If Paul was not in the race who would you support?

[vis-à-vis]

Huck makes me feel all slimey after I see him.

Truth be told however, I don't know. Probably Paul anyways :-D

 

[Spirit of '76]

To answer the question, I'm voting for Paul even if I have to write him in.

 

[smtwngrl]

To answer the question, I'm voting for Paul even if I have to write him in.

I think we're talking about who you'd be supporting if Ron Paul had never been in the race. Changing the question would change a lot of the responses.

 

[free.alive]

I'd move to Lakota lands.

 

[free.alive]

The Constitution Party is a bit Christianist for me.

 

[Spirit of '76]

I think we're talking about who you'd be supporting if Ron Paul had never been in the race. Changing the question would change a lot of the responses.

Ah... In that case I'd probably have voted for the Constitution Party candidate.

 

[DAFTEK]

If Ron Paul hadn't entered, I would probably still be a brainwashed neocon and would probably be supporting Thompson, I suppose. Thanks for making me realise how different I would be today, if Paul hadn't decided to enter the race.

+1 Here

 

[VoluntaryMan]

If Paul weren't running, I might have sat this one out. I'm one of those Reagan/Goldwater/Taft Republicans, who has become totally disgusted by the current Bush/Cheney/NeoCon domination of the GOP. I supported Reagan in 1980 and '84, and Bush in '88. I voted for Buchanan in the '92 primary, then held my nose and voted for Bush again in the general. I voted for Buchanan again in the '96 primary, but refused to vote for Dole in the general, because of the party's tarring of Buchanan in the primary (I wrote Buchanan in in the general). I voted for Buchanan in the general in 2000, though I remained registered as a Republican. I had hope, though, that Bush would live up to the conservative rhetoric of his 2000 campaign; like his father, however, he did not fail to disappoint. I haven't voted since that cycle. If Paul weren't running, I'd be staying home, but since he is, I'll be there. Needless to say, I've been totally disgusted by the GOP's treatment of Dr. Paul in this cycle, and, because of that treatment, if Ron Paul is denied the party's nomination (a nomination he would easily win, if not for vigorous neocon opposition within the party's current establishment), I intend to vote AGAINST any other nominee. I will not vote 3rd party (unless Paul is on that ticket). I will, for the 1st time in my life, vote for a Democrat, whoever their nominee is. It's the loudest method I can think of to register my dissatisfaction with what my party has become. Besides, I don't belief there will be a dime's worth of difference between how any of the other candidates (Republican or Democrat) would govern, and the upside is that conservatives may actually wakeup and start opposing socialist policies, once it's no longer their own party leading the charge toward totalitarianism.

 

[mokkan88]

I'd not vote.

 

[Chernitsky]

Obama

 

[witheyeswideopen]

No one

About a year ago, I had decided not to support any political party or candidate, and I declared myself 'free' from political ties (I had been a neocon Rush/Boortz/Hannity person, although in my heart I hated the fact that the US acted as the 'policeman' of the world). Had I never watched 'America: Freedom to Fascism', had Ron Paul not assembled an exploratory committee... I would have paid virtually no attention to the election. I wouldn't have voted. Period.

 

[RPTXState]

Barack Obama, because he's popular among the "young peoples", as I've heard.

Ah, how naive I was then...

 

[ladyliberty]

Irrelevant and time wasting.

There is no other Republican who is anti-war.

Huckabee is a slimeball.

Huey

DITTO!

 

[Marc Scott Emery]

Ron Paul is the best candidate in 50 years

for The Presidency. But if he weren't there I'd consider Kucinich my first choice (Iraq and drug war issues) and then in the mid-stretch, Bill Richardson, (executive experience as Gov. & federal cabinet, diplomat, reasonable guy). Could never support the other 5 Republicans, Edwards, Clinton or Biden. Steve Kubby doesn't have credibility as a national candidate for The Libertarian Party, nor does any other potential Libertarian Party candidate, no national profile there, all small timers in the grand political picture.

The only candidates with a good ACLU rating are Paul, Kucinich & Dodd. McCain has a 0% rating from ACLU.

Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani & McCain are eliminated because they are Iraq hawks and drug war hawks.

Dodd, Kucinich, Paul, Richardson are acceptable on medical marijuana issues.

Ron Paul is so superior to all other candidates in every measurable way it is too depressing thinking of the 2008 race without Ron Paul.

 

[smtwngrl]

Ron Paul is so superior to all other candidates in every measurable way it is too depressing thinking of the 2008 race without Ron Paul.

+1

 

[Pharoah]

Why do we keep getting these threads which imply that the original poster knows nothing about why we like Ron Paul?

 

[ssdded]

I'd vote for the LP nominee unless it was Phillies, in which case I just wouldn't vote.

 

[worldtruthfreedom]

Since when do politicians do what they say after getting elected? - especially on something as controversial as bringing the troops home.

Didn't the democrats get elected last year on the pretext of stopping the war? As soon as the scumbags got their hold on power they quickly changed their tune.

If I was in the states I would never vote for any of these mainstream candidates no matter from which party they originate. They are all corrupt.

Things are as bad in the U.K and ireland, although the media isn't nearly as corrupt as it is in the U.S

in a general election depending what he says.

 

[Bradley in DC]

There is no other Republican who is anti-war.

FWIW, Huckabee said we "broke" Iraq which right and better than wanting to double Guantanamo, nuke Mecca or Iran, declaring perpetual war on terrorism, or bragging that the surge is working, etc. Again, it's a relative statement.

 

[braumstr]

I too used to think of huck as a reasonable alternative. but no more.

I learned that he is the socialist model neo-con, but a neo-con none the less.

Also, some of his idiotic statements about the war and the fact that he likely cannot find Pakistan on a map have been more than disappointing its down right disturbing.

And.....having been to Arkansas recently.............

There is not a single trust worthy candidate amongst the Republicans.

I used to support McCain, before he went around the country hugging and kissing W. in 04. Even voted for him in 00. Now, he is no longer qualified as far as I am concerned.

If the Dr. is out, and we end up with Hillary and Rudy I will write in Dr. Paul. I *might* be able to support some of the other Dems, but the way things look now none of them will make it.