Ron Paul

Very strongly agree

No

Paul has consistently opposed the use of military force for purposes other than self-defense. He has spoken out against the use of drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists in foreign countries, arguing that it violates the principles of due process and national sovereignty. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No, they should be captured and given a fair trial

Paul has consistently advocated for the principles of due process and the rule of law. He has argued that suspected terrorists should be captured and given a fair trial, rather than being assassinated. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No, capture, interrogate, and imprison them instead

Paul has advocated for capturing and interrogating suspected terrorists rather than killing them. He has argued that this approach is more consistent with the principles of due process and can yield valuable intelligence. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they are planning to attack our country

Paul might agree with the principle of only using force against those who are planning to attack the US, but he has generally opposed the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, arguing that it often leads to unintended consequences and can escalate conflicts.

Disagree

Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence they have committed an attack against our country

While Paul might agree with the principle of only using force against those who have committed attacks against the US, he has generally opposed the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, arguing that it often leads to unintended consequences and can escalate conflicts. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

Yes

Ron Paul is a strong advocate for non-interventionist foreign policy. He has consistently opposed the use of military force for purposes other than self-defense, including the assassination of suspected terrorists in foreign countries. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.