Paul: I Won't Vote GOP In '08, They're Too Pro-War

[DeadCanDance]

Ron Paul indicates he won't support the GOP nominee for Prez, because they love war too much.

He also appears to flirt with the idea of running a third-party candidacy for prez, if the GOP elects an Iraq War loving candidate:




http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13702.html

 

[William Joyce]

I like the third-party idea, but we all know what happens to the Andersons and the Perots: a one-way ticket to obscurity.

Actually, I wonder if the GOP has a lock on loving war for Israel. The Democrats aren't doing anything to STOP the bloody thing, and some, like the Jewish Chuck Schumer and the Jewish Joe Lieberman, are FOR it!

 

[Gunny]

Ron Paul indicates he won't support the GOP nominee for Prez, because they love war too much.

He also appears to flirt with the idea of running a third-party candidacy for prez, if the GOP elects an Iraq War loving candidate:




http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13702.html

So if he somehow pulls off the GOP nomination since that's where it looks to me like he's running, WHO does he support?

 

[Detmurds]

Ron Paul indicates he won't support the GOP nominee for Prez, because they love war too much.

He also appears to flirt with the idea of running a third-party candidacy for prez, if the GOP elects an Iraq War loving candidate:




http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13702.html

This is because he is not a real Republican! He sounds too much like one of those "Donkeys".

 

[Foxfyre]

So if he somehow pulls off the GOP nomination since that's where it looks to me like he's running, WHO does he support?

That's the thing isn't it? How can he run as a Republican and say he won't support the GOP? Sure makes him look kinda sorta like a major hypocrite wouldn't you say?

 

[DeadCanDance]

That's the thing isn't it? How can he run as a Republican and say he won't support the GOP? Sure makes him look kinda sorta like a major hypocrite wouldn't you say?

I don't think its hypocritical. Its principled. He won't support a candidate that loves the Iraq War, and in pro-war with respect to iran.

 

[jillian]

That's the thing isn't it? How can he run as a Republican and say he won't support the GOP? Sure makes him look kinda sorta like a major hypocrite wouldn't you say?

Not if he thinks he's the only candidate representing "republican" values.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not if he thinks he's the only candidate representing "republican" values.

Well if he thinks that, I think he's too much of an idiot to be President.

 

[Detmurds]

Well if he thinks that, I think he's too much of an idiot to be President.

You said it perfectly! He should have just ran as an independent and join the ranks of Ross Perot! Actually, I liked Ross Perot much more than Ron Paul. Ron Paul lives in a world of leperchans and rainbows,...he is not realistic on current events. He is a rock !

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think its hypocritical. Its principled. He won't support a candidate that loves the Iraq War, and in pro-war with respect to iran.

Then he shouldn't run as a Republican expecting Republican support. I don't want a one-issue candidate, much less a one-issue President. And that is amplified in that I think Ron Paul's views on Iraq are quite wrong. So there we have it.

He should have run as a Democrat.

 

[William Joyce]

Then he shouldn't run as a Republican expecting Republican support. I don't want a one-issue candidate, much less a one-issue President. And that is amplified in that I think Ron Paul's views on Iraq are quite wrong. So there we have it.

He should have run as a Democrat.

No can do! RP supports freedom, U.S. sovereignty, and opposes amnesty for illegals. The Democrats would HATE him! Actually, I think that means most Repubs hate him, too, willing as they are to sell our nation to the highest bidder.

I tell ya, I love this RP "Revolution", as all the banners say. I see them in rural Missouri and in dorm rooms at Columbia. It's awesome.

They call him crazy because they can't argue with him, or the way in which his popularity reflects disappointment with both wings of "the government party," i.e., Dems and Repubs.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Then he shouldn't run as a Republican expecting Republican support. I don't want a one-issue candidate, much less a one-issue President. And that is amplified in that I think Ron Paul's views on Iraq are quite wrong. So there we have it.

He should have run as a Democrat.

It doesn't matter what you think he should do.

He has more support than Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, or Alan Keyes among republican voters. And he's ahead of Fred Thompson in some primary states. He qualified via ballot signatures to participate in the GOP primaries. Most of his core values are extremely conservative. He has every right to run in the GOP primary.

 

[Gunny]

That's the thing isn't it? How can he run as a Republican and say he won't support the GOP? Sure makes him look kinda sorta like a major hypocrite wouldn't you say?

Don't know about hypocritical so much as just not very bright.

 

[Gunny]

Not if he thinks he's the only candidate representing "republican" values.

"Republican" values? If there is such a thing, he most certainly does not represent them.

 

[Ninja]

He's a psychopath and his supporters are creepy assholes. That said, if the general election turns out to be Hitlery and Giuliani, I'll vote for Ron Paul to show my disgust with the choices presented to me.

Yes, I wrote VOTE FOR, not WRITE IN, because you know that the attention-seeking asshole has no intention of dropping out of the race even after being destroyed in the primaries. Plus, there are enough 40-something bloggers living in their mommies' basements to get his name on pretty much every state's ballot.

So yeah. I despise him and his supporters but the number of votes he gets will be interpreted as a referendum on how Americans feel about the direction of the country. Reason enough to give him my vote while telling Clinton and JulieAnnie to go fuck themselves.

 

[DeadCanDance]

"Republican" values? If there is such a thing, he most certainly does not represent them.

He's out polling Fred Thompson among New Hampshire republican voters.

 

[Gunny]

He's out polling Fred Thompson among New Hampshire republican voters.

Which means what? New Hampshire Republicans don't know what conservatism is? Big whoop.

 

[Ninja]

He's out polling Fred Thompson among New Hampshire republican voters.

Wow! 6.8% for Paul and 4.8% for Thompson! Look out Romney and Giuliani!

 

[Detmurds]

He's out polling Fred Thompson among New Hampshire republican voters.

What do all of you in this board from New Hampshire think?

******(Crickets is all one hears.)******

 

[Paulie]

This is because he is not a real Republican! He sounds too much like one of those "Donkeys".

The only reason you think that is because he's anti-war. One particular issue does not represent any party as a whole. If you think that, you're just another MSM programmed sheep.

I challenge you to name any other position of his that suits the Democratic base as a whole.

Which means what? New Hampshire Republicans don't know what conservatism is? Big whoop.

Conservatism is, in a nutshell: limited spending, limited taxes, limited government, and for some stupid ass reason, anti-abortion.

Is that, or is that NOT, Ron Paul?