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

[MicroBalrog]

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

I'm pro-war.

 

[McDermit]

No. I'd probably be supporting Kucinich or a 3rd party candidate.

 

[yaz]

Kucinich issued an anti-gun bill the DAY AFTER the virginia tech shootings. No thanks for that guy.

I would vote for Obama if Ron Paul was pro-war. Simply because he was smart enough to vote against the Iraq war in 2002, he seems like a more honest candidate, and a lot of other good things.

If Ron Paul could convince me that this war was justified though I would still vote for him. But there's no way he could. I might still vote for him but this hypothetical is just one of many variables of his persona that could change. If he turned pro-war I have to assume a lot of other things.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

Ron Paul wouldn't be Ron Paul if he supported the war. He would be someone completely different, with different views on what the role of government should be. He can't keep the values he keeps and still support the war. Libertarian views and this war are mutually exclusive. So no, I couldn't support him if he was for the war, because he'd just be another Romney with less money.

 

[UCFGavin]

deciding issue for me. i voted for the war and now regret it every day. i want someone that is a better person than myself.

 

[goldenequity]

Alan Keyes

With GOP Alan Keyes now running...... you now have a Constitutional Hawk in the fray.....and will dilute the Pro-war voting base even further.....which should help Ron Paul in the primaries.

He will attract NO educated Ron Paul supporters but MAY further brain wash POTENTIAL converts to Ron Paul.

With Fred Thompson and now Keyes.....we're back to 10 GOP candidates in the running again.

He will be at the Florida Values Voter debate and will most certainly be in the upcoming Maryland NPR debate focusing on Civil Rights / Black issues and hosted by fellow black Tavis Smiley.

Its going to get rough at the end of the month and into October..... buckle your seat belts.

 

[jmunjr]

Wow, the war issue is low on my list of what is important. Pre-emptive war is not necessarily a bad thing, but doing such for reasons not related to the security of the USA are bad things (e.g. oil)..

 

[Brian]

I haven't read the thread, but if RP was pro-war, I would think he was just as ignorant as the rest of the republican candidates. So no, I wouldn't support him.

 

[AlexAmore]

YES. Because all the other mainstream candidates are pro war even the DEMOCRATS! Obama and Hillary are pro war, the question is "which wars?" (the answer is Iran, Pakistan...ect which would be premptive wars if we striked). Hillary, Obama, and Edwards are all CFR and are both imperialistic in the Middle East, they just don't tell their liberal base that, but they tell Israel/AIPAC, and other special interests with enthusiasm. So you get pro war and socialism...no thanks. I would rather have libertarianism/conservatism and pro war.

Anyways Ron Paul is perfect. I couldn't ask for more.

 

[lucius]

Yes, he is the champion for one-issue that transcends all others for me--restore our constitutional republic.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

deciding issue for me. i voted for the war and now regret it every day. i want someone that is a better person than myself.

Is that you Hillary?

 

[beermotor]

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.

This is incorrect. The reason he is the best candidate is because he is against War, in all its forms (on poverty, drugs, Iraqis/Iranians/Muslims, etc). So the proper question is not "this war" but War as an ideology.

 

[libertarian4321]

If Ron Paul supported the insane Iraq war, it would be sure indication that he had lost his mind.

Therefore, I voted "no."

 

[Chester Copperpot]

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

My top policy is monetary policy and monetary reform, including no IRS.

So my vote is still YES

 

[iamso910]

I voted No. I wasn't even that happy that Ron Paul conceded to the invasion of Afghanistan, which I'm sure he suspected would lead to the overthrow of a government and trigger nation building. This was predictable. Not to mention that the US refused to present evidence or go through the correct constitutional channels.

The main reasons war is the key issue for me are:

1. I believe in karma. Such that willfully encouraging a war that is not absolutely necessary, that one suspects to leading to the death of innocent people, one's karmic destiny requires that some equivalent suffering is in store.

2. That the greatest threat to liberty is and has always been war.

3. That the strong forces, such as the military industrial congressional oil CFR media complex are working hard to find never ending wars and to find ways to further empower the state.

 

[johnrocks]

I voted yes even though it is a very decisive issue for me. I will not vote for any of the other candidates for that reason as well as their support of the Unpatriot Act. I choose yes because havng followed Paul's career for years, I know he truly wants to cut government back and restore our liberties.

 

[john_anderson_ii]

He will be at the Florida Values Voter debate and will most certainly be in the upcoming Maryland NPR debate focusing on Civil Rights / Black issues and hosted by fellow black Tavis Smiley.

I think these are good issues for Ron to tackle, since he doesn't play the group rights game at all he is starting from a very sound position. It seems like all the MSM wants to do is talk about his Iraq position any more. They are trying to polarize him. Its debatable if that's working or not, but I'd like to hear the MSM ask him about something besides the war.

 

[Thor]

I voted yes, the war is secondary.

Sure it is an important issue. But Liberty, Freedom, far less taxes, smaller government, no big brother, etc are all far more important. (And any liberty loving, true Republican President would stop the war any way)

 

[jmunjr]

This is old, but I thought about this poll again recently, and I am a bit concerned. More than half of us would not vote for Paul if he was pro war. While I understand the reasoning behind this, for me the most vital positions of Paul's are not directly related to the war. For example: personal liberties, huge government, the IRS, Federal reserve, etc.

Of course Paul would not be able to cut taxes much if the war was maintained, and perhaps that is why many voted "no", but I wonder how many people mostly support him for his stance on the war.

And on that note, I think it is imperative that Paul doesn't mislead the public into believing he is a softy, because frankly right now to many that is what it sounds like. He's make the U.S. look weak. It doesn't matter what his positions are, if he appears weak the people won't vote for him. He needs to convince the people that if push came to shove the U.S. wouldn't take any crap.

 

[skiingff]

This is old, but I thought about this poll again recently, and I am a bit concerned. More than half of us would not vote for Paul if he was pro war. While I understand the reasoning behind this, for me the most vital positions of Paul's are not directly related to the war. For example: personal liberties, huge government, the IRS, Federal reserve, etc.

Of course Paul would not be able to cut taxes much if the war was maintained, and perhaps that is why many voted "no", but I wonder how many people mostly support him for his stance on the war.

And on that note, I think it is imperative that Paul doesn't mislead the public into believing he is a softy, because frankly right now to many that is what it sounds like. He's make the U.S. look weak. It doesn't matter what his positions are, if he appears weak the people won't vote for him. He needs to convince the people that if push came to shove the U.S. wouldn't take any crap.

If I had a vote, which I don't, because the poll is closed, I would vote 'NO.'

Why? It's obvious. This war is a fake, a fraud, and an occupation of foreign land. It's an occupation of a county in civil war. There has been and continues to be absolutely NO justification whatsoever for this occupation. The weapons weren't there, they didn't attack us on 9/11. The "dictator" justification is bogus. Where is the truth?

A pro-war Ron Paul would be a neocon. It would go against all my values and all his values. He would immediately lose half his support. But Ron Paul isn't against the Iraq war for support; that's his morals and his values and mine too. He's against it because he truly believes it was wrong.

It's true that being "anti-war" got Ron Paul as far as he is today -- no one would listen to another neocon. The Republicans already have like 10 of em running already.

Being for the war would go against every issue Ron Paul stands for.