• 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
I just don't think that a man who would be 76 on inauguration day is a good choice to be president.

With any luck, Sarah Palin will be VP.

So long as Obama doesn't get in, the Mayor will contentn with Moe, Curly, Larry, his koi, his parrot, the Powerpuff Girls, anyone who isn't as plainly dedicated to the destruction of the United States as Obama is.
 
I will vote for Ron Paul if Donald Trump doesn't run. I am determined to vote for a trouble maker.The more fearless the better.
 
Mainly because he seems to be in favor of extreme free market principles, he seems to almost be a border line objectivist...

Not Objectivist, but Austrian.
 
I just don't think that a man who would be 76 on inauguration day is a good choice to be president.

.....coming from someone who willingly and knowingly elected a 143 day Senator with a 5 min career and a 5 second resume.
.
.
.
.
 
If the 2012 Election was today, and Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, would you vote him into office?

Or........

Would you re-elect Barack Obama?

Who would you vote for and why?

we could survive 4 years of Ron Paul with our national fisc. in order. our foriegn policy would suffer, but we would retain the economic base of power necessary to reassert it once he left.

another 4 years of this administration, however, will leave us crippled for a long, long time. we will not be able to project power overseas because we will have no power to project. we will be bankrupt.
 
.....coming from someone who willingly and knowingly elected a 143 day Senator with a 5 min career and a 5 second resume.

precisely. this isn't a question of who would be wonderful for the US, it's who would be "less bad".
 
Shouldn't have said democrats but rather progressives.

Both parties are heavily representative of the early 20th century progressive movement.
Wilsonian war policy, both corporate and social welfare and a few others I'm not thinking of.

Tea Party members wants to keep the social programs costing us the most money.

What exactly is the Tea Party Movements "war policy"? Could you perhaps link me to some kind of documentation on that? Perhaps point out on the Contract from America, the only real over arching policy-esque statement that applies pretty universally to the various Tea Parties, which tennet of it deals with War Policy because to be quite honest I have seen absolutely zero policy stances with regards to War from the Tea Party.

Similarly, what Social welfare are you suggesting they're in favor of? Again, can you point out where you get this idea from? Same with corporate welfare, unless you're suggesting a lower tax is "welfare".
 
When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.

For example, his defense policy. In a general sense, I agree with his defense policy. Lowering our man power abroad, limiting "world policing", stop nation building, use alternative means of dealing with terrorists, etc. However, its the extreme's he apparently wishes to go, and the expediency to get there, that is problematic to me. For example, I believe its ridiculous to think that instability in the world has no possible chance of affecting us in a negative way and at times acting as the "world police" may be in our countries interest. Our role and its use should be significantly reduced, but not something that is completely off the table. Similarly, with the advert of new technology, it is likely we could do away with a number of bases around the world in a strategic sense, allowing us to maintain capability to reasonably conduct operations if need be the world over while cutting many bases. However, it appears Paul would rather remove all of our foreign bases, significantly hurting our strategic power that aids in our defense of ourselves or allies. On both of these as well, it is not just the length that it appears Paul wishes to go but the seemingly speed, which by the way he talks indicates a 0 to 60 in 3 seconds type of situation. In both cases I think significant and expediant progress in drawing down of the actions would be necessary, while at the same time understanding to the effects of system shock need to be given.

Much of the same problems can be found in many of Paul's views that could give even a conservative pause, and I can easily see looking "extreme" to someone on the left. Perhaps Paul realizes or believes that you're not going to one day have a Department of Education and the next day its completely gone, or that one day you'll have dozens and dozens of military bases and the next month none. However, if he does believe this, he's HORRIBLE at articulating them in the common political arena that is viewed people who do not go out and independently significantly research him themselves.

Its that reason why, honestly...given how Presidential debates function...I believe Obama would trounce Paul. Not because Obama's ideas are better. But because, from all i've seen of him, Paul is absolutely incapable of explaining his positions and why they're important in a way that the average voter can listen to, understand, grasp, and agree with. His ability to connect, to simplify, and to communicate on a layman level rather than that of a political intellectual is lacking due to his lack of traditional political charisma.

Another poster put it well and I'll say it in a similar way. Ron Paul would trounce Barack Obama in an officially judged debate on some college campus in the ivy leagues. Barack Obama would trounce Ron Paul in a political debate where the judges are the voters viewing it.
 
Ron Paul could not beat Obama...hes most likely the least to be able to beat him, as soon as the debates start his lunacy will become apparent
 
When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.

IMO, this is a key point. Congressman Paul is far more a prophet than a political leader. He has a vision/ideology in which he believes deeply. The messy work of political leadership: tradeoffs/compromise, nuance, transitions, etc. has no appeal for him. If anything, he sees that necessary political work as a barrier that blocks realization of his vision/ideology. Therefore, as far as he is concerned, speed is essential, as only rapid and sweeping change can shatter what he believes is an obstacle to his vision/ideology. Without rapid speed, he likely fears that progress toward his vision/ideology would dissipate with the passage of time or, worse, those who oppose his vision/ideology would have a chance to gather sufficient support to thwart its fulfillment.
 
I did discredit him. His comments where over the top hyperbole. Abortion is only murder if murder means something other than it does. Life does not begin at conception This is most debatable, I am one who believe that the human being does begin at conception, here I agree with Paul.. , at most it changes, so his "scientific" statement is not scientific. I understand his position, but his comments are factually inaccurate in the way they are stated, which you do not address.



Because change at this point of something that large and fundamental to the country would be incredibly destructive.



Ummm...because it was not primarily about property? Only libertarians would see equal rights legislation and think "ohm property".




The reason school prayer is a federal issue is because we have the first amendment. I would not think this would be hard to understand.
On most other things I disagree with Paul, he strikes me as having limited intellect - nothing really wrong with that , as we all do...But a law-maker should be "more wise".
Also, I see where the tea-baggers have a grip on this one...an oxymoron " excellent spamming"...
Are the Obama supporters above this type of voting ???
They had best not be, or our nation will be set back another 20 years !
 
When I hear about how Extreme Ron Paul's positions are I have the desire to agree, but generally for different reasons. My issue with Paul, as I've said before, is that the man appears to have either little grasp, or little ability to articulate, pragmatism and realism. Whether he just doens't possess those traits OR he is horrible at explaining his views in such a way that you understand he does have them, I don't know. But i have a distinct feeling from him its one of the two.

For example, his defense policy. In a general sense, I agree with his defense policy. Lowering our man power abroad, limiting "world policing", stop nation building, use alternative means of dealing with terrorists, etc. However, its the extreme's he apparently wishes to go, and the expediency to get there, that is problematic to me. For example, I believe its ridiculous to think that instability in the world has no possible chance of affecting us in a negative way and at times acting as the "world police" may be in our countries interest. Our role and its use should be significantly reduced, but not something that is completely off the table. Similarly, with the advert of new technology, it is likely we could do away with a number of bases around the world in a strategic sense, allowing us to maintain capability to reasonably conduct operations if need be the world over while cutting many bases. However, it appears Paul would rather remove all of our foreign bases, significantly hurting our strategic power that aids in our defense of ourselves or allies. On both of these as well, it is not just the length that it appears Paul wishes to go but the seemingly speed, which by the way he talks indicates a 0 to 60 in 3 seconds type of situation. In both cases I think significant and expediant progress in drawing down of the actions would be necessary, while at the same time understanding to the effects of system shock need to be given.

Much of the same problems can be found in many of Paul's views that could give even a conservative pause, and I can easily see looking "extreme" to someone on the left. Perhaps Paul realizes or believes that you're not going to one day have a Department of Education and the next day its completely gone, or that one day you'll have dozens and dozens of military bases and the next month none. However, if he does believe this, he's HORRIBLE at articulating them in the common political arena that is viewed people who do not go out and independently significantly research him themselves.

Its that reason why, honestly...given how Presidential debates function...I believe Obama would trounce Paul. Not because Obama's ideas are better. But because, from all i've seen of him, Paul is absolutely incapable of explaining his positions and why they're important in a way that the average voter can listen to, understand, grasp, and agree with. His ability to connect, to simplify, and to communicate on a layman level rather than that of a political intellectual is lacking due to his lack of traditional political charisma.

Another poster put it well and I'll say it in a similar way. Ron Paul would trounce Barack Obama in an officially judged debate on some college campus in the ivy leagues. Barack Obama would trounce Ron Paul in a political debate where the judges are the voters viewing it.

A debate between Obama and Paul, with Paul losing, illustrates the dire ignorance of the American public regarding their own founding documents. It's not that Paul can't articulate his ideas, it's that he doesn't educate his audience first. He speaks publically as though he is speaking to the founding fathers, instead of a modern "liberalized" public. So for the most part I agree with you, Z.
 
That is indeed one of the largest misconceptions. For sure, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He's not saying withdraw from the world. We can still be friends, we can still have economic relations and trade. But what he wants to end is our incessant meddling with other countries and other people's affairs. It's not our job to fix the worlds problems, we have problems of our own and we should be working on those first and foremost. The rest of the world...well I guess they'll have to learn to take care of themselves.
True ??
The "rest of the world" has shown an obvious inability to take care of themselves..
Debatable or not ??
Should we try to improve the world in which me live ?
IMO, we do tend to overdo things.
 
True ??
The "rest of the world" has shown an obvious inability to take care of themselves..
Debatable or not ??
Should we try to improve the world in which me live ?
IMO, we do tend to overdo things.

No its not the job of the US tax payer to improve other nations. We shouldn't be meddling in the problems of other nations other than being directly attacked by another nation.
 
No its not the job of the US tax payer to improve other nations. We shouldn't be meddling in the problems of other nations other than being directly attacked by another nation.

Even our humanitarian missions in which we try to save innocent civilians have a way of killing innocent civilians.
 
Well I guess you have the hyperbole and intellectual dishonesty tied up there. gg

There is some truth to this - when the opposition(party B) resorts to insults - Party A's argument is "won".
BTW, given that Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, what is his action if he sees a woman being stoned to death for something that elicits a "ho-hum" over here.
No easy task is this - the bringing of civilization to stone age people... IMO, it cannot be done militarily.
 
Anyone who understands the history of US involvement in the Middle East could not help but fully support Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
 
Anyone who understands the history of US involvement in the Middle East could not help but fully support Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

high my name is cpwill, i got my degree in history, have focused quite a bit on the history of the middle east, done two deployments to the middle east, study them professionally, and probably understand the last 1400 years in that region better than 95%+ of the US population (which admittedly isn't a high bar to clear).

Ron Pauls' isolationist foriegn policy is nuts, and shouldn't be implemented.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom