• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Paul Strongest Against Obama?

I'm not sure I could vote for the kind of pain Paul would inflict on the globe (and us). I don't see myself voting Obama over the issue.... quite. But I would think about it.
 
cpwill said:
I'm not sure I could vote for the kind of pain Paul would inflict on the globe (and us). I don't see myself voting Obama over the issue.... quite. But I would think about it.
Click to expand...

yeah not going over and invading countries that never attacked us, and destroying them and then rebuilding them would be a terrible thing to have.
 
FFDP666 said:
yeah not going over and invading countries that never attacked us, and destroying them and then rebuilding them would be a terrible thing to have.
Click to expand...
Oh it would. Obviously the only intelligent decision is to enter multiple conflicts without budgeting for the first one and then blame it on the next guy in line. I think Ron Paul would make an amazing replacemennt to Hillary Clinton, but not really the president.
 
samsmart said:
That may be.

But he's also, as I see it, the best chance the people of the United States has to prevent the government from infringing quite deeply on the constitutional rights of its people.

And it's very sad that that chance is the same as what a snowball has in hell.
Click to expand...

You're so ardent about upholding constitutional rights and so against the elimination of federal programs and cabinets which are completely unconstitutional given the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, so what gives?
 
I frankly don't understand why Obama seems so likely to win his reelection campaign. Nevertheless, that argument should probably be reserved for another thread. :)
 
jasonxe said:
cnn/orc poll dec 16-18

Registered voters:

Obama 52%, Romney 45%
Obama 52%, Paul 45%
Obama 56%, Gingrich 40%

All voters:

Obama 53%, Romney 43%
Obama 54%, Paul 43%
Obama 57%, Gingrich 39%

Paul Poll Highlights

Poll highlights include Paul besting Obama 47 to 46 percent among those 65 years and older, said to be the most reliable voters. Paul also beats Obama among whites 51 to 46 percent, persons who reside in rural areas 52 to 44 percent, and independents by 48 to 47 percent.

When compared to other Republican presidential hopefuls in a general election matchup against Obama, Paul does best among the following population segments: males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas. Noteworthy as well is that Paul fares better than all of his GOP competitors against Obama among non-whites – garnering a solid 25 percent, or one in four non-white adults.
Click to expand...

Over much of the past year people have posted hypothetical election polls between Obama and Trump, Romney, Palin, Bachman, Christie, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Paul (am I missing someone) as if they have some significance. Each one of these people has been deemed the best bet to run against Obama and win the Oval Office for the Republicans. In each case, the Republican candidate numbers are posted before people know that much about the candidate. As soon as the insert-your-republican-name here candidate gets enough "votes" to get noticed, they get noticed. Once they get noticed, people learn about the candidate and they fall fast. Sorry, the Paul numbers mean almost nothing other than its his time in the shooting gallery.

Why don't Republicans just resign themselves to the fact the Mitt is It? They should save themselves the angst, embarrassment and money associated with all this petty in-fighting that will not end well for them.
 
Last edited:
FFDP666 said:
yeah not going over and invading countries that never attacked us, and destroying them and then rebuilding them would be a terrible thing to have.
Click to expand...
1. Ron Paul is a nut. he's a very smart nut; but he remains a nut. He is a conspiracy theorist who seems to think that every issue in society stems from monetary policy - about which he is (oddly) wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, but qualitatively wrong.

...His foreign-policy stance has led him to sympathize with the regimes the U.S. government is most concerned about: In last week's debate he tried hard to explain what the world looked like from the perspective of Iranian policymakers, and dismissed concerns that they are close to acquiring nuclear capability as "war propaganda." It has also led him to hostility to Israel. It has led him to oppose, in retrospect, the Civil War, which even his fans worry might not be "a winning position."

And it has led him, all too often, to conspiracy theory. "The CIA runs everything," he said in a 2010 speech. "We need to take out the CIA." He repeated the sentiment on the radio show of the 9/11 "truther," and all-around conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. Paul isn't too fastidious about the company he keeps; he has said that he has "a lot of friends in the John Birch Society." Nor is he above sending a discreet signal to such theorists that he shares their suspicions, as in his recent comment about the "glee" that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks caused in the Bush administration...
Click to expand...


WFB and the others rightfully ran these guys out of the movement in the 60's. Paul the dinosaur remains.




2. the man is an isolationist, a policy that hasn't commanded a majority in American politics since Pearl Harbor (and for good reason). do you have any idea what the world looks like post a US withdrawal?


Hint: people whose standards of living depend upon global trade shouldn't kick away the linchpin of it.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is too old. He would never stand a chance against a young looking opponent.
 
cpwill said:
2. the man is an isolationist, a policy that hasn't commanded a majority in American politics since Pearl Harbor (and for good reason). do you have any idea what the world looks like post a US withdrawal?

Hint: people whose standards of living depend upon global trade shouldn't kick away the linchpin of it.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul's "foreign policy"--if one can call neo-isolationism/non-interventionism a foreign policy--rests on naive assumptions that humans, by nature, are good:

1. All countries governments are benign and they aspire to peace.
2. All countries' share the same interests making conflict unnecessary.
3. Power is irrelevant.
4. Allies bring no value-added, only risks.

Based on those assumptions, he believes a neo-isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy in which the U.S. would sever its alliances would lead to permanent peace and friendship with all.

The reality across history is starkly different. Not every nation desires peace. Interests, even critical ones, can clash and sometimes the clashes are so deep and irreconcilable that diplomacy is not viable. Power matters when it comes to national security. Weakness has often been exploited. Allies can work together cooperatively to advance the common interests they share.

In the run-up to U.S. involvement in WW II, the U.S. "tested" a lot of what Paul espouses today. The U.S. still found itself attacked and embroiled in WW II. The Cold War provides a vivid illustration that alliances (NATO in this case) can bring enormous value and promote stability.

In the end, Ron Paul sees the world in 1D. In reality, the world is far more complex and dynamic. His simplistic foreign policy would abdicate U.S. interests, abandon U.S. allies, and put the nation on a long-term path that undermines its security.
 
This might upset someone's applecart:

2012electoralmapprojection121511.jpg
 
coolwalker said:
This might upset someone's applecart:

View attachment 67120225
Click to expand...

What applecart's are those? While I see no attribution to how they arrived at their chart or map, and it's a somewhat anyway right wing site, it looks at least close to what I expect. This far out alot of the states they have to both Obama and republican should be tossups. I mean, there is not yet a winner in the republican primaries yet. Hell, there has yet to be a primary for 2012 yet. Oh, and here is the link, that as usual you avoid supplying so people can check what you are claiming: Freedom's Lighthouse » 2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map & Projection
 
donsutherland1 said:
Ron Paul's "foreign policy"--if one can call neo-isolationism/non-interventionism a foreign policy--rests on naive assumptions that humans, by nature, are good:

1. All countries governments are benign and they aspire to peace.
2. All countries' share the same interests making conflict unnecessary.
3. Power is irrelevant.
4. Allies bring no value-added, only risks.

Based on those assumptions, he believes a neo-isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy in which the U.S. would sever its alliances would lead to permanent peace and friendship with all.

The reality across history is starkly different. Not every nation desires peace. Interests, even critical ones, can clash and sometimes the clashes are so deep and irreconcilable that diplomacy is not viable. Power matters when it comes to national security. Weakness has often been exploited. Allies can work together cooperatively to advance the common interests they share.

In the run-up to U.S. involvement in WW II, the U.S. "tested" a lot of what Paul espouses today. The U.S. still found itself attacked and embroiled in WW II. The Cold War provides a vivid illustration that alliances (NATO in this case) can bring enormous value and promote stability.

In the end, Ron Paul sees the world in 1D. In reality, the world is far more complex and dynamic. His simplistic foreign policy would abdicate U.S. interests, abandon U.S. allies, and put the nation on a long-term path that undermines its security.
Click to expand...


I somewhat agree with you; however, I think we should incorporate some isolationist policy. There is no value in spending billions of dollars in countries that don't want us to be there.
Not all alliances are good. Alliance with France caused the War of 1812 and give me one positive of our alliance with Israel that hasn't come with a negative?
I am not saying that we should become isolated; however, we can not continue to spread ourselves across the world. The Roman Empire fell because they tried spreading out too much. We must protect ourselves before we protect the rest if the world. Saying that: withdraw from where assistance is not neccesary, break harmful alliances, and please allow other countries to build themselves.

Of course there is gonna be a Civil War when we leave the Middle East because when there is a gap in power, someone will fill it. We were the only power in the Middle East despite the "democracy" we have set up. We left a gap and someone must fill it period. Let it happen.
 
The GOP should absolutely nominate Ron Paul for President next summer. Put me down for a three dollar donation in the next Paul money bomb.
 
coolwalker said:
This might upset someone's applecart:
Click to expand...


The presidential election is almost a year away. And determining the GOP nominee is likely several months away.

Prolly not good to get too far ahead of ourselves. Lots of variables can and will get tweaked in the coming year.
 
Redress said:
What applecart's are those? While I see no attribution to how they arrived at their chart or map, and it's a somewhat anyway right wing site, it looks at least close to what I expect. This far out alot of the states they have to both Obama and republican should be tossups. I mean, there is not yet a winner in the republican primaries yet. Hell, there has yet to be a primary for 2012 yet. Oh, and here is the link, that as usual you avoid supplying so people can check what you are claiming: Freedom's Lighthouse » 2012 Presidential Election Electoral Vote Map & Projection
Click to expand...

While I can't speak for the graph, it is true that blue states have lost significant electoral votes since 2008 while red states have gained votes. Still, I do project Obama will come out the victor, despite my objections.
 
Sure. Why not ?
 
The contents of Ron Paul's old newletters are back in the news again, and that might be enough to relegate him back to single digits in the polls.
 
i think the establishment is scared of rp and his policies,hes a candidate that cant be bought or sold.hes ridiculed as being a candidate that cant win despite being favorable with young voters and a die hard voter base,even polls show he will do best against obama.
with the way the gop is pushing romney its almost as if they want to lose and they chose a candidate to back that isnt liberal enough to steal obamas votes and isnt conservative enough to gain typical gop voters.

im seeing a game being played between the democrats and republicans and ron paul being so far outside the elites that they want him out.so much so that the gop columnists claim that voting for him would destroy iowas eputation because hes unelectable,and their basis on that is that they didnt tell them to vote paul,they told the people to vote romney,and the people dont want romney.

worst case paul loses obama wins re-election,it will force the gop to reform after seeing the gop's neocons fail and libertarian views very similiar to old school conservatism take hold of the american youth
 
sorry accidental double post
 
PeteEU said:
Ron Paul is too old. He would never stand a chance against a young looking opponent.
Click to expand...

Given that he commands a high level of support from college students, and has even siphoned off young voters from Obama, I don't see that as an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom