other presidential candidates. (For further discussion on more reasonableness see the methodology of more reasonableness.)
General role of U.S. President refers to the highest individual decision-maker in the U.S. Federal government including the Federal government’s final decision-maker in national security emergencies.
Basis for evaluation refers to the collective well-being of the entire world.
Collective well-being refers to the best interests of all (living) life-forms on Earth as a whole.
Entire world refers to all (living) human beings and all other (living) life-forms on Earth.
FOR:
“The US government needs to come to terms with the fact that its foreign policy of intervensionism has failed this country and is largely responsible for bringing the horrors of terrorism to our own lands. Michael Badnarik is the only presidential candidate who offers a comprehensive, if simple, solution to our problems abroad. Retracting our membership from the UN and NATO, bringing our troops home from all corners of the earth, and pursuing a foreign policy of NON-[military]-interventionism while building a stronger DEFENSE force are what Michael Badnarik's message is all about.”
August 15 2004
Is a non-military-interventionist U.S. foreign policy, barring legitimate acts of defense which may entail military interventionism, in the best interests of the entire world?
Is the world as a whole's best interests served by not forcing expansion (of the U.S.) through (offensive) military intervention versus forcing expansion (of the U.S.) through (offensive) military intervention?
It should be noted that Brown of the Socialist Party also has a non-military-interventionist (or non-imperialist) U.S. foreign policy. Though it is unclear whether or not his foreign policy would entail withdraw of the U.S. from the UN and NATO as Badnarik's policy does.
Reasons for/against Bush Reasons for/against Brown Reasons for Kerry
Methodology and Conditions Submission form