• 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!

Perry and Paul: Texas-Sized Feud?

Cold Highway said:
Yet in your previous post you call Paul a liberal. :roll:
Click to expand...


Really ??? Is it you just can't read, or can't comprehend ?? I called Perry and Romney liberals ... . there was no mention of Paul
 
Ikari said:
That's more like Ron Paul. Sadly because he does stick to his guns and principles and doesn't lie about what he wants to do; the press will never give him an honest go.
Click to expand...

RP is as dishonest as the rest. He writes OPs about how businesses shouldn't take money from the Federal Govt because it will lead them into becoming dependent on the govt and then the Feds will control their business. Meanwhile, he's lobbying the Federal govt to give stimulus money to a bunch of businesses
 
sangha said:
RP is as dishonest as the rest.... Meanwhile, he's lobbying the Federal govt to give stimulus money to a bunch of businesses
Click to expand...

For my sake, would you be willing to lead me to a link of where I can confirm Paul's support for loose monetary policy?
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul is a pro-palestinian libertarian who has aboslutely no shot at the nomination and should never be compared to Governor Perry -- who is a serious candidate for not only the nomination but the presidency as well.
 
sangha said:
IDK what you mean by "loose monetary policy"

on edit: Here's a link to a letter signed by Ron Paul asking for stim $$

http://www.publicintegrity.org/proj...rs/texas/transpo/TX - McCaul, Olson, Paul.pdf

Here's a link to an article about it
Texas lawmakers opposed stimulus — but later sought money` | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog
Click to expand...

It seems that the Gulf Coast Rail District, for whom Paul wrote the letter for, is a government controlled "company" which services the rails in that part of Texas. Not quite the "give stimulus money to a bunch of businesses" as you claim.
 
Rawhide said:
who is a serious candidate for not only the nomination but the presidency as well.
Click to expand...

And maybe a bit insane. Also, didn't he execute an innocent man and then when there was an investigation, fired the people in charge and replaced them with his cronies? I suppose if you want government as usual, Perry is your man.
 
Ikari said:
And maybe a bit insane. Also, didn't he execute an innocent man and then when there was an investigation, fired the people in charge and replaced them with his cronies? I suppose if you want government as usual, Perry is your man.
Click to expand...

Perry isn't my man, but that is besides the point really. The fact remains that despite the attempts of the left and libertarians to paint the Governor as unelectable, we know from polling data and pure electoral common sense that he is a much more serious political force than Ron Paul when it comes to this primary and the upcoming general election as well.
 
Rawhide said:
Ron Paul is a pro-palestinian libertarian who has aboslutely no shot at the nomination and should never be compared to Governor Perry -- who is a serious candidate for not only the nomination but the presidency as well.
Click to expand...

Perry will give us 4 more years of Obama. the guy is an empty suit
 
ARealConservative said:
Perry will give us 4 more years of Obama. the guy is an empty suit
Click to expand...

Says who? I wouldn't like to see Perry get the nomination, but for one to suggest that Ron Paul has more of a chance of winning the general election shows a lack of common political knowledge. The guy isn't even popular in his own party let alone the rest of the nation.
 
Rawhide said:
Says who? I wouldn't like to see Perry get the nomination, but for one to suggest that Ron Paul has more of a chance of winning the general election shows a lack of common political knowledge. The guy isn't even popular in his own party let alone the rest of the nation.
Click to expand...

Paul is a long shot in the republican primary, but polls show he is stronger among democrats and independents.

Perry is a fraud. the more people learn of that guy, the less support he will have.
 
Your logic is flawed. Sure he may have stronger support than Perry among democrats and independents but that support surely isn't as strong as Obama's, which is all that will matter in a general election. Not only is Paul a long shot in this primary, he will not be able to get the conservative base out in November and will easily lose democrats and independents to Obama. Thus he has virtually no chance in this race and should not be compared to serious candidates like Perry, Romney, etc.
 
ARealConservative said:
Paul is a long shot in the republican primary, but polls show he is stronger among democrats and independents.

Perry is a fraud. the more people learn of that guy, the less support he will have.
Click to expand...

If by some magical windfall of luck, Paul got the GOP nomination; I'd vote for him. He is likely the only Republican candidate on the field right now that I could vote for.
 
All this talking of who can't even win the primary is very goofy. Really, Perry is the best candidate to win the primary? To me, he looks like Bush 2.0, except that Bush was actually articulate and had good ideas during the election. It was only later that his ineptitude shone through... Perry doesn't look good at all, and as such should be squashed. If he wins the primary, it will be a giant landslide and I highly doubt Perry would reach double-digits in amount of states

John McCain was a total long-shot in 2007, flying coach and equipped with next to no staff. There were plenty of people laughing at the idea that McCain could ever get the nomination, while Giuliani and Romney were considered favorites.

Obama was less of a long-shot, but definitely an under-dog. Everyone basically assumed Hillary would get the election, and she didn't

My point is it's way too early to be making these calls on winners and losers. For all we know, Jon Hunstman could come out of the ashes and become a front-runner. Don't base your political judgements on winnability in the primaries, base them on the candidates. Right now, to me, the best primary candidates are Ron Paul, Herman Cain, or Jon Hunstman

Perry and Bachmaan are liars but even more importantly, nuts
 
Last edited:
Rawhide said:
Perry isn't my man, but that is besides the point really. The fact remains that despite the attempts of the left and libertarians to paint the Governor as unelectable, we know from polling data and pure electoral common sense that he is a much more serious political force than Ron Paul when it comes to this primary and the upcoming general election as well.
Click to expand...

I know from uncommon judgement that he is an empty suit with bad ideas and a complete lack of any discernable skill. He is not charismatic or articulate, he is not experienced, and his record is absent of decisiveness and real leadership

Perry likely won't win the primaries, and if he did he'd get squashed by Obama in the Presidential election. RP on other hand is articulate, very experienced, has new and controversial ideas that challenge the status quo, and is the Godfather of the Tea Party to which he has shown real leadership. He is a million times more electable
 
Ikari said:
If by some magical windfall of luck, Paul got the GOP nomination; I'd vote for him. He is likely the only Republican candidate on the field right now that I could vote for.
Click to expand...

That's nice.
 
Tubub said:
I know from uncommon judgement that he is an empty suit with bad ideas and a complete lack of any discernable skill. He is not charismatic or articulate, he is not experienced, and his record is absent of decisiveness and real leadership

Perry likely won't win the primaries, and if he did he'd get squashed by Obama in the Presidential election. RP on other hand is articulate, very experienced, has new and controversial ideas that challenge the status quo, and is the Godfather of the Tea Party to which he has shown real leadership. He is a million times more electable
Click to expand...

Wrong. RP is nowhere near as electable as Perry. As I already explained he wont be able to get the conservative base out and he will lose independents and democrats to Obama by tenfold. All this talk about being articulate and experienced virtually means nothing -- we on the right got former President Bush elected even though he could barely speak English at the time, but had the support of his party and independents.
 
Rawhide said:
Your logic is flawed. Sure he may have stronger support than Perry among democrats and independents but that support surely isn't as strong as Obama's, which is all that will matter in a general election. Not only is Paul a long shot in this primary, he will not be able to get the conservative base out in November and will easily lose democrats and independents to Obama. Thus he has virtually no chance in this race and should not be compared to serious candidates like Perry, Romney, etc.
Click to expand...

my logic matches poll results. Ron Paul does quite well in a head to head with Obama.

Perry will have plenty of problems with the base as well. they aren't too keen on mandatory vaccinations, increased taxes, and touting all the new government jobs as some sort of victory for employment numbers, not to mention his views in Hillary Care.

People that liked Bush may in fact love Perry, but those numbers are not strong enough to win a general election.

I think the GOP is in trouble because they refuse to fall back away from their failed policy on the war on terror.
 
Rawhide said:
We on the right got former President Bush elected even though he could barely speak English at the time, but had the support of his party and independents.
Click to expand...

And Bush left office with something like a 28% approval rating. That means almost 3 out of every 4 people disapproved of Bush by 2008. So we're going to fight Obama with Bush 2.0 because Bush got elected years ago? Bush would not get elected today, not even close. He won by shoddy terms in 2000, and mostly because he was fortunate to have a Presidential family, respectable people like Cheney and other Conservative names support him because of his father, and an amazing campaigner in the form of Karl Rove. Without these, McCain would've run over Bush.

Perry lacks all of the above.

Raw Hide said:
Wrong. RP is nowhere near as electable as Perry. As I already explained he wont be able to get the conservative base out and he will lose independents and democrats to Obama by tenfold.
Click to expand...

Enough talk about the base. One of McCain's biggest mistakes long-term was kissing the base, kissing the base. If the Conservative base wants to vote for Obama over Ron Paul, they can go right ahead; the fight is for independents and moderates, and RP blows Perry out of the water on that.

The only thing Perry has is the theocratic crowd, which is a sub-group of the base. He will lose horrifically against Obama, and I highly doubt get the nomination. He is a giant charading clown

Raw Hide said:
All this talk about being articulate and experienced virtually means nothing --
Click to expand...
This is really dumb. Of course experience and being articulate means something. Maybe not in the short-term fix, but if they're inarticulate and have little applicable experience they will be trumped as time goes on.

Perry won't make it because there is no way he can realistically beat Obama
 
Last edited:
Tubub said:
And Bush left office with something like a 28% approval rating. That means almost 3 out of every 4 people disapproved of Bush by 2008. So we're going to fight Obama with Bush 2.0 because Bush got elected years ago? Bush would not get elected today, not even close. He won by shoddy terms in 2000, and mostly because he was fortunate to have a Presidential family, respectable people like Cheney and other Conservative names support him because of his father, and an amazing campaigner in the form of Karl Rove. Without these, McCain would've run over Bush.

Perry lacks all of the above.



Enough talk about the base. One of McCain's biggest mistakes long-term was kissing the base, kissing the base. If the Conservative base wants to vote for Obama over Ron Paul, they can go right ahead; the fight is for independents and moderates, and RP blows Perry out of the water on that.

The only thing Perry has is the theocratic crowd, which is a sub-group of the base. He will lose horrifically against Obama, and I highly doubt get the nomination. He is a giant charading clown

This is really dumb. Of course experience and being articulate means something. Maybe not in the short-term fix, but if they're inarticulate and have little applicable experience they will be trumped as time goes on.

Perry won't make it because there is no way he can realistically beat Obama
Click to expand...

Perry wins the Republican primary (thats a given) would you support him in the general election?

Why or why not, Tububby?
 
Tubub said:
And Bush left office with something like a 28% approval rating. That means almost 3 out of every 4 people disapproved of Bush by 2008. So we're going to fight Obama with Bush 2.0 because Bush got elected years ago? Bush would not get elected today, not even close. He won by shoddy terms in 2000, and mostly because he was fortunate to have a Presidential family, respectable people like Cheney and other Conservative names support him because of his father, and an amazing campaigner in the form of Karl Rove. Without these, McCain would've run over Bush.
Click to expand...

I'm not exactly arguing that Bush would get elected today. Unlike Bush, Perry's image has yet to be tarnished by a liberal mainstream media. Unlike Bush today, Perry could very well get the support of the millions of independents and centrist Democrats who are fleeing the Obama camp every day. It's silly to suggest that Perry has no shot this early in the election season and especially when this President continues to drop in approval ratings. And especially when you guys cant even hold onto a liberal congressional seat in New York. Hell, at this rate, Perry could very well be a shoe-in.

Enough talk about the base. One of McCain's biggest mistakes long-term was kissing the base, kissing the base. If the Conservative base wants to vote for Obama over Ron Paul, they can go right ahead; the fight is for independents and moderates, and RP blows Perry out of the water on that.

The only thing Perry has is the theocratic crowd, which is a sub-group of the base. He will lose horrifically against Obama, and I highly doubt get the nomination. He is a giant charading clown.
Click to expand...

Wrong. McCain made the mistake of not kissing the base soon enough. As you may recall, when McCain chose Palin as his running mate his poll numbers actually increased by a significant amount. It surely wasn't enough to compete with the historic and unprecedented campaign the Democrats were running but I would note that going to the base actually helped the Senator from Arizona. RP simply would not be able to muster enough grassroots support from the Republican base to beat the President. He would lose miserably.
 
Last edited:
Rawhide said:
I'm not exactly arguing that Bush would get elected today. Unlike Bush, Perry's image has yet to be tarnished by a liberal mainstream media. Unlike Bush today, Perry could very well get the support of the millions of independents and centrist Democrats who are fleeing the Obama camp every day. It's silly to suggest that Perry has no shot this early in the election season and especially when this President continues to drop in approval ratings. And especially when you guys cant even hold onto a liberal congressional seat in New York. Hell, at this rate, Perry could very well be a shoe-in.
Click to expand...

"You guys". I'm a Californian Republican, so stop acting like I'm anything else. I never said Obama couldn't be beaten, I said Perry wasn't the man that could do it. Why? Because he's a complete goof. I agree, it's too early in the election season to call any absolutes, whatsoever, especially ones based on polls or any of the likes.

All I said was that he is incompetent, and unless he miraculously becomes somewhat electable he will lose based on that incompetence. No matter what you may personally think, Obama's approval ratings are not dismal and he has had many successes during his Presidency. A guy like Perry would tank in the election, even if he could somehow squeezed through the primaries

If the Republican Party nominates Perry, 2012 will be a slaughter year


Wrong. McCain made the mistake of not kissing the base soon enough. As you may recall, when McCain chose Palin as his running mate his poll numbers actually increased by a significant amount. It surely wasn't enough to compete with the historic and unprecedented campaign the Democrats were running but I would note that going to the base actually helped the Senator from Arizona. RP simply would not be able to muster enough grassroots support from the Republican base to beat the President. He would lose miserably.
Click to expand...

Palin was a mistake. She added "energy" for a while, and pushed numbers up for a couple of months(hence my phrase "short-term fix") but as time wore on it was clear she was prone to many gaffes and was very silly and inexperienced. McCain's strategy aimed at latching on to Bush supporters, which turned out to be the wrong approach since by the time the election came around Bush virtually had no supporters. McCain should've run like he did in 2000, a Maverick. IF he had taken the risk of being outspoken AGAINST certain failed Bush policies and distanced himself from Bush, there wouldn't have been the "McSame" campaign.

The horrible Bush ratings MAY not have transferred over to the McCain camp like they inevitably did in '08
 
Is there such a thing as a Californian Republican?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom