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

[runderwo]

What's "for the war"?

Is it for nation building in Iraq and creating a US-friendly puppet in the Middle East?

Is it for exterminating Islam because they are assumed to be attacking us because they hate our freedom?

Is it for defending Israel because we have some kind of Zionist quantum entanglement with them?

Is it for moving the pre-emptive war into Iran?

Is it for locking down US citizens and suspending our rights because the terrorists are assuredly among us?



Or is it for bringing the admitted 9/11 attackers to justice through letters of marque and reprisal, and getting on with our lives without giving them what they want in the form of destroying our constitution?

 

[they walked in line]

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

With all due respect, I cannot understand this position for the life of me.

Supporting the military occupation of a country that posed no threat to us is completely incompatable with supporting the restoration of our constitutional republic. Quite simply, if Dr. Paul were in favor of the former, I would not take seriously his belief in the latter.

 

[libertythor]

He would never support the war to begin with.

 

[skiingff]

P.S. I refuse to lower my standards for ANYONE.

That includes Ron Paul, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, the Pope, Michael Jackson, my mom, my brother, my best friends, my supervisors, etc etc etc

If Ron Paul were for the "war," he'd be a hypocrite. He'd be for killing innocent civilians, for torture, for secret detentions and abuses, for domestic spying, for a police state to weed out "terrorists," for the military-industrial complex, for OPEC, for wasted spending and large deficits, for corruption, for lies, for FEAR.

If Ron Paul were for the "war," he'd go against everything he stands for.

Absolutely unacceptable.

I hold him to a higher standard than that.

I'm glad he is against this illegal occupation.

 

[erowe1]

As a matter of fact, Paul's view of the war is the only thing I have reservations about. Yes, I'd vote for him enthusiastically.

 

[freedominnumbers]

Yes, because even if he were for the war he'd still be the most representative of my beliefs.

This is what I try to help my neo-con friends realize. It doesn't matter if Iraq is free or not if we are not.

 

[OptionsTrader]

The question is irrelevant. It is like asking if your wife cheated on you or became a serial killer would you still love her. The question is irrelevant because it is not the kind of person she is.

 

[axiomata]

TO: The people who voted 'no'

If Paul took the mainstream Democratic position that the war was wrong was wrong to start, and it has been mismanaged, but we shouldn't immediately withdraw all of our troops because it may completely destabilize the region, would you still not vote for him. Technically, he'd still be for the war.

I think we all can agree that if RP started the Iraq War we wouldn't vote for him, but things aren't always as black and white. When I answered this poll I assumed that if RP supported the war, then it would have to be for a pragmatic reason not an ideological and thus, even if I disagreed, I would of course still vote for him.