• 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
America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.

I do miss the days of neo-con argumentum ad populum. So we send over 4,000 of our young men and women to die for a lie? Quality foreign policy :thumbs: All the while taxpayers foot the $1 trillion price tag.

And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.

While political stability in the region is necessary, we have held an uneasy bias toward Israel.
 
I do miss the days of neo-con argumentum ad populum. So we send over 4,000 of our young men and women to die for a lie? Quality foreign policy :thumbs: All the while taxpayers foot the $1 trillion price tag.



While political stability in the region is necessary, we have held an uneasy bias toward Israel.

Please read my above post.

And I think America has had a healthy bias in regards to Israel. We shouldn't take what the Arab nations and enemies of Israel have to say unbiased. I wouldn't call it so much a bias as much as it is a judgement call based on history and current situations.
 
From his posting record, he can be accurately be labeled a neo-con. I do not believe a strong foreign policy is mutually exclusive to global military bases that overstretch our entire military.

Neo-cons cheer for the war on terror. Yet nobody has a clue how many "enemies of the state" pass through the Mexican border on a daily basis. It kinda flies in the face of logic to believe the best way to keep this country safe is to deploy troops all over the globe. Even if it to "ensure" our investments are safe.

Unless of course you view it perfectly acceptable for China to build military bases all over Africa.

But what does that have to do with being a neo-conservative? I support putting bases in countries like Turkey and Japan for strategic reasons. I also support it on the grounds that we live in the 21st century and total war is no longer an avoidable issue. That doesn't make me a neo-con. A neo-con supports foreign policy which is DIRECTLY involved in the Middle East. If China went around putting bases in African countries I would not care as long as they were doing it with the permission of the country in question. The only base I really wish we would get rid of is Guantanamo. With the change of government in 1959 it should have been removed immediately.
 
Please read my above post.

I did. While you seem more moderate in your approach; when i consider you immediate posting history, i sense a neo-conservative lean.

And I think America has had a healthy bias in regards to Israel.

Has this healthy bias indulged Israel to behave far more aggressively than they would in its absence?

We shouldn't take what the Arab nations and enemies of Israel have to say unbiased. I wouldn't call it so much a bias as much as it is a judgment call based on history and current situations.

In formal, print usage, the term blowback first appeared in the Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953, the CIA internal history of the US’s 1953 Iranian coup d'état.[2][3] Alleged examples of blowback include the CIA’s financing and support for Afghan insurgents to fight an anti-Communist proxy guerrilla war against the USSR in Afghanistan; it is claimed that some of the beneficiaries of this CIA support joined al-Qaeda's terrorist campaign against the United States.[4]

In the 1980s blowback was a central theme in the legal and political debates about the efficacy of the Reagan Doctrine, which advocated public and secret support of anti-Communist counter-revolutionaries (usually the losers of civil wars). For example, by secretly funding the secret war of the militarily-defeated, right-wing Contras against the left-wing Sandinista government of Nicaragua, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, wherein the Reagan Administration sold American weapons to US enemy Iran to arm the Contras with Warsaw Pact weapons, and their consequent drug-dealing in American cities. Moreover, in the case of Nicaragua v. United States, the International Court of Justice ruled against the United States’ secret military attacks against Sandinista Nicaragua, because the countries were not formally at war.

Critics of the Reagan Doctrine note that blowback is inevitable and that such unilateral intervention causes Third World civil wars to expand beyond their borders and risks the long-term safety of Americans who may be killed in the resulting violence.[5] Reagan Doctrine advocates, principally the Heritage Foundation, replied that support for anti-Communists would topple Communist régimes without retaliatory consequences to the United States and help win the global Cold War.

Blowback (intelligence) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
But what does that have to do with being a neo-conservative? I support putting bases in countries like Turkey and Japan for strategic reasons. I also support it on the grounds that we live in the 21st century and total war is no longer an avoidable issue. That doesn't make me a neo-con. A neo-con supports foreign policy which is DIRECTLY involved in the Middle East. If China went around putting bases in African countries I would not care as long as they were doing it with the permission of the country in question. The only base I really wish we would get rid of is Guantanamo. With the change of government in 1959 it should have been removed immediately.

Read his post history and form your own opinion. If not for you liberal social sentiment, you would be ripe for the neo-con plucking:mrgreen:
 
Ones a politician, the other, a dreamer.
Have any of Paul's ideas worked or been effective in any other nation similar to ours?
I think that his philosophy may work in the future when man becomes civilized.
 
I'd vote for Sarah Palin LOOOOOONG before I vote for Ron Paul.

Not even as dogcatcher, for me, either one.
The two of them only appeal to ones fears and ignorance.....
We need leaders who think in the future, not the past.
 
The odds of Paul getting the nomination of the republican party is next to zero. The odds of Paul winning as a Libertarian or independent candidate, even smaller.
 
Well, if he ends up in office, then he will have to leave his libeterian policies, because they won't get through congress and won't be popular among ordinary people. However, I could imagine Ron Paul would do a lot more about the national debt than Obama does at the moment who is spending much more than Bush did. Right now, I think the national debt is the biggest problem.
 
Well, if he ends up in office, then he will have to leave his libeterian policies, because they won't get through congress and won't be popular among ordinary people. However, I could imagine Ron Paul would do a lot more about the national debt than Obama does at the moment who is spending much more than Bush did. Right now, I think the national debt is the biggest problem.

There is a fundamental conflict with reducing the debt and keeping policies that the general population likes.
 
There is a fundamental conflict with reducing the debt and keeping policies that the general population likes.

So should we just spend ourself into Oblivion then?

I mean, either you need to increase taxes which will remove the US advantage of beeing a low tax economy. It's also going to be a terrible left wing country. Or you reduce spending so that the country keeps its advantage, but keeps the debt down.
 
So should we just spend ourself into Oblivion then?

I did not make a recommendation either way. I was pointing out that one cannot both reduce spending to necessary levels and remain popular. Personally I think we are going to have to reduce spending to sustainable levels whether we like it or not.

I mean, either you need to increase taxes which will remove the US advantage of beeing a low tax economy. It's also going to be a terrible left wing country. Or you reduce spending so that the country keeps its advantage, but keeps the debt down.

I don't like the consequences of either option, but I think we have to either pick one or another. Either way, the older generation has pretty much screwed mine with their greed and short sightedness.
 
How can there be a "neither" choice if only two are running?
 
That option wasn't provided.
 
I don't really support Ron Paul, in fact I despise his foreign policy. However I'd rather have him in office over Obama.

Its easy to support waring all over the world when you dont have to go.

Wait what? Sympathize with nation building? My biggest beef with Paul is his stance on Israel and the War on Terror.

When did Israel become a US state?

America wasn't the only nation that believed Iraq had WMDs. We went to war while much of the world had good reason to believe that Sadam had them.

And Israel can take care of itself, but we should help them considering the Arab nationalism that wants to eradicate them.

The Israeli's took on the whole Arab world (who were all backed by the Soviet Union) before and won. Round 2 wont end as well for the Arab world as it did last time.

What is Paul's foreign policy, if any ?

Staying out of everyone else's business and not using our military to babysit our pissant allies.

Well, if he ends up in office, then he will have to leave his libeterian policies, because they won't get through congress and won't be popular among ordinary people. However, I could imagine Ron Paul would do a lot more about the national debt than Obama does at the moment who is spending much more than Bush did. Right now, I think the national debt is the biggest problem.

I rather have a president who sticks to his guns and gets nothing than someone who compromises in order to show the public he/she did something.
 
Though I'm on the left of the political spectrum, I would support Ron Paul over Pres. Obama because I feel that if Ron Paul were in office he'd actually be focused on getting things done rather than trying to appease both sides all the time. Also unlike Obama, I actually agree with Ron Paul on social issues and foreign policy, Only difference I have with him though is his stance on some domestic policies.
 
Though I'm on the left of the political spectrum, I would support Ron Paul over Pres. Obama because I feel that if Ron Paul were in office he'd actually be focused on getting things done rather than trying to appease both sides all the time. Also unlike Obama, I actually agree with Ron Paul on social issues and foreign policy, Only difference I have with him though is his stance on some domestic policies.

.... Name a single issue in which any president has ever gotten their way simply because they're focused on 'getting things done'? Even George Washington had to shut the hell up when it came to freeing slaves.
 
Though I'm on the left of the political spectrum, I would support Ron Paul over Pres. Obama because I feel that if Ron Paul were in office he'd actually be focused on getting things done rather than trying to appease both sides all the time. Also unlike Obama, I actually agree with Ron Paul on social issues and foreign policy, Only difference I have with him though is his stance on some domestic policies.

I think Obama's "getting things done" track record is actually pretty good. He just has a lot to do, but he is knocking things off the punch list.
 
.... Name a single issue in which any president has ever gotten their way simply because they're focused on 'getting things done'? Even George Washington had to shut the hell up when it came to freeing slaves.

I'm not saying that it happens like that, But with Pres. Obama it just seems as if he's not willing to take charge whenever his Republican counterparts oppose what he's trying to do. Instead of sticking to his values, he'll just give them whatever they want just so everyone can be satisfied. That type of approach is counterproductive if you ask me.
 
I think Obama's "getting things done" track record is actually pretty good. He just has a lot to do, but he is knocking things off the punch list.

Well that's your opinion but I disagree with that mainly because on most of the major issues I was hoping for him to deal with he's failed to address them (such as: Ending the War in Iraq, Repealing The Patriot Act (which now he supports by the way), Closing Guantonimo Bay etc...).
 
Well that's your opinion but I disagree with that mainly because on most of the major issues I was hoping for him to deal with he's failed to address them (such as: Ending the War in Iraq, Repealing The Patriot Act (which now he supports by the way), Closing Guantonimo Bay etc...).

The War in Iraq is winding down. He never pledged to repeal the Patriot Act, so you can't count that against (though I agree with you that it was an outrage); he is behind schedule on Guantanamo, but I do believe he is committed to getting rid of it.

He did get a new liberal justice appointed; passed health care (as watered down as it was, at least it is a bill that no other Prez could get and a big step in the right direction); he will get Wall Street reform (probably also watered down); he presided over one of the worst financial crises in US history and has generally pulled America through; he has knocked off something on the order of 15 out of the 22 Al Qaeda most wanted without starting another war to do so.... I think he is actually getting things done.
 
Back
Top Bottom