Are There Any Candidates That Will Change Your Usual Alignment?

[guyt]

Is there anyone runing for President (for US) that would seriously make you consider voting for the other party?

I would classify myself as a moderate democrate but if Hillary won the primaries I would not vote, and if McCain won the primaries I would seriously consider voting Republican. I just think Hillary sort of embodies everything people dislike about D.C. I have a feeling that if she wins there will be a sort of shadow government ruled by large corporate interests. Her obvious "flipflopping" seems very dishonest, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. McCain on the other hand seems like a very decent and honest fellow who, while might have slightly different views looks like the kind of president I would trust to to what is right. Is anyone else having the same views I am?

[oolatec]

If only we rid ourselves of the stigma of "which side are you on"...

I wish there was a choice on the ballot:

"None of the above"

I'd be curious to see just how many people would pick that one. Heh.

[TheScotsman]

Is there anyone runing for President (for US) that would seriously make you consider voting for the other party?

I would classify myself as a moderate democrate but if Hillary won the primaries I would not vote, and if McCain won the primaries I would seriously consider voting Republican. I just think Hillary sort of embodies everything people dislike about D.C. I have a feeling that if she wins there will be a sort of shadow government ruled by large corporate interests. Her obvious "flipflopping" seems very dishonest, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. McCain on the other hand seems like a very decent and honest fellow who, while might have slightly different views looks like the kind of president I would trust to to what is right. Is anyone else having the same views I am?

I have come to doubt that anyone's vote counts, but that aside, I have had enough of the Repubs. After being 100% party-line for (obviously) too long. i don't see them standing for anything that matters to me. I hear allot of BS, but no one ever seems to live up to it.

I would rather vote for someone that can't win, or even someone that is not to my line of thought, but at least says what their platform is. I honestly can't think of anything the repubs have actually stood behind, except the whole pro-life thing, and I don't have a horse in that race, so I could give a shite less.

I have thought Govt has taken on too many duties, and created more problems in the doing. The Repubs always talked small govt, low tax, but have created more agencies in 8 years than any admin since FDR. I thought Clinton was a buffoon, but after Curios George I think I would vote for anyone but a rep.


I guess I would be a Constitutional Democrat at this point. (the only one in the country, likely)

[ahwahoo2006]

I am a registered independent, but identify most with libertarian principles (note the lower case l there). Since the elections are a year away, I still don't know enough about any of the candidates to make an informed choice at this point, but when I do I will vote for the candidate I most agree with, no thought to party affiliation.

Unfortunately, as someone mentioned above, it really doesn't matter which party comes to power - all they both care about is lining the pockets of their political contributors. The common man is just about completely out of the equation at this point.

[shisha fan]

i`m not an american, but i would vote for ron paul if i could, seems like an intelligent guy to me.

[BrotherBuford]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian with the Republican label (mainly due to the election laws in Texas). Normally I don't vote for either major party in a presidential election, but I will make an exception if he gets the Republican nomination.

It was funny hearing Obama and Hillary on the radio the other day arguing about the finer points of their socialized medicine schemes. To me it was like hearing two dung beetles arguing over who has the bigger ball of s#!t. I don't want any part of it. Edited December 4, 2007 by BrotherBuford

[lemmiwinks]

I'm a democrat, but if Ron Paul gets the republican nomination I may end up voting republican.

[Ecstacy]

Honestly I had pretty much given up on major political parties, but from what I've read about Ron Paul, I would probably vote for him if he makes the ballot.

[D-szlos]

I live in MA theres no way any republican is going to win. If bush was able to run for a 3rd term, and his opponent was satan himself, satan would win.

[gaia.plateau]

Ron Paul is the best candidate for the well-being of America, but at the same time he's probably the worst candidate for the well-being of the world.

So I think it comes down to whether you're a nationalist or an internationalist, in regard to your support for him.

[lemmiwinks]

Ron Paul is the best candidate for the well-being of America, but at the same time he's probably the worst candidate for the well-being of the world.

So I think it comes down to whether you're a nationalist or an internationalist, in regard to your support for him.

How do you mean?

[joseph*]

I will be supporting Kucinich in the primaries, but I would support both Edwards and Obama in the general election if they get it. If Hillary get the democrat nomination I would have some real thinking to do as she is my least favorite democrat. But I agree with her on more issues then any of the Republicans so I would porbably be voting democrat no matter what. The republican canidates seem to only discuss how they would like to torture even more people, or see how many more kids they can force off heath insurance so they can die of treatable diseases.

[Bulldog_916]

I'm currently an independent but if Ron Paul is actually selected in the Primaries I might end up voting for him. I'm leaning toward Obama on the other hand. I think we need to break the stigma of not having someone who isnt white and Christian run the country for a bit. While he's pretty liberal in his views, I consider that a good thing. He's also extremely smart and can tackle things from a different perspective despite relatively little leadership experience.

My $.02.

[ubernerd83]

Frankly, I don't understand all of this Ron Paul love. Sure, he's on the correct side of the Iraq war issue, but he also happens to be crazy. And have links to white supremacist organizations. And I'm pretty sure he's never voted for any kind of government spending. At all. Ever.

Although I respect the philosophical consistency of libertarians, I would never vote for one. To elect someone to the highest position of government who doesn't believe that government can't solve problems strikes me as silly. Also, they tend to be fans of Ayn Rand, which I simply cannot abide.

[lemmiwinks]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

[ZenSilk]

I think it's a lose lose lose lose situation. The candidates pretty much suck. I do like Ron Paul's style, but he's such an anarchist...

[guyt]

Do you guys think Ron Paul would really be able to pick up electoral votes at 08, he seems like he kind of guy that could win the popular vote and still lose.

[ubernerd83]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

Well, I'm talking about something a little more concrete than just sharing some views with white supremacists. That I could forgive him for. I mean, hell, I probably share some obscure view with a white supremacist or two, and I'm a gay social democrat. I'm talking he actually linked to their organizations on his web site until right before the campaign.

[lemmiwinks]

I'd never heard that before. Do you have proof? I'm inclined to believe that if it was true, I would've heard something about it before.

[smoker6146]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

Well, I'm talking about something a little more concrete than just sharing some views with white supremacists. That I could forgive him for. I mean, hell, I probably share some obscure view with a white supremacist or two, and I'm a gay social democrat. I'm talking he actually linked to their organizations on his web site until right before the campaign.

Social democrats are traitors to this country.

Ron Paul DID NOT link any white supremacist sites from his site. That is a flat out lie. Edited December 7, 2007 by smoker6146

[ghostofdavid]

I'm not a Republican, but I also would vote for Ron Paul. I've always voted split-ticket because I am more concerned about the individual than party affiliation.

Ron Paul has nothing to do with white supremacy groups. What a ridiculous thing to say about him.

[ubernerd83]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

Well, I'm talking about something a little more concrete than just sharing some views with white supremacists. That I could forgive him for. I mean, hell, I probably share some obscure view with a white supremacist or two, and I'm a gay social democrat. I'm talking he actually linked to their organizations on his web site until right before the campaign.

Social democrats are traitors to this country.

Ron Paul DID NOT link any white supremacist sites from his site. That is a flat out lie.

How in god's name are social democrats traitors to this country? Oh, that's right...we want to make sure there's a more equitable distribution of resources so people aren't destitute as opposed to supporting policy that favors corporations and the rich, who are the real Americans, after all.

Oh, and you may be right that Ron Paul didn't link to white supremacist web sites. He apparently wrote for their newsletters and schmoozed with their leaders.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html
My apologies.

And yes, I realize that this is not the best source, but it's the best I can do in the five minutes since I've read your response.

[lemmiwinks]

Yeah, I looked it up when you posted that, and there doesn't appear to be any solid sources that agree with you. The proof of the article ("if he isn't a white supremacist why are all the white supremacists endorsing him") really goes back to my other point...

If you could find a somewhat credible source, I'd say you have a case. Otherwise, I'm gonna say it's a rumor that some bloggers who don't like Ron Paul made up.

[ubernerd83]

Yeah, I looked it up when you posted that, and there doesn't appear to be any solid sources that agree with you. The proof of the article ("if he isn't a white supremacist why are all the white supremacists endorsing him") really goes back to my other point...

If you could find a somewhat credible source, I'd say you have a case. Otherwise, I'm gonna say it's a rumor that some bloggers who don't like Ron Paul made up.

It seems to be incredibly difficult to find any content from the newsletter he used to publish, but I have been able to locate some articles from the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle dating back to his 1996 Congressional campaign.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive....id=1996_1343749
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol1....paul.side.html

I also managed to find an article that is attributed to his newsletter that was posted on Usenet at some point in the past.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture...8668bd3662b0fa5

It might be possible to find more articles he's published, but I don't feel like figuring the Internet Archive to do it.

Oh and thanks for avoiding calling me a traitor, lemmiwinks.

[gaia.plateau]

Ron Paul is the best candidate for the well-being of America, but at the same time he's probably the worst candidate for the well-being of the world.

So I think it comes down to whether you're a nationalist or an internationalist, in regard to your support for him.

How do you mean?

Delay in responding to this = I've been writing a 20 page essay on "conflict" these past 4 or 5 days.

Ron Paul is the best candidate for the well-being of America, because he is a fiscally responsible mega-conservative with absolute faith in the free market and who adheres to neoliberal imperatives. He has said on numerous occasions that he will withdraw America from its ties to the World Bank, WTO and the IMF, as well as the UN, and take a more subtle role in NATO. This basically equates to a policy of isolation, which would give the US the opportunity to rebuild politically, socially and economically.


Ron Paul is the worst candidate for the well-being of the world, for all the same reasons. With the US outside of the UN, what semblance of international order that does exist will collapse into chaos. Complete US devotion to neoliberal principles such as the ruthless economic development of the Global South will exacerbate conflicts in vulnerable states like Sri Lanka and Darfur exponentially. The only good thing to come about would be the inability of the US to abuse NATO as a flimsy cover for its illegal international endeavours.


Like I said, it comes down to whether you're a nationalist or an internationalist.