• 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!

Who would do best against Obama in a debate?

Is there a poll here somewhere?

No it's just put in the poll area to fool us. Newt would do a decent job. Paul would as well though his delivery when he talks has that "exasperated" whiny tone to it so it's difficult for listeners (including myself) to get past that -even when he makes very good points. Romney I think would also do very well - if healthcare is the only issue to be worried about, that won't be a problem.
 
Pardon my Naiveté

When someone says Obama is 'stupid' as in unintelligent... I go:

"....are they a psychotic fundamentalist?"

As if we weren't talking about the same person. I dont know of anything that has ever qualified Obama as being dumb. Does anyone have examples?

Good ones?
 
Out of all the Republicans who might run for president in 2012, which do you think would perform best against Obama in a standard format debate?

By best, do you mean getting the facts straight and disproving arguments/positions or making the most appealing logical fallacies?
 
Ron Paul. Doesn't carry the baggage the other Republicans carry and is overall a smart guy.

Yeah, the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's somebody's crazy uncle.
 
Last edited:
Romney-he's much smarter than Obama, has had more government experience and he has two things Obama doesn't have-
1) successful business experience
2) He got into Harvard Law based on his record, not his race

You're so hypocritical. Without any evidence you say Obama got into Harvard because of his race but will ignore the son of a rich politician getting into Harvard when it suits you.
 
One - President Obama's intelligence is only your opinion, which in my mind, is worthless.
Two - a very serious accusation, if this is true.
Can you prove it?
Correct me if I am wrong, but is this the same Romney associated with American Motors?

yeah I can prove it.

Obama has not released his record at columbia but he didn't even make honors (Cum Laude) which at the time was a GPA between 3.2 and 3.4. He thus had under a 3.2. I applied to all the major law schools and as a Yale Undergraduate, I knew that white males who did not have at least a 3.7 had less than a ten percent chance at admission into harvard law and that was with the sort of board scores I had (which was 782 on the the then 800 scale). A white male with under a 3.2 at Columbia getting into Harvard law was unheard of -that would not get you into the schools ranked right below Harvard either (Duke, Penn, Cornell, NYU, UVA, Columbia).

SO its almost certain that Obama's race got him into Harvard.

Romney went to stanford where he was top of his class. He took a leave of absence for mission work and then married and moved to Utah where he enrolled in BYU and graduated FIRST in his class. His academic record was consistent with those I knew at top law schools.
 
yeah I can prove it.

Obama has not released his record at columbia but he didn't even make honors (Cum Laude) which at the time was a GPA between 3.2 and 3.4.

That is false.

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery - September 2, 2008 - The New York Sun

Mr. Miller acknowledged that Mr. Obama displayed academic achievement at Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. Still, Mr. Miller said, he would like to see information about how Mr. Obama performed in various subjects at Columbia.

That view is not shared by other election observers, including some who have themselves indulged the public's interest in candidates' academic records. One of them is Geoffrey Kabaservice, a political historian who in 2000 published Senator Bradley's relatively low score of 485 on the verbal SAT. Mr. Bradley, a Rhodes Scholar who was a star basketball player at Princeton, was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Barack Obama | World news | guardian.co.uk

[U]At the age of 27, Obama was accepted to Harvard University's law school, where he graduated magna cum laude - with great honours - and was elected president of the Harvard Law Review, responsible for editing US jurisprudence's most prestigious publication. [/U]He was the first African-American to hold the post, and the resulting publicity brought with it a book deal, which resulted in the publication of Dreams From My Father. The book is remarkable for its candour and insight - revealing not only Obama's complex family tree but also his use of marijuana and cocaine as a student.

Graduating from Harvard, Obama returned to teach at the University of Chicago and work for a law firm specialising in civil rights. He met and married a fellow lawyer, Michelle Robinson, and they have two daughters together - Malia and Natasha. By 1996 he had been elected to the Illinois state senate, and was ready for greater things. In 2000 he made a misguided bid to win the nomination for a safe congressional seat but was decisively defeated by veteran incumbent Bobby Rush. "It was a race in which everything that could go wrong did go wrong," he recounted in his second book, The Audacity of Hope, published last year.

Please stop? The very basic facts of your argument are completely wrong. I mean obviously Obama, who graduate Magna Cum Laude in Harvard, would not have been able to achieve the same thing at a lower level.
 
Last edited:

you are wrong, what he did at Harvard bears no RELEVANCE as to how he got in. My frosh roommate was #1 in his class at the best prep school in the USA, had PERFECT board scores earned at age 13, and won a national (MAA) math test with the then highest score in history. He had an IQ reputed to be higher than Michael Rhode who is a grandmaster in chess. He flunked out of Yale due to drug issues Was Yale wrong in admitting him? of course not but Obama did not make honors at columbia. Being black was his main reason for acceptance

Obama's Lost Years - WSJ.com

He got a degree in political science without honors
 
Oh btw Hatuey, remind me about your applications to top 5 law schools. The year I applied to the big name l law schools I would note that the top scoring black accepted at yale Law school was two deviations in GPA and LSAT below a group of white applicants that had a 15% acceptance rate
 
you are wrong, what he did at Harvard bears no RELEVANCE as to how he got in.

Only it does. A person doesn't simply get better in their academic career if they have been helped through the early years of said academic career and you know this.

My frosh roommate was #1 in his class at the best prep school in the USA, had PERFECT board scores earned at age 13, and won a national (MAA) math test with the then highest score in history. He had an IQ reputed to be higher than Michael Rhode who is a grandmaster in chess. He flunked out of Yale due to drug issues Was Yale wrong in admitting him? of course not but Obama did not make honors at columbia. Being black was his main reason for acceptance

Only that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a person who you claim couldn't possibly have graduated Magna Cum Laude at a lower level of education and managed to do just that at a much higher level. Do you understand the difference? Your junkie friend had the grades to go into a good school and flunked out AFTER. As opposed to Obama who graduated with distinction AFTER. See the difference yet?

Obama's Lost Years - WSJ.com

He got a degree in political science without honors

This same old WSJ article. Do you have ANY evidence that he didn't actually have the grades to get into Harvard? Other then supposition? Because that will end the argument really fast.
 
Only it does. A person doesn't simply get better in their academic career if they have been helped through the early years of said academic career and you know this.



Only that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a person who you claim couldn't possibly have graduated Magna Cum Laude at a lower level of education and managed to do just that at a much higher level. Do you understand the difference? Your junkie friend had the grades to go into a good school and flunked out AFTER. As opposed to Obama who graduated with distinction AFTER. See the difference yet?



This same old WSJ article. Do you have ANY evidence that he didn't actually have the grades to get into Harvard? Other then supposition? Because that will end the argument really fast.

THE LSAT and undergraduate GPA are still the best predictors of how one will do in law school. SInce you obviously have no personal experience with applying to or getting into top law schools you are spewing BS based on your desire to defend Obama and ignore the fact that most blacks who are accepted into top law schools would not be accepted if they were white or Asian and had the same score.

http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/issues/archive/v75/75_2/Rothstein75-2.pdf

Nearly two-thirds
of black law students—including nearly all of the less qualified students
who would bear the brunt of any mismatch effects—would not
have attended law school at all without affirmative action. Preferences
are even more important at the most selective law schools, where black
enrollment would decline by 90 percent under race-blind admission

oops
 
Yeah, the only baggage he has is that 99% of the country thinks he's somebody's crazy uncle.
99% of the people you know ≠ 99% of the country.
 
Oh btw Hatuey, remind me about your applications to top 5 law schools. The year I applied to the big name l law schools I would note that t his he top scoring black accepted at yale Law school was two deviations in GPA and LSAT below a group of white applicants that had a 15% acceptance rate
You know as well as I do his melanin would get him in, but his brain wouldn't keep him there. We both saw it happen.
 
99% of the people you know ≠ 99% of the country.

I don't know how old you are but in 1972 a bimbette was heard to exclaim

HOW DID NIXON WIN-EVERYONE I KNOW voted for McGovern!!!
 
Pardon my Naiveté

When someone says Obama is 'stupid' as in unintelligent... I go:

"....are they a psychotic fundamentalist?"

As if we weren't talking about the same person. I dont know of anything that has ever qualified Obama as being dumb. Does anyone have examples?

Good ones?

I'm not saying he is dumb, but there was a rather funny incident on St. Patrick's day when he and the Prime Minister of Ireland accidentally read each other's speech and Obama ended up thanking himself.
 
The only one of the current front runners that would stand a chance in a debate with Obama is Romney
 
The only one of the current front runners that would stand a chance in a debate with Obama is Romney

who do you consider front runners now?

I would note that very few of the "front runners" 2 years out make it to the ticket


Who thought Clinton was a front runner in 1990? Obama in 2006? Dukakis in 1988
 
who do you consider front runners now?

I would note that very few of the "front runners" 2 years out make it to the ticket


Who thought Clinton was a front runner in 1990? Obama in 2006? Dukakis in 1988

Obama and Dukakis were definitely front runners two years in....Clinton definitely not.

Front runners in the GOP: Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Palin.

The only one electable is Romney....but I personally don't think the base will stomach a Mormon.
 
Obama and Dukakis were definitely front runners two years in....Clinton definitely not.

Front runners in the GOP: Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee, Palin.

The only one electable is Romney....but I personally don't think the base will stomach a Mormon.

good response

Huckabee's a clown-no chance. The people who run the party and support it financially realize he's a lightweight, same with Palin. Gingrich pisses too many people off. He comes off as arrogant to average people

Romney is not liked by his competition-Rudy and McCain hated him. He has it all, from being better looking, smarter, better educated, richer and unlike Newt and McCain and Rudy, he is not particularly vulnerable on the family values hypocrisy charge unlike them.

Pawlenty is a contender, and there are some others who I think will rise above Newt , Huckabee and Palin

I am agnostic and I find alot of the Morman doctrine Nutty. But I laugh myself silly listening to bible thumpers bash Mormons. I heard one claim "HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT AN ANGEL GAVE JOSEPH SMITH SOME GOLD TABLETS"

well damn, I guess if I believe some guy could hang on a cross for three days, get speared through his chest and then push a boulder a ton or two after being dead, I probably could believe an angel could give a guy those tablets.
 
good response

Huckabee's a clown-no chance. The people who run the party and support it financially realize he's a lightweight, same with Palin. Gingrich pisses too many people off. He comes off as arrogant to average people

Romney is not liked by his competition-Rudy and McCain hated him. He has it all, from being better looking, smarter, better educated, richer and unlike Newt and McCain and Rudy, he is not particularly vulnerable on the family values hypocrisy charge unlike them.

Pawlenty is a contender, and there are some others who I think will rise above Newt , Huckabee and Palin

I am agnostic and I find alot of the Morman doctrine Nutty. But I laugh myself silly listening to bible thumpers bash Mormons. I heard one claim "HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT AN ANGEL GAVE JOSEPH SMITH SOME GOLD TABLETS"

well damn, I guess if I believe some guy could hang on a cross for three days, get speared through his chest and then push a boulder a ton or two after being dead, I probably could believe an angel could give a guy those tablets.

I agree....I think if the GOP is going to win, it is going to have to be an unknown. Personally, I would love to see Romney get nominated. I would even consider voting for him, because I respect his record on economics.
 
I agree....I think if the GOP is going to win, it is going to have to be an unknown. Personally, I would love to see Romney get nominated. I would even consider voting for him, because I respect his record on economics.

I like him-one of my friends has a son who was a high ranking operative for Romney. From what I was told Romney pulled the plug when he got an expensive polling report that noted too many of the born again braindead would not vote for him despite agreeing with him on almost every issue over Clinton (who was the leader at the time he threw in the towel)
 
I like him-one of my friends has a son who was a high ranking operative for Romney. From what I was told Romney pulled the plug when he got an expensive polling report that noted too many of the born again braindead would not vote for him despite agreeing with him on almost every issue over Clinton (who was the leader at the time he threw in the towel)

That's the big problem I have with those in control of the GOP today. Its going to be difficult for a truly good candidate to get the GOP nod, without cowtowing to the right-wing and agreeing to advance their wacky radical social agenda. Run a true small government fiscal conservative that isn't going to give in to the big government agenda of the right-wing and the GOP might actually win.
 
It depends what you mean by "doing best." Do you mean winning the crowd over, or do you mean winning on substantive measures? If you mean the former, probably Mike Huckabee. He is a genuinely likeable guy who speaks softly and generally has sensible viewpoints (even when I disagree with them). If you mean the latter, probably Mitt Romney. He is by far the smartest of the main Republican contenders. Ron Paul is a scary extremist, and Sarah Palin is flat-out stupid.

If we're including other potential dark-horse contenders...Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie know their stuff and would probably do well in a debate. John Boehner and Jim DeMint are idiots and would get pulverized.

How is Ron Paul a scary extremist? What idea of his is scary to you?
 
There are no real challengers to that from the republicans.. Obama is an intellectual and republican leaders look pretty shallow from what I can see. ATM I don't see anyone except maybe ron paul. But libertarians are really hurting on the actual reality of what they are proposing. ron paul is prolly the best they can muster.
 
That's the big problem I have with those in control of the GOP today. Its going to be difficult for a truly good candidate to get the GOP nod, without cowtowing to the right-wing and agreeing to advance their wacky radical social agenda. Run a true small government fiscal conservative that isn't going to give in to the big government agenda of the right-wing and the GOP might actually win.

That will be tough to do as long as neoconservatives continue to run the GOP
 
Back
Top Bottom