To all non-Ron Paul Republicans

[Phony Moderate]

...

[big bad fab]

NO
(except if Kucinich or Gravel is the Dem candidate...)

[Farage]

I would vote Obama.

[paul718]

Most likely.

[fezzyfestoon]

Yeah, I think so.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Over Obama.

[Ronnie]

Over Obama.

^

[pogo stick]

I would vote Obama.

Agreed

[President Mitt]

I would vote with a on my face.

[nhmagic]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Huh? Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, I doubt he'd be launching any wars like Chamberlain did.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Huh? Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, I doubt he'd be launching any wars like Chamberlain did.

True

[Zarn]

I would vote for Ron, although I'm really not a fan of his.

I wouldn't, however, vote for Romney, Palin, Huckabee or Newt.

If it were Paul vs a Dem who wasn't a lunatic, then the Dem or 3rd party. We don't seem to get those kind of Dems running for prez, though.

[California8429]

Probably, as long as his VP wasn't like Wayne Root or something

[Psychic Octopus]

I wouldn't support him in the primary, but i'd vote him over Barack.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would, but then again I am a Paulite

[nhmagic]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Before he went to war, Neville ceded land to Hitler in his appeasement policy and was determined to make friends out of his enemies before he did anything.  He believed that Hitler's problems were based around the Treaty of Versailles (policy of allied forces) and that he could "win" him over if they just changed things about their own country. "Peace in our time", etc.

Sounds like Paul, when Paul says our actions are causing radical Islamicists to hate us and murder us.  That if we just stayed out of things and kept our noses clean we wouldn't have all of these problems - which is the same fantasy that Chamberlain had.  Paul isnt just non-interventionist, he would have us be attacked before he ever struck at an enemy (though democrats would have us be attacked, and never strike at the enemy - which is why it always makes him a better candidate than any democrat).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Before he went to war, Neville ceded land to Hitler in his appeasement policy and was determined to make friends out of his enemies before he did anything.  He believed that Hitler's problems were based around the Treaty of Versailles (policy of allied forces) and that he could "win" him over if they just changed things about their own country. "Peace in our time", etc.

Sounds like Paul, when Paul says our actions are causing radical Islamicists to hate us and murder us.  That if we just stayed out of things and kept our noses clean we wouldn't have all of these problems - which is the same fantasy that Chamberlain had.  Paul isnt just non-interventionist, he would have us be attacked before he ever struck at an enemy (though democrats would have us be attacked, and never strike at the enemy - which is why it always makes him a better candidate than any democrat).

Except Ron Paul is right. Interventionism is the cause of the foreign policy woes of 21st century America.

As was the case leading up to both World Wars. Chamberlain was a warmonger who started an unnecessary war of aggression that would engulf the entire world in death and destruction.

[Хahar 🤔]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Before he went to war, Neville ceded land to Hitler in his appeasement policy and was determined to make friends out of his enemies before he did anything.  He believed that Hitler's problems were based around the Treaty of Versailles (policy of allied forces) and that he could "win" him over if they just changed things about their own country. "Peace in our time", etc.

Sounds like Paul, when Paul says our actions are causing radical Islamicists to hate us and murder us.  That if we just stayed out of things and kept our noses clean we wouldn't have all of these problems - which is the same fantasy that Chamberlain had.  Paul isnt just non-interventionist, he would have us be attacked before he ever struck at an enemy (though democrats would have us be attacked, and never strike at the enemy - which is why it always makes him a better candidate than any democrat).

Please come back when you know what the hell you're talking about.

[Vepres]

Only if the Democrats were going to control congress.

I like him in some ways, but he has some crazy positions that make me unable to support him in good conscious (gold standard, association with racists, 9-11 truthers)

Now, a candidate like Ron Paul with more charisma, a little more moderate, more socially liberal, minus the crazy positions and immigration policy would be my dream candidate.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No. Paul is pretty out there, and we probably disagree on most issues except taxes. I'm for cutting spending too, but he basically wants to get rid of the federal government.

[Sewer]

Over Obama.

Too black for you?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Over Obama.

Too black for you?

No. Too much like Bush.

[nhmagic]

I would happily vote for Ron Paul in a general election - however, not for the primary.  Like Ann says: "Ron Paul is Neville Chamberlain on national defense".  And I hate that part about his politics.  He does have the social conservative and economic conservative parts wrapped up nicely in a bowl.  And I would love to see our country go back to the gold standard.

Before he went to war, Neville ceded land to Hitler in his appeasement policy and was determined to make friends out of his enemies before he did anything.  He believed that Hitler's problems were based around the Treaty of Versailles (policy of allied forces) and that he could "win" him over if they just changed things about their own country. "Peace in our time", etc.

Sounds like Paul, when Paul says our actions are causing radical Islamicists to hate us and murder us.  That if we just stayed out of things and kept our noses clean we wouldn't have all of these problems - which is the same fantasy that Chamberlain had.  Paul isnt just non-interventionist, he would have us be attacked before he ever struck at an enemy (though democrats would have us be attacked, and never strike at the enemy - which is why it always makes him a better candidate than any democrat).

Except Ron Paul is right. Interventionism is the cause of the foreign policy woes of 21st century America.

As was the case leading up to both World Wars. Chamberlain was a warmonger who started an unnecessary war of aggression that would engulf the entire world in death and destruction.

Interventionism is not the cause of every foreign policy woe in the 21st century, inept interventionism is.  And I agree with some of Paul's critiques of intervention, but not all.  Iraq is one of those areas where I agree, and even it is turning out to be a decent state after intervention.  We intervene on a daily basis with countries as we are now part of a global economy.  We provide billions of dollars to Africa for aids medicine - that's intervention too. 

Chamberlain ducked and hid during the run-up to WWII.  Every political analyst knows what he is famous for - appeasement of Hitler and "peace in our time". 

[Mint]

I like him in some ways, but he has some crazy positions that make me unable to support him in good conscious (gold standard, association with racists, 9-11 truthers)

Now, a candidate like Ron Paul with more charisma, a little more moderate, more socially liberal, minus the crazy positions and immigration policy would be my dream candidate.

That's pretty much my position (although all politicians hold crazy positions IMO) and I'm a supporter.