• 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!

Will you vote for Paul or Obama?

Ron Paul or Obama?

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 36 50.0%

  • Obama

    Votes: 36 50.0%
  • Total voters
    72
I would welcome the GOP nominating Ron Paul and would love to see it happen.

I also would like it to hit 85 degrees here in Michigan today.

The second has a better chance of happening than the first. And the results would be much more pleasant.
 
Every time I watch a debate or read articles about the current Republican candidates I think, "Here comes the circus."

I see them all rolling up to the entrance of the debate hall in a vintage Volks Beetle, piling out one after the other in full clown dress and makeup.

I started voting in the mid 60's. I voted Republican for most of my life...well, until my fellow Texan, GWB...and have since lost total respect for both the party and the ideological transitions that now drive so many members.

I'll burn another vote in November and pull the tab for a candidate that won't have a snowball's chance in hell - the Libertarian Candidate.
 
digsbe said:
I dislike Obama, but I would vote for him if the other option was Paul. I agree with Your Star in that I think his foreign policy is insane and his cut backs to government are dangerous.
Click to expand...

He's too much of an idealist. Cutting these departments sounds fine, but it's not like he'll have dictatorial power to just do what he wants. There's a little thing in his way called Congress. A President needs to be a pragmatist in order to get things done. This is where Obama's been ineffective, he's not a pragmatist and Paul is even less of a pragmatist.
 
Symphony said:
If Ron Paul became the GOP nom. Who would you rather vote for?
Click to expand...

He won't. Under such a hypothetical scenario, I'd vote for the President. I could not support a candidate who would deliberately sacrifice the nation's interests, allies, trade agreements, central bank, etc. for purposes of pursuing an ideological crusade. Without doubt, fiscal consolidation will be required in the years ahead. That will require a more focused, efficient, and effective government. Some programs and services will likely need to be reduced/eliminated. That's still far from Paul's approach of wanting to radically scale back the government, as well as largely offload programs such as Medicaid on fiscally-challenged states. No modern economy can function without a central bank, yet Paul wants to eliminate the Fed. Finally, Paul failed the leadership test during the financial crisis. He opposed TARP, but provided no substantive alternatives to prevent a systemic meltdown of the nation's banking system. He had no solutions. For all his imperfections, the President would be a vastly better choice than Paul.
 
American said:
When Obama let's Iran obtain a nuke, will you finally get it?
Click to expand...
NO
When Iran leaves the stone age and does have a nuclear bomb as do many other nations, they will in all likelihood realize how paranoid and silly they are and just scrap it, as will other nations ...
In other words ....give peace a chance, conservatives !
 
Wessexman said:
How many nukes does America have? How many will Iran have? Do you think it is likely they will nuke you?
Click to expand...

No they won't and the idea that they would is absurd. As far as I am aware they don't have a delivery system that would make it possible even if they had a nuke.

The US has enough nukes to wipeout mankind. If Americans are truly concerned about Iran nuking America then wouldn't make sense to take away the motivation? Why not just leave the region and stay the hell out of the affairs of governments and people in the Middle East? Obama doesn't seem to be interested in doing that.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The US has enough nukes to wipeout mankind. If Americans are truly concerned about Iran nuking America then wouldn't make sense to take away the motivation? Why not just leave the region and stay the hell out of the affairs of governments and people in the Middle East? Obama doesn't seem to be interested in doing that.
Click to expand...

Uh...yeah...I don't feel like paying 7 bucks a gallon at the pump. Furthermore, while I am against America exporting its morality to those who don't want it, neither am I interested in seeing Sharia law being imposed in any major nation on Earth, nor am I interested in giving OPEC absolute control over an entire industry in which demand is about as inelastic as you can get.

Whether you are religious or not, leaving Israel alone amongst a bunch of zealous savages is spelling disaster in reaches far beyond the immediate region.
 
Gardener said:
Ron Paul would be an unmitigated disaster.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. He would suck in a lot of areas. But voting for someone who MIGHT be an unmitigated disaster when he's running against someone who ALREADY is an unmitigated disaster is a no brainer. LOL. The devil you know is not always better than the devil you don't.

I think foreign policy and border security would suffer under Paul... but both are already suffering tremendously under Obama. Some say Ron Paul is racist... I would argue that so is Obama.

I think Paul would benefit the country by concentrating on the individual person rather than the collective whole- I just don't think he would be worse than Obama at anything. Hell, I don't think Justin Bieber would be any worse than Obama.
 
Obama. While I don't see any vast improvement from Obama's first term, he hasn't made things worse than they were towards the end of Bush's second term. I just don't see how anything Ron Paul proposes makes things better either here in America domestically or by our role and obligation on the international stage. America doesn't exist in a vaccum, and we need to be proactive with other countries whether it's simple negotiations/alliances or more aggressive tactics in dealing with our enemies and enemies of our allies.
 
Gipper said:
Whether you are religious or not, leaving Israel alone amongst a bunch of zealous savages is spelling disaster in reaches far beyond the immediate region.
Click to expand...

Israel has nuclear weapons of its own. They don't advertise it because they think it's in their advantage to play it closer to their chest. If Iran gets a nuke, Israel can defend themselves.

Besides, this line is hilarious. Which President has been able to stop the tide of proliferation? Need I remind Conservatives who was President when North Korea got theirs?
 
Last edited:
Obama. But this isn't really fair, he's also my pick against Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and, especially, Rick Santorum. I despise his ideas, but I appreciate Ron Paul for being consistent and driven by a set of ideas and not what's most electable (like the piece of plastic that is the GOP frontrunner).

Jon Huntsman would make me think long and hard, but I will be spared that by the GOP's refusal to nominate a moderate.
 
haymarket said:
I would welcome the GOP nominating Ron Paul and would love to see it happen.

I also would like it to hit 85 degrees here in Michigan today.

The second has a better chance of happening than the first. And the results would be much more pleasant.
Click to expand...

If they did it would mean a change in the thoughts of people, especially if he gets the youth vote. Are you sure you want to wish for that?
 
Henrin said:
If they did it would mean a change in the thoughts of people, especially if he gets the youth vote. Are you sure you want to wish for that?
Click to expand...

I find this to be such an odd claim. The "youth". What "youth" are you people talking about? The only "youth" that like Paul are kids like Ikari(who in all fairness is around my age) and Empirica. If that is the "youth" that Paul is supposed to get, I feel safe in saying that Obama has very little to be worried about. Rabidly anti-government Libertarians and their zealously homophobic home schooled brethren aren't the norm amongst our youth.
 
Last edited:
WI Crippler said:
Obama. While I don't see any vast improvement from Obama's first term, he hasn't made things worse than they were towards the end of Bush's second term. I just don't see how anything Ron Paul proposes makes things better either here in America domestically or by our role and obligation on the international stage. America doesn't exist in a vaccum, and we need to be proactive with other countries whether it's simple negotiations/alliances or more aggressive tactics in dealing with our enemies and enemies of our allies.
Click to expand...
I can understand some limited interest to shore up your interests and support your allies, but doesn't being proactive just cause as many problems, through the inevitable and continuous unintended consequences it throws up, as being totally non-intervention? It is not as if being proactive simply solves the foreign problems, it is basically out of the frying pan and into the fire. Doesn't the last decade show that being proactive is often not a good idea?
 
Depends on the presidential debates. As of right now, Ron Paul.
 
Hatuey said:
I find this to be such an odd claim. The "youth". What "youth" are you people talking about? The only "youth" that like Paul are kids like Ikari(who in all fairness is around my age) and Empirica. If that is the "youth" that Paul is supposed to get, I feel safe in saying that Obama has very little to be worried about. Rabidly anti-government Libertarians and their zealously homophobic home schooled brethren aren't the norm amongst our youth.
Click to expand...

His biggest voting block is college kids. I'm not pretending there is enough college kids that would vote for Paul out there to win the election, or even the primary, but if Haymarkets desire is to come true it would show a bigger tide than anyone is aware of in that age group. This would be exactly what people like Haymarket don't want as it would be a sign the future of democrats is not the youth vote.
 
Last edited:
Symphony said:
If Ron Paul became the GOP nom. Who would you rather vote for?
Click to expand...

If Paul were the GOP nominee, I would vote for Obama. If Paul were a third party nominee, I would vote for Paul. The Republican Party is sold out to big Corporate. Big Corporate does not represent America.
 
Henrin said:
His biggest voting block is college kids.
Click to expand...

Yes. Right wing leaning college kids voting in Republican primaries. Hardly a majority in either the Republican party or the US as a whole. So you might as well trumpet another useless statistics.
 
Hatuey said:
Yes. Right wing leaning college kids voting in Republican primaries. Hardly a majority in either the Republican party or the US as a whole. So you might as well trumpet another useless statistics.
Click to expand...

Ahem...

The group that is experiencing the most growth with college kids is libertarians. History HAS shown this kind of growth pattern in the past with other groups and you can guess where it ended some years later.
 
Last edited:
My answer is obvious.

 
Henrin said:
Ahem...

The group that is experiencing the most growth with college kids is libertarians. History HAS shown this kind of growth pattern in the past with other groups and you can guess where it ended some years later.
Click to expand...

Another useless and unverified statistic. When campus groups are almost evenly divided between Democrats/Republicans or Liberal/Conservatives, claiming that Libertarians are growing quickly is about as meaningful as saying that you're also a growing vocal group on the internet. You're going to have to do a lot better than baseless claims and useless statistics to show me that Libertarians are anything other than a vocal (and annoying) minority pretending they're the new voice of who knows what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom