Who would be a Better President? Ron Paul or Mitt Romney?

Long time confabulation of language coming from the top here has led to utter confusion. Not interfering does not equate to isolationism. We would like to stand by our own USA principles of PEACE, diplomacy, pragmatism, empathy, equal justice, fair trade & HONEST friendship, thus promoting by demonstration the unification around basic humanitarian ideals and human progress-- the opposite of isolation.

Our current foreign policy seems to me to promote isolationism-- to isolate "us" from "them", and to isolate us AND them from the rest of the world we claim is all ours, none theirs. Over decades & centuries, to perpetually select, fund, build up then overthrow foreign leaders at whim, to level sanctions against certain countries such that they may not grow their own nation nor sell their own products nor even own their own bank, b/c we say so; to dictate to sovereign nations whom can be their friends or trade associates-- all this while we over-favor other countries & attack selected countries with no specific plan, target or reason, all selected by far away committee for vague reasons: none of that promotes national defense, but all of it dooms the masses here AND there to poverty of perpetual war & isolation. To label Not doing those things as "isolationism" is like telling a man that if he does Not beat his neighbor into submission then he is isolating himself-- THAT's crazy! And we do this all in the name of freedom, prosperity, humanitarian progress??! This is fatally expensive folly. We now have a foreign policy of hypocrisy and tyranny, at the expense of all working & poor ppl everywhere. Continually submitting to status quo establishment backed leaders will continue this policy: Obama and Romney will not change a thing.