Can you trust a candidate with the nuclear codes?

[nadinbrzezinski]

this is the qustion that sadly these days you need to ask yourself.

As I said in another post, of the Republican Field the ONLY one I could trust with the codes is Ron Paul... the rest, at least in my view are loose cannons

I have no problem trusting the codes on the Demicratic field, any of them... but a sad statement is that I cannot trust the Republican field, except Ron paul with the codes.

Think about this folks, ultimately this is the quetion... can we trust these people in matters of war and peace?

[Monkeyman]

1. I don't trust Republicans to go to the bathroom

[Adelante]

2. That's a really good question nt

[Truthseeker013]

3. Can you trust a candidate with the nuclear codes?

No. I wouldn't trust *myself* wih them, really. A bad day at the office, and millions could die.

[yurbud]

4. probably the only thing that's saved us from a nuclear war the last six years in Bush's dyslexia

"Is that a 6 ur a 9? Goddamnit, now I forgot the rest of the numbers! CONDI! Come hep me with the fuzzy math!"

[sam sarrha]

7. more like they dont want to destroy what they want to steal..

[yurbud]

17. if you turn the sand to glass, you can just crack it with a hammer to get the oil.

[sam sarrha]

5. ron is a libertarian... thus has a much worse potential for destruction of life as we know it.. just

check out neil Boask... ron may be a better example of 'Tarianisn.. but, so was Bu$h a 'Good' Example of a Republican.. the story of the 3 jars.. Republicans/'Tarians.. etc reside in the Poison jar... nothing good can come out of it, ron is an illusion of goodness of the 'Tarians..none exists, except that they want to smoke dope while they destroy civilization as we know it

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Oh I know who he is, exactly what or who he is

and he scares me less than the rest of the field.

That is telling

[Flatulo]

11. The guiding principle of Libertarianism is 'no first use of force'.

Of course the 'second' use could be problematic.

[AndyTiedye]

16. If Libertarians Still Stand For ANYTHING, WHY Does Ron Paul Caucus With the Repiglicans?!?

It isn't capitalism anymore when a cabal of robber barons buy the government (and the media and the churches).
There is another word for that form of government. It starts with an "F".

How can Ron Paul stand to be in the company of such people?
Invading a sovereign nation just to enrich the corporations they own!
And the Fundies! Surely there isn't anything LESS libertarian than the theocracy they want to create.

One might think that the best possible advertisement for libertarian values would be the Clinton Presidency.
Peace, prosperity, free trade, the Federal deficit wiped out. Strong separation of church and state.

Under the Repiglicans we have had war, recession, record government spending and deficits,
Catholic and Fundie churches gaining vast power within government and especially on the Supreme Court,
the "Patriot" Act, "Homeland Security", wiretaps and other trappings of fascism.
Sure he cut taxes -- by plunging the nation deeper (A LOT DEEPER) into debt.
Doesn't seem the least bit libertarian to me.

What do the "Libertarians" actually stand for?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. As the joke goes

Liberarians are republicans who'd like a dooby

But on a more serious note, Libertarians range from the extreme left (yes you can find themP) to the extreme right.

Ron Paul knows that if he ran on a NON R ticket he'd loose his relatively safe seat rather fast, but he does not follow the leadership down the way all the time

In fact, he was the first "R" to speak against the Neo Cons as early as 2003

Oh and he's run for the Presidentcy on the L ticket a couple times already

[TwilightGardener]

8. I could trust Paul or Hagel--the rest of them? Look out Iran!

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Hagel was not on the stage

I'm talknig of the declared field, though he is in the very, and I mean VERY short list of people we can trust on the GOP side with the nuclaer football

[TwilightGardener]

12. Ah, of declared candidates, then you're right--Paul. A short list indeed.

[eleny]

9. I'd trust Kucinich with them

He wasn't my first candidate of choice. But when I read your question, his face immediately came to mind. I guess i have some more thinking to do.

On the R side of the aisle, the last one I'd trust is McCain. That "gates of hell" business is in Dr. Strangelove territory.

[TwilightGardener]

13. He's jsut fucking scary--he realizes that the war sells big with the base,

and now it's become an obsession for him to be as hawkish as possible.

[eleny]

15. Yes, it appears that McCain needs to appeal to the base of 30%

You'd think he already had them in his militaristic camp by now.

[yurbud]

18. McCain is putting on a show for the knuckledraggers. He'd try to be more moderate in office

but right would tear him to shreds.

[smalll]

19. Dr. Strangelove, yes. I thought Captain Ahab at the end of Moby Dick,

"From Hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee!" as he pointlessly stabs at the great whale before Ahab is drowned by it. (The movie with Gregory Peck as Ahab was on TV last weekend here.)

[Donnachaidh]

14. NO.

not a one.

And I'd be more inclined to move OUT of the country with the thought of rat-bag Rudy Ghoiliani having a meaty digit hovering over the red button.

VERY seriously worried about that.

[Forkboy]

20. Do we have a choice?

[SoxFan]

21. Ron Paul is the last guy I'd want with the football

I don't see the appeal. He's diametrically opposed to just about everything I believe in as a Democrat in the Truman/Kennedy tradition. Paul is virulent isolationist (which is NOT the same thing as simply being anti-war), and his stances on environmental protection, labor, and the legitimate role of government as a catalyst for improving people's lives are abysmal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Oh I would not be voting for him

after all we disagree on about 90% of his stances, but truth be told he'd fit in and I mean RIGHT IN, the party of Ike... not the modern Republican party

he is a traditional conservative, with the small c, not the big c

Now unlike the plai-T-plaint conservatives who are culture warriors, I would trust him with the football... not saying I'd like him to have it, but compared to oh Brownback or McCain... he is rational

And that is telling of the current field...

What is the biblical saying that applies here?

Oh yes, "and they shall reap the whirlwind"

[illinoisprogressive]

24. anyone in a rush to war or bombing cannot be trusted.