If Ron Paul was for the war, would you still vote for him?

[paulitics]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?

 

[speciallyblend]

I VOTED YES,because if we were at war,when Ron Paul is elected,then he would of won after he declared war first,making it legal and he wouldnt of passed the patriot act

 

[silverhandorder]

I honestly worry more about my liberties and money then the war. It is just the war itself is bankrupting us. If Ron was president he would not let it get to that point. But he is anti-war and I can support that too!

 

[reduen]

I voted no but that is assuming that there would be ab anti-war candidate....

 

[paulitics]

I'm voting no with hesitation, because I would not trust Paul on much of anything else if he was pro-preemptive war. To have supported this war, is to have supported a lie.

 

[Slugg]

The war is what it is. I think we have bigger problems in Washington. Some of which probably contributed to us going to war in the first place.

So, if Ron's stance was the same but he held a 'pro war' position; I'd probably be just as excited about him. It's touchy though, it depends on why he was pro war. If he was pro-war to stay on the 'offensive against terrorism' I'd have a hard time believing him. But, if he was pro Iraq because we made a huge debacle of it and needed to verify solidarity before we left; I'd stay with him. (I almost wish this was his position, just so he wouldn't get so much heat for being 'isolationist'. However, I realize that this position may be great politically, it is horrible in practice).

Long story short, the war issue is secondary.

 

[wolv275]

This is a trapping questing, because Ron would make sure we go to a war the people support, and its explicitly constitutionally declared through congress.

So if he was for the war we would still be warring with Osama

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

This is an illogical question. The events are mutually exclusive. You can not be both pro-imperialism, and pro-liberty, at the same time. Being pro-Iraq would not be consistent with his stance on other issues.

 

[FunkBuddha]

No, because if he was for the war then that would be a violation of his Constitutional principles and that would make him a fraud in my book.

 

[austin356]

Yes though I would not be on this forum right now.

 

[Ninja Homer]

If he was for an unconstitutional war, he wouldn't be Ron Paul.

If this country followed the Constitution strictly, it wouldn't matter if a president was for or against a war. It isn't part of the president's job description. It is congress' job to be for or against a war, and if war is declared then it's the president's job to carry it out.

Loaded question - I'm skipping the poll.

 

[max]

thats like asking "Would you want your daughter to marry a mass murderer if he was a good husband in all other aspects.?"

 

[Joey Wahoo]

Yes, reluctantly. The principle of lesser-of-two-evils would come into play.

I vote in Florida. In 2000 my wife and I voted for Harry Browne, and the entire election (and the very course of history) would've been different if a handful of us had voted for Al Gore instead. (To be fair, if forced to choose then, I would've picked Bush over Gore). So in 2004 I held my nose and voted for John Kerry. The only reason I did that was because I felt that we absolutely had to end this disastrous foreign policy--even at the risk of our liberties at home.

So I might very well vote for a democrat opposed to the war over a conservative who favored it--if that were my only choice. But if the candidate was a pro-war Ron Paul (i shudder at the thought) then I'd probably choose Ron, just because he's so good on every other issue that I'd consider him the lesser of two evils.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

yes. b/c he'd still be the most founding father-like of anyone in DC. He's so much better than everyone else that he can afford to slip some and still be the best.

 

[Cindy]

I'm voting no with hesitation, because I would not trust Paul on much of anything else if he was pro-preemptive war. To have supported this war, is to have supported a lie.

Yup! Anyone anyone with power and influence supporting this war is serving and protecting special interests groups, not the Iraqis or Americans.

I wouldn't be able to trust him with anything else. I voted NO.

The best about Paul is, he is against it because he knows why it is wrong for more reasons then it just being unconstitutional. He knows that that the Private Federal Reserve banks loaning the money to fund it, Military Industrial Complex and the Oil companies are being buffed out from it. He also understands that our foriegn occupations are causing hate against us.

I think the Dems against it besides Kucinich and Gravel, are just pandering to the anti-war voters and will carry on with Bush's plan if elected.

 

[reduen]

The war is what it is. I think we have bigger problems in Washington. Some of which probably contributed to us going to war in the first place.

So, if Ron's stance was the same but he held a 'pro war' position; I'd probably be just as excited about him. It's touchy though, it depends on why he was pro war. If he was pro-war to stay on the 'offensive against terrorism' I'd have a hard time believing him. But, if he was pro Iraq because we made a huge debacle of it and needed to verify solidarity before we left; I'd stay with him. (I almost wish this was his position, just so he wouldn't get so much heat for being 'isolationist'. However, I realize that this position may be great politically, it is horrible in practice).

Long story short, the war issue is secondary.

With all due respect, this is a very insensitive response. Imagine carrying pieces of your children around with nowhere to turn and then tell me if the war is a secondary issue!

You like some others, may be able to make little of these facts of war and chalk it up to just unavoidable collateral damage. I however, can not do this ....

Very sincerely,

Chris R.

 

[SewrRatt]

This is like asking if you'd let your kids watch Sesame Street if it was hardcore porn.

 

[fletcher]

He would still be the only small government conservative that is against government spending, at least domestically, so yes. Universal health care is my greatest fear, and it might even come from the Republicans.

 

[pcosmar]

If ron paul stayed the same on every issue except the war, would you still vote for him?

What War?
I do not remember any war being declared.
Do you mean the "War on Terrorism". That is a war on a nebulous concept, not on a country.
I voted no.

 

[disinter]

No.