Being a Democratic Would You Vote for Ron Paul if He Ran for Prez?

[G2099]

Is the man that good?

[Nite Owl]

1. No

He may agree with us on the war and few other things but that's about it.

[leftchick]

2. lol!

It is okay to say 'Democrat' when used as a noun. It needs to be 'Democratic' when used as an adjective. The biggest offender these days is bush, day after day saying 'The Democrat Party'! What a puke!

I am not sure about Paul but he sounds much more Democratic than many Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

3. Hell, no!

I wouldn't let a libertarian within a mile of controlling our economic system. He'd make the Bush administration's tax cuts and social program cuts look generous. Libertarianism is a religion whose god is named The Powerful and Almighty Free Market.

[movonne]

4. No..I think he is one of the pretty good repugs, but I could never

again vote for one....

[BeHereNow]

5. Absolutely.

Talk about a guy speaking truth to power.
He has been for years.

BHN

[Lone_Star_Dem]

6. Not on your life

And it's Democrat in that instance. ;)

[UTUSN]

7. A Dem would vote for a Libertarian, WHY-exactly? n/t

[Jacobin]

10. To stop colonialism

[BeHereNow]

15. Here's why-

Paul has represented WE, the people, better than many of our
so called "democrat" representatives.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=474

"Since the 9/11 tragedy, Rep. Paul has been one of the few politicians in Washington to speak out against the USA Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which he believes are a threat to liberty and a sign that our country is becoming more like a police state. “The idea that search warrants could be granted so easily under the Patriot Act … with sneak and peak searches and going into libraries and other places to find out what people are doing is wrong,” says Rep. Paul. “It’s total surveillance.” Rep. Paul has also been a strong critic of the war in Iraq, going so far as to call it “unconstitutional” because there was no formal declaration of war and “immoral” because there was no direct attack on our country. "

BHN

[AX10]

8. NO!

[Jacobin]

9. Yes. To change our foreign policy

He wouldn't get through any of his domestic libertarian policies through congress so he'd be harmless in that regard

[cynatnite]

11. I will NEVER vote for anyone with an R next to their name...

thanks to the current repukes running this country.

[w13rd0]

12. I'll say this...

...I WOULD actually vote for Ron Paul for Congress, but not for a statewide or federal office. He is fantastic on the war and MOST issues of civil libery, but he's also got some very old world thinking (anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay). For something like Congressional Representative, those things are balanced out by others in the larger congressional body. Not so for something like Senate or a federal seat. I will say this though, I think his "old world thinking", like with someone like Byrd, is because he's, well, old. Given slightly different life experiences or having been born a few years later, I don't think those things would be an issue for him, but alas, they are. Just check out some of his comments on race issues from C-Span archives.

[G2099]

19. Please Post . . .

some of his comments on race issues from C-Span archives.

It would be appreciated. Good to get the whole picture.

[bobbolink]

13. Of course, I'm really that stoooopid.

I'm poor, and depend on Social Security and subsidized housing.

Ron Paul would cut both.

So, naturally, being both poor and stooooopid, I'd vote for him.

GEEEEEZ!!

[louis-t]

14. I have been impressed with him in the past.

One of the few Repugs that doesn't turn my stomach. By the way, there are left leaning libertarians and right leaning ones.

I'd vote for him over holy Joe anyday.

[BeHereNow]

23. Once upon a time...

Paul's essays criticizing the atrocities committed by the Bush
administration were posted on DU on a daily basis.
He is the Republican version of our beloved Senator Byrd.
A true patriot.
Those who dismiss him because he is a Republican
are as black and white as the right wing nut cases they claim
to be "different" from.
AND, they have clearly NEVER read a word of his writing
which could easily be assumed to be one of the best rants
ever to appear on DU.
BHN

[bobbolink]

32. Riiiighttt.... I'm "black and white",

:eyes:

I realize a SMALL thing like cutting out ALL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS wouldn't matter to you, nor the lives that would be lost here in the U.S. from such action, but some of us would like to live for a just a little while longer.

Would that be OK with you?

Just for a short while?

ANd, yes, the lack of concern for poor folks PISSES ME OFF!

[G2099]

16. There are Rebuks willing to Vote Dem in this Election

What is more important the "person" or the party?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

18. The platform

There are far too many things I dislike about Ron Paul to ever vote for him.

A vote for him is not in my better interest.

[joemurphy]

17. God no!

Who wants a libertarian in the White House. That would be totally nuts. If you think Bush likes corporations, wait till a nutball libertarian gets a chance to nuture them.

[Bucky]

20. Rule of thumb: MCs belong in the center ring, clowns go in the VW microbug

Ron Paul is amusing, but he's a clown.

[Orangepeel]

21. Ron Paul is a nut case who happens to be right on an issue or two

it is usually an important issue (e.g., Iraq), but he's still a nutbar.

He wants to abolish welfare, social security, the department of education... He's against the government doing anything to help people and/or anything to restrict corporate power.

[G2099]

24. Thank you, I did not know that

[bobbolink]

34. But, you see, getting rid of us poor folk is of little concern to many

Dems, as you may have noticed.

Any wonder some of us feel so hopeless??

Thanks, I really appreciate the one in maybe 100 who think of us poor folk!

[The Magistrate]

22. The Man Is A Lunatic, Sir

He is, in esence, the Congressional representative of the militia-man/posse comitatus element afflicting our society.

"The enemy of my enemy is usually another enemy of mine."

[Jacobin]

31. Crazier than who?

Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”

The Justice department, for its part, is depressingly silent on the issue. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to release an existing Justice department memo on the matter to Congress. Why can’t the American people, much less Congress, see how the Justice department interprets presidential powers and federal torture laws? Why the secrecy? The Justice department is charged with enforcing federal laws, not suspending them or advising federal agencies to ignore them.

Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.

The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president’s powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst061404.htm

I'm with him on foreign policy and restricting the power of the executive.

His domestic policies would never get passed. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, as he is clearly less insane than the neocons in control of our country

[The Magistrate]

36. Crazier Than Nineteen-Twentieths Of The Population, Sir

The people who vote him into office would shoot you sooner than look at you....

[OzarkDem]

25. Ummm, no thanks. I vote for Dems only n/t

[Avalux]

26. NO he is not. I live in Texas and wouldn't consider it.

I fail to see the purpose of this post. :shrug:

[G2099]

28. The Purpose of this post is to see how Dems think and . . .

To find out what I don't know about Ron Paul.

[Avalux]

30. How Dems think......

he already ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, and essentially he is a socially conservative Libertarian. NO - a good Democrat would not vote for him.

[G2099]

27. If he ran for Prez wouldn't be good to hear what he says on TV?

[BeHereNow]

35. Read this and tell me what you think-

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr090706.htm

"Not too long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports.  The majority of Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being done in Congress to solve their problems.  The fact is a majority of American citizens expect the federal government to provide for every need, without considering whether government causes many economic problems in the first place.  This certainly is an incentive for politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem solvers, since nobody asks first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at fault."

And THAT is the question we should be asking.

BHN

[Swamp Rat]

29. No, but I have convinced some of my repuke friends to do so!

HAHA! :D

[sendero]

33. No on a dare..

... I agree with some of the ideas of Libertarians but not their daft Darwinistic economic ideas.

I'd never vote for a Libertarian, ever.

[Moderator]

37. locking

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.