• 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
That certainly means that his VP pick has greater significance, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't run at all. A candidate should be elected on the merit of his platform.

Besides, it's unlikely that Paul would die in office, even if he were elected to two terms. The dude rides a bike ten miles a day (or so I've heard, I oughta fact-check that one).

Having a president die in office is traumatic in many ways, and it isn't something we should have to deal with if we don't have to. I would say even more worrisome than him dying in office would be if he starts to go senile. Do you really want to risk someone with senility having his finger on the button? I'm not saying he WILL go senile, but he's getting up there and it's a legitimate risk.
 
253 votes for Paul... I don't trust this poll

Well obviously it's not a scientific study. It's based on volunteers, not random sampling.
 
Ron Paul no doubt. Voted for him in my primary in 2008 will vote for him again this time....I love everything about his policies.
 
Although Paul can use his deficit hawkishness against Obama well, what will gut his support is what he wants to do or thinks at least rhetorically is fine. Suddenly the reasonable approach becomes a nightmare, as Paul is then set to explain to the American people that its course over the past several decades has been incorrect. Obama, by virtue of this will be able to look at the American people and proclaim to be defending their way of life from someone willing to take it all away. Americans have to a significant extent become used to that course, and it will be hard to get them to give that up, and Obama would use that to his every advantage.
 
Although Paul can use his deficit hawkishness against Obama well, what will gut his support is what he wants to do or thinks at least rhetorically is fine. Suddenly the reasonable approach becomes a nightmare, as Paul is then set to explain to the American people that its course over the past several decades has been incorrect. Obama, by virtue of this will be able to look at the American people and proclaim to be defending their way of life from someone willing to take it all away. Americans have to a significant extent become used to that course, and it will be hard to get them to give that up, and Obama would use that to his every advantage.

See, though, the primaries will be fought on Paul's turf. 4 years ago, nobody really cared about the Fed, the drive to limit the government to it's constitutional roots was still muted, and opposing foriegn intervention seemed retreat-ish. In 2012, the Republican debate will be about limiting government, fed by the Tea Party, focused on the destructive nature of the current policies especially QE2 and the overspending that necessitates it, and Republicans, too, are tired of the wars - especially a new one in Libya that nobody seems able to explain. Ron Paul has the ideological edge going into the Republican debates.
 
What we've got here is an elimination of social policy from the vote. An interesting exercise, but it lacks foreign policy.

Paul vs. Clinton is a more difficult decision. Neither Paul nor Obama offer me any international spine.

In either case, my fiscal conservatism is likely to win out over the (non-existant) social policy and foreign policy considerations.

1. Paul (hopefully he only closes as many bases as Obama has)... for fiscal policy.
2. Clinton... for international spine (and cause I'm fem like dat).
3. Obama... because he was in the poll.
4. A green, libertarian, female, non-incumbent hawk... wish vote.
 
Last edited:
I disagree strongly with Ron Paul; but at least he has a foriegn policy.

As opposed to Obama, who had one; pfft, big diff.
 
Last edited:
Well obviously it's not a scientific study. It's based on volunteers, not random sampling.

It seems like too much for this board, but then I realized this poll is a year old
 
Back
Top Bottom