• 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!

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 67 55.8%
  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 45 37.5%
  • Neither

    Votes: 8 6.7%

  • Total voters
    120
Also, Ikari, hate to burst your bubble but internet polls on a message board don't really mean...um....much of anything other than telling what that message board thinks, and even that's not really true since not everyone visits and its an anonymous poll which means people can vote over and over and over again and as was seen whe comparing the Primary results to internet results in 2008 Ron Paul people have no problem showing up in droves...online.

Psst, that was a response to a different poster who claimed it wasn't even close, that Obama was well better. I was just pointing out the discrepancy between her statement and the vote is all. I made no claim of legitimacy towards the overall political landscape; though even then you may find great changes have occurred since the railroading Ron Paul was given during the primaries.
 
I understand, but he was seemingly to express his personal opinion. Now, while it wasn't backed up with anything, a large amount of anonymous posters voting for Ron Paul doesn't magically invalidate the notion that, FOR HIM, there's no question that the better choice is Barack Obama. 500 people on here could've voted for Paul, I doubt that'd get him to change nor would it invalidate his notion that for him there's no question.
 
I think it's funny how anonymous white people still think a white guy is tougher than a black guy. Keep dreaming, fellas.

Obama's got the height and the reach on Paul. + Stamina. It's a no-brainer. Paul will be TKO's in 2 rounds.

Wait, this was a boxing match and not moderated debate we're talking about, right?
 
Well I guess you have the hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty tied up there. gg

Elaborate some, Ikari...
I feel that if a man is honest with himself and others and if he subscribes to an isolationist policy - he should be man enough to own up to it.
Same thing regarding being a racist....
Of course, on-one would publicly admit to either, but privately ???
And it may be a popular thing today, to be a Liberatian.....as it is a Greenie....but one must consider everything and do what is best for the long term..
 
Ron Paul's policies are neither isolationist nor racist. Only one of dubious intellectual capacity would make the claim. Or one being intellectually dishonest and wishing only to spread hyperbole and misinformation. So you can take your pick, but I suggest if you wish to disparage a political ideology that you first try to understand what the ideology is in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul, should I type out period, oh my, I just did.
I’m wondering how non-interventionism is a horrible foreign policy.
 
Hobo,

I think you're altering your argument slightly. You didn't ask for a solution to discriminatory business practices, instead, you asked for a solution to socially ingrained bigotry and racial discrimination. I don't think anyone stopped being a bigot because of the Civil Rights Act, and I don't think overt racial discrimination could have been eliminated from private businesses unless the majority of the populace actually supported such a measure.

A majority of people nationally supported such a measure, but almost every politician from the south, where it was the biggest problem, voted against it. It didn't end bigotry, but it was a huge step in the right direction, and did much more than any libertarian solution would have.
 
If the 2012 Election was today, and Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, would you vote him into office?

Or........

Would you re-elect Barack Obama?

Who would you vote for and why?

If foreign policy were the only issue I cared about I would vote for Ron Paul. Unfortunately I think he’s dead wrong on virtually everything else. Nevertheless, I would love to see a Ron Paul 2012 Republican ticket for the sheer fact that he would have a larger megaphone and I would enjoy watching the neocons squirm in their no-longer-effective “why do you hate American?” rhetoric.

Remember in the 2008 Republican primaries when Ron Paul had the gall to bring up our counterproductive middle eastern policy and he was straw manned by Rudy Guiliani who incorrectly accused him of claiming he was blaming Americans (as if the people of New York were the ones deciding to intervene overseas for the last half century or more).

YouTube - Terrorism: Ron Paul vs. Giuliani @ SC DebateYouTube - Terrorism: Ron Paul vs. Giuliani @ SC Debate

Remember when O’Reilly interviewed Ron Paul and wouldn’t let him articulate in the situation in Iran?

YouTube - Ron Paul on ORielly

I would vote for Obama again because I agree with most of his intended policies (I think the compromises he’s had to make to get ‘a’ bill through have made some legislation less-than-ideal.
 
Wow.......Ron Paul is kicking some Kenyan ass.......

If there was ever a year Dr. No could run and win........its 2012........
.
.
.
 
Loaded question. I'd vote for a jar of mustard if it ran against Obama.

I am not in love with Ron Paul. I don't like his foreign policy. His domestic policies are pretty good though, and when I determine who I vote for I usually go 70/30 domestic over foreign.

I'd vote for Ron Paul, but he'd have to give up the "cantankerous old man" persona. Nobody wants to vote for a man who looks like the angry gray-haired next door neighbor who yelled at kids walking on his lawn.

Where did you get that vibe? Ron Paul, to me, looks more like a sweet Ol' Grandpa rather than an evil Ebenezer Scrooge. I think you're thinking of Fred Thompson.
 
Where did you get that vibe? Ron Paul, to me, looks more like a sweet Ol' Grandpa rather than an evil Ebenezer Scrooge. I think you're thinking of Fred Thompson.

Elijah, you realize you are responding to posts from almost a year ago?
 
Palin isn't as actively dumb as Paul.

Are you serious? Elaborate, please. Dumbness is in the eyes of the beholder, but Paul is a doctor as well as a congressional representative. I can't imagine a man who became a doctor and spent more than twenty years delivering babies could be "dumb." At the very least, not in comparison to Palin. Palin's statements are downright stupid. She's the female version of G.W.B. And I imagine Palin has more racism in her little pinky toe than Paul has in his entire body.

Paul is a whiz on classical economic theory. You may think classical economists like Friedman and Hayek and Says are "dumb" but it's only because you're confusing the concept of intelligence with the concept of values. You may hold similar values as Palin in several areas, but it's not the same when considering their intelligence.
 
Are you serious? Elaborate, please. Dumbness is in the eyes of the beholder, but Paul is a doctor as well as a congressional representative. I can't imagine a man who became a doctor and spent more than twenty years delivering babies could be "dumb." At the very least, not in comparison to Palin. Palin's statements are downright stupid. She's the female version of G.W.B. And I imagine Palin has more racism in her little pinky toe than Paul has in his entire body.

Paul is a whiz on classical economic theory. You may think classical economists like Friedman and Hayek and Says are "dumb" but it's only because you're confusing the concept of intelligence with the concept of values. You may hold similar values as Palin in several areas, but it's not the same when considering their intelligence.

Palin lives in something closer to the real world.
 
I'd vote for Ron Paul, and I hope he does get the Republican ticket. He would truly bring change to Washington. No more deals behind closed doors, favorable treatment to lobbyists, etc. He would be honest and forthright with the American public. Our foreign policy could be totally revamped (as it should), power given back to the states, waste would be cut, and there would not be the partisanship we have come to expect in the oval office.

As for everyone concerned about his domestic policy... He wouldn't control legislation so he'd just end up vetoing all the crap Congress tried to get passed. Doesn't sound bad to me.
 
I'd vote for Ron Paul, and I hope he does get the Republican ticket. He would truly bring change to Washington. No more deals behind closed doors, favorable treatment to lobbyists, etc. He would be honest and forthright with the American public. Our foreign policy could be totally revamped (as it should), power given back to the states, waste would be cut, and there would not be the partisanship we have come to expect in the oval office.

As for everyone concerned about his domestic policy... He wouldn't control legislation so he'd just end up vetoing all the crap Congress tried to get passed. Doesn't sound bad to me.

There will still be partisanship, plenty of liberals and conservatives hate Dr. Paul one way or another. However, the good doctor who is actually pro-life unlike 99.9% of the scum in DC will prevent alot of the statist crap from actually getting into law.
 
Back
Top Bottom