If Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination, would you vote for him in the General Election?

[joeydb]

Again, feel free to comment...

[Clip-Clop]

I suppose. Have to vote somewhere, not sure the party can put up any worse then they have been. This system is so disappointing now. Parties (BOTH) have completely abandoned anyone with any common sense and just pander to the lunatics that make up the outsides. The rest of us are left to choose the lesser of two evils based on what our core values are.

[somerfrost]

Might be the only candidate who is a bigger joke than the Donald!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Might be the only candidate who is a bigger joke than the Donald!

Yeah, we don't really want a candidate who knows the Constitution, right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Yeah, we don't really want a candidate who knows the Constitution, right?

Hey, marijuana and gay marriage would be legalized

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Hey, marijuana and gay marriage would be legalized

Maybe - at the states' rights level where they belong. I could accept that. The Constitution actually being read for what it says, rather than what it can say, would be an improvement.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Maybe - at the states' rights level where they belong. I could accept that. The Constitution actually being read for what it says, rather than what it can say, would be an improvement.

Have you ever read Ron Pauls' detailed platform positions? He's not "Libertarian" on everything, he even matches the extreme progressive-liberal left on defense, war, draft, etc.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Have you ever read Ron Pauls' detailed platform positions? He's not "Libertarian" on everything, he even matches the extreme progressive-liberal left on defense, war, draft, etc.

The fact that Ralph Nader and Dennis Kusinich are the ONLY american candidates in 2008 that are considered left shows the bias of the maker of the chart. This one's almost as bad as the one blaming Bush for the deficit w/o even considering anything past 2008.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The fact that Ralph Nader and Dennis Kusinich are the ONLY american candidates in 2008 that are considered left shows the bias of the maker of the chart.

Wow. Well, okay, if you had bothered to read how the chart is formed - which you obviously have not - you'd not have made that wrong assumption.

It's hard to take your opinions seriously, Dell, when you seem to deliberately prefer to discuss issues while proudly ignoring the basic truth or facts associated with them. Of course, that makes it easy when all you want to do is demagogue.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Maybe - at the states' rights level where they belong. I could accept that. The Constitution actually being read for what it says, rather than what it can say, would be an improvement.

thats fucl<ing bullsh.it that gay marriage should be accepted only at the state's rights level where "they belong".

if you believe that and are married.. you are an fing idiot and should deserve none of the federal benefits from marriage... since its a states rights thing and all.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

thats fucl<ing bullsh.it that gay marriage should be accepted only at the state's rights level where "they belong".

if you believe that and are married.. you are an fing idiot and should deserve none of the federal benefits from marriage... since its a states rights thing and all.

I didn't say accepted: marriage should be defined and officially recognized at the state level, if at all.

The federal government should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever.

There are scant "federal benefits" from being married. With taxes, there's even a "marriage penalty" depending on how the tax code is written in any given year - it's been present and then removed several times.

Lower my taxes. And those of my spouse, whether filing separately or jointly - who cares? We're at the point where the self serving tax code is tripping all over its own artificial distinctions.

Taxes should be only a means to raise needed revenue, and not to control behavior or to make people live in such a way to reduce their tax burden. The basis of taxation is citizenship, and citizenship is not amplified or reduced by your marital status. Marital status should be irrelevant to taxation.

Make one rate - flat tax - regardless of marital status, mortgages, income level. No deductions. Make it so simple that you calculate "x rate" times gross income, and send it in weekly, monthly, whatever. Get rid of withholding entirely, but have the IRS bill every month - so everybody is reminded every month that the tax burden is bigger than your rent, or mortgage, or car payment, or student loan payment. THAT will bring the spending down.

But aside from tax code impacts, and my wife not being allowed to testify against me in court, what exactly are the "benefits" that the federal government bestows on me as a married person?

And for those that are for gay marriage - that is the way to achieve it. Get the government entirely out of the business of recognizing and performing marriages. Make it a religious ceremony only or a binding agreement that a lawyer can make official.

[jms62]

Isn't the poll a bit premature? You folks decide who you will vote for without hearing him debate the issues or at least publicly state where he stands on each issue? WHat he determines to be the most important of the issues ? No wonder we are so ****ed up.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by jms62

Isn't the poll a bit premature? You folks decide who you will vote for without hearing him debate the issues or at least publicly state where he stands on each issue? WHat he determines to be the most important of the issues ? No wonder we are so ****ed up.

Huh?
It isn't like he's some unknown outsider who nobody knows anything about.
He's been in Congress for years and ran for president in 2008 where he participated in multiple debates. He's also a regular on political television shows, etc. His positions on a wide range of issues are pretty well known.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Might be the only candidate who is a bigger joke than the Donald!

How in the world is Ron Paul a bigger joke than Michelle Bachmann?

Obviously I would vote for Obama over Ron Paul, but I respect Paul's relatively consistent libertarian/isolationist positions, even though I don't agree with his stance on many issues.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by miraja2

How in the world is Ron Paul a bigger joke than Michelle Bachmann?

Obviously I would vote for Obama over Ron Paul, but I respect Paul's relatively consistent libertarian/isolationist positions, even though I don't agree with his stance on many issues.

OK, I should have included Ms. Bachmann, you are correct...sorry!