Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[bernie14]

i'll vote for mrs. paul if she was the republican candidate

 

[Berzerker]

As I'm British I won't be voting for anyone in America's elections However, Ron Paul seems like the most honest and decent guy in the Congress. I'm shocked by all the hate - this guy is reasonable and moderate.

If I was American I would only vote for him if there were no better right-wing candidate - he has often criticised American foreign policy and sections of the US government so he is too soft by far to ever make a good President, unless America wants to go isolationist again. That would be good for America, but bad for the rest of the World who save a fortune in lives and money by having America around to take on the World's problems.

Also, Ron Paul is about personal responsibility - the thing that used to define America but which is becoming a dying tradition among a growing section of the voting population who basically want bread and circuses, regardless of consequences.

Free trade aint isolationism, I dont believe the world wars can be blamed on that - and nukes make armies and navies obsolete for waging another.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If I was American I would only vote for him if there were no better right-wing candidate - he has often criticised American foreign policy and sections of the US government so he is too soft by far to ever make a good President, unless America wants to go isolationist again. That would be good for America, but bad for the rest of the World who save a fortune in lives and money by having America around to take on the World's problems.

While I do think he's a BIT too isolationist, I agree with his general principles, and I do think we should look out for ourselves first.

I disagree with him on Israel a bit, since they are the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, but I do understand where he's coming from, and as long as we don't HINDER Israel they should be OK.

 

[madviking]

I'd rather vote for RuPaul.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't know anyone bad enough to make me even consider him except possibly Palin or Bachman. No one else really prominent in American politics is that level of bad. His economic views would be disastrous for the country.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I don't know anyone bad enough to make me even consider him except possibly Palin or Bachman. No one else really prominent in American politics is that level of bad. His economic views would be disastrous for the country.

how??

 

[Dachs]

and nukes make armies and navies obsolete for waging another [World War].

No, they don't.

 

[GhostWriter16]

]

I don't know anyone bad enough to make me even consider him except possibly Palin or Bachman. No one else really prominent in American politics is that level of bad. His economic views would be disastrous for the country.

You'd rather have Bush than Paul?

What kind of "Liberal" are you?

BTW: I voted

1. I support Ron Paul. Why? Because I do, self-explanatory.

2. I think Ron Paul is much more honest than other politicians. Why? Because he is. And how do I know? Because he stands by what he says, even when its unpopular.

3.Economically he's just about right on. Why? Because he supports a lazeizz faire market.

4. Socially he's right-on. Why? Because he is. Leave the pot smokers alone, deal with the hidden murderers,

5. Foreign Policy, he's a tad too isolationist, mainly since I support Israel more than he does.

6. I agree with his strict constitutionalism. Why? Because the constitution aays so

Oh, and DT, we love you, but Paul would be a better POTUS IMO.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Paul has been consistent across administrations, and that is an admirable quality in a politician.

I support Romney, so I'd probably support Paul as well, considering he's a libertarian and not a conservative.

The only issue is Romney has a realistic chance of victory, which is why I support him first and foremost as an opponent to Obama.

But if Paul had a true chance of victory, I would definitely give him my vote.

Foreign policy wise, he would cut down our obligations and end such arbitrary policies as the blockade on Cuba.

He may argue for economic liberalisation, maybe too much, but the natural cycle of politics would prevent anything too extreme.

I do disagree with his constitutionalist position being against a wall of separation, but I support Romney don't I? Though his compromise on school prayer is excellent - it's entirely opt-in. Not sure if he supports a specific time being set aside for it, however...

His commitment to states' rights, while consistent, also is where I disagree. He thinks states should be allowed to ban flag burning; I think not. Part of freedom is the freedom to be as obnoxious or idiotic as you please as much as being as pleasant or wise.

However, in the current state of affairs, keeping such things as federal gay marriage bans off the books is important. I can also move states, so I don't make too much of an issue out of such states' rights positions.

His openness to genetic research is refreshing, and would be a neat compromise.

On healthcare, his free market platform would allow for some reform without rocking the boat. His abolition of the VA in favor of private vouchers is an intriguing idea.

His proposal to end the federal drug war obviously has my support.

Overall, there are disagreements, but if I can support Romney, I can support Paul. So, if Paul had a viable candidacy, I'd probably give him my vote.

This is why I want preference voting.

 

[History_Buff]

Paul is probably the least crazy of the crazies currently being fielded by the Repubs. He's better than Bachmann, Palin, and Perry, but certainly worse than Romney, and probably Pawlenty. I would never vote Paul over Obama, and if he somehow got the nomination, he would be crushed.

 

[Dachs]

Paul has been consistent across administrations, and that is an admirable quality in a politician.

I don't see why.

 

[Cutlass]

how??

Paul fundamentally does not understand the role that money and the central bank, or the government as a whole, plays in the economy. Now even with an all Republican Congress, I suspect he would not be able to hamstring, much less get rid of, the Fed. But he would try. And he might succeed. Without the Fed, more inflation (which, ironically, he thinks would eliminate inflation by eliminating the Fed, and yet he would make more of it). Without the Fed, all recessions are 10 times at least worse. Remember, the Fed exists primarily to keep the financial markets stable. And it came into existence only for that purpose. Controlling inflation is a secondary function. Not the primary.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy that people like Paul seem to subscribe to. The economy is not fundamentally stable, and then the government comes along and messes it up. In the real world, the economy is fundamentally unstable, and the government improves the stability immensely.

Paul would dismantle that if he could. And that means the economy would become far worse.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I don't see why.

Well, flip flopping is annoying in general, but let me dress it up in poetic terms:

It's better to know someone's an enemy than to know they could be an enemy.

 

[sophie]

I cannot possibly support anyone advocating against the central bank. Such a man clearly does not understand even remotely how macroeconomics in the modern world work. Moreover his views on abortion and gay marriage are an absolute deal breaker. Also what Dachs said. So no, I will never vote for Ron Paul in a million billion years...not that I vote all that often anyway...

 

[JollyRoger]

2. I think Ron Paul is much more honest than other politicians. Why? Because he is. And how do I know? Because he stands by what he says, even when its unpopular.

How would you reconcile his shrimp industry earmarks with your assertion that he stands by what he says?

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2007/08/06/ron-pauls-400-million-earmarks

 

[Berzerker]

No, they don't.

yes they do, drop a few on some army or navy and see what happens

then drop a few more for good measure

if Hitler's neighbors had 'em, how far would he have gotten?

 

[Tani Coyote]

I cannot possibly support anyone advocating against the central bank. Such a man clearly does not understand even remotely how macroeconomics in the modern world work. Moreover his views on abortion and gay marriage are an absolute deal breaker. Also what Dachs said. So no, I will never vote for Ron Paul in a million billion years...not that I vote all that often anyway...

Doesn't it seem odd to base a position on one's abortion or marriage stance though? (The economic issue is of course, spot on)

With how many issues are afflicting the people who are alive, I could care less about the unborn. Abort, don't abort, whichever; we have bigger fish to fry.

Of course, his consistency seems to be chipped a bit by how he supported DOMA; you cannot claim constitutionalism when you blatantly are urinating on the full faith and credit clause! Either all marriage is not recognised, or all is. Choose!

It sounds like he might be in favor of abolishing marriage altogether though, a radical move but one I'd approve of.

DOMA aside, I don't mind if states are allowed to ban gay marriage. Not all will. We can always move. It's just not politically feasible to expect federal gay marriage legalisation at this juncture anyway, so I pay that position little mind to. He's not seeking a gay marriage ban at the federal level, so I just move on.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: The OP specified that this was meant to be a Red Diamond thread, but forgot to apply the icon (even though the poll icon takes precedence from the forum view, any icon applied will still be shown in the OP, and you need to remember to do this for RD threads). So it's applied now and RD from here on in.

 

[downtown]

Dr.Paul and I are almost complete political opposites. I can think of very, very few issues of import where we agree at all. I would never vote for him.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I would not vote for Ron Paul. His economic policies border on crazy and his social policies are far too states-rights-y and not enough actual-rights-y.

As for his honesty, I think that he is a bit honest, but at the same time, his explanations for his far right economic policies are often disingenuous.